Philadelphia Debate Thread

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 19:45


( - promoted by Chris Bowers)

Natasha Chart and I have scored credentials for tonight's debate, which is the second debate to take place in my home town. I bet we are the only members of the press taking the subway to get there.

We will be doing some updates from the press room, although it won't be straight live-blogging, which can be done without even attending the debate. Instead, I hope to try and present the flavor of the debate behind the scenes.

This is an open thread for the debate, which starts at 8 p.m. eastern.

Update: Halfway through the debate, not a single question on any policy issue had been asked, it was obvious that this debate was prime-time hit job on Obama. The questions so far have been why he doesn't wear a flag pin, whether or not his pastor loves America, why he can't win, and how many people were offended by his bittergate comments. Except for Clinton being asked about why she wasn't trustworthy, and both of them being asked about their vice-presidential choices, that has been the entire debate.

As Master Jack said in the comments, nothing on Iraq, nothing on the economy, nothing on health care, nothing on housing, nothing on global warming, nothing on torture. This is nothing but a prime-time hit job on Democrats, although mainly a hit job on Obama.

Update 2: As the debate is about to end, and no one asked me any questions, I just want to state for the record that I am so patriotic I wear a flag pin in the shower, I was so offended by Rev. Wright that I joined his church just so I could quit, and tbat I found religion, bought a gun, and moved out to Wilkes-Barre just so I could be offended by Obama's comments. Maybe that will score me an interview in the spin room, at least.

Update 3: It appears that live focus group polling of undecideds favored Obama during the first round of questions that basically was a series of hit-jobs against him, while Clinton polled better in the focus group when it shifted to issues in the second half. Hmmm... perhaps her campaign should learn something from that.

Update 4: The debate is over, and I feel like I need a shower. I think I might head over to the press party, hosted by Rep. Bob Brady. That should be, um, interesting. This is an open thread.

Update 5: The crowd here is starting to boo Gibson. Like, a lot. Hilarious and well-deserved.
Chris Bowers :: Philadelphia Debate Thread

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Philadelphia Debate Thread | 70 comments
fyi, the stream is here: (4.00 / 1)
thanks joe n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Eek (0.00 / 0)
I'm nervous for Obama tonight, the debate has barely started but he looks like he's stumbling just a little already. I hope he finds his ground soon because Clinton looks pretty armed and primed out there.
He is doing fine (0.00 / 0)
He handled Bitter/Wright better than she just handled Bosnia. The ABC affiliate focus group cratered during her waffling.
[ Parent ]
You know what (0.00 / 0)
He really is, because this is just ridiculous. Gibson and that other lad are killing me with their insipid inane questions. I might as well be watching Entertainment Tonight than a Presidential Debate. And is it me or are they overly focusing the heat on Obama? Gosh. Worst. Debate. Thus Far.
[ Parent ]
This debate is awful (4.00 / 3)
40 minutes in, and all they're focusing on is very insubstantial crap.

And I really hate Clinton. Bringing up Farrakhan and Hamas so shamelessly was the ultimate right-wing tactic.

Yeah, Obama is obviously the Democrat in this primary (4.00 / 1)
n/t

John McCain.  Wrong for America.
[ Parent ]
Absolutely. (0.00 / 0)
  That was very weasely - Mitt Romney tactics.  She just wanted to put "Obama" and "Hamas" in the same sentence.  ABC should be blackballed for any future debates.

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy
[ Parent ]
I wish ill upon Rose and Stephanopolous (0.00 / 0)
  Nothing on Iraq.

 Nothing on the economy.

 Nothing on health care.

 Nothing on global warming.

 Nothing on torture.

 This is nothing but a prime-time hit job on Democrats.

 May Charlie Rose, George Stephanopolous, and whatever other cretinous goons had input into these questions suffer extreme physical pain for the rest of their lives.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

Charlie Gibson, not Charlie Rose (4.00 / 1)

 Sorry, Mr. Rose.

 Mr. Gibson, go to hell.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
Quick check (4.00 / 1)
I'm not watching the debate at the moment, but was there a video question asking Obama "do you believe in the American flag?" Was this seriously screened by ABC and deemed a worthwhile question? I'm kind of flipping out, if that's true, because it would be an utter disgrace.  
Yes... (4.00 / 1)
The video question was definitely directed at Obama.

They're finally starting to get into the bread and butter issues.

Try not to get too pissed yet because watch ABC give Hillary as much screen time as possible to make up for the deficit in the first half- especially since Barack is strong on the issues.

[ Parent ]
I will take some comfort... (4.00 / 2)

 ...in the fact that Obama is handling the hatchet job beautifully. He's not giving the media a single bad soundbite for them to loop.

 That said, has it ever been this transparent just how unbelievably bad our media is, and what their agenda has become. The power structure TRULY fears Obama. This is as blatant as it gets.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

The way he handled the William Ayers question... (4.00 / 1)
was a stroke of genius.  

I wonder if the conservative talk radio will start hammering him for comparing Ayers to Coburn.

[ Parent ]
Try to stay calm guys... (4.00 / 1)
As much as I hate to see him get hammered in the ring, he has handled the first hour brilliantly and it only helps him become stronger to stand up to the swift boat ads and the smear machine come November.
I hope the supers noticed. (4.00 / 1)

 If they want to win, that is.

 The right must be seething that Obama is taking the blows so well.

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
I hope the supers notice (4.00 / 1)
That tonight Hillary declared repeatedly that she thinks Obama can win the general election, thus contravening her previous argument that he is unelectable!

Slacking toward the apocalypse
[ Parent ]
He's an expert at rope-a-dope (4.00 / 2)
He'll be fine -- it just might take 2 or 3 days for all the idiots to figure it out.
[ Parent ]
ABC affiliate - live feedback (0.00 / 0)
The Philly ABC affiliate is running live feedback monitors, and over on Kos they are saying that when Obama talks, they are going up, and when Hillary talks, they are going down. The dKos site seems to be buckling under the weight of the comment outrage over this joke of a questioning of presidential candidates (I refuse to call it a debate), so I'm doing my part and coming here to drop a comment or two while ct tweaks the site.
ah the great orange oracle (0.00 / 0)
ive been watching plenty of this, and i dislike hillary as much as anyone at dkos, but there's plenty of approval spikes for hillary on the instant feedback chart.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
could've been something to do with the questions (0.00 / 0)
See Bowers' update. At the point I posted my comment, though I could not load the live monitor page myself, I trust that it was accurate. Thanks for filling us in on the second half of the debacle.
[ Parent ]
It's a tough call (4.00 / 2)
Who is the Worst "Debate" Moderator ever? --  I thought Time Russert was the undisputed champion, but Charlie is definitely making a run at the title.  

Republicans can't fix our country; they're too busy saddlebacking.
The Ohio debate (4.00 / 1)
was much better than this trash... I felt Russert was pretty fair during the Ohio debate.  This "debate" has been atrocious.  I mean... WOW.  They should have just accepted a Fox News debate with Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly moderating/asking questions.

John McCain believes "Women shouldn't have a choice."
[ Parent ]
You Have a Point (0.00 / 0)
You could be right; Russert distributed his inane gotcha questions to both of them more evenly, IIRC ...

Republicans can't fix our country; they're too busy saddlebacking.
[ Parent ]
i don't know much about the value of my opinion (0.00 / 0)
but when it comes to dkos i doubt you'll get much of any fairness. Hillary is generally a better debater than Obama, she seemed to do fine as usual; seemed like most of the time that either of them talked the approval went up.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Charlie Gibson... (4.00 / 2)
"We're running out of time, so I'm going to give you a minute each to answer these questions."

"What are you going to do about gas prices?"

Let's take 2 minutes to focus on something that matters but let's take an hour to focus on Paris Hilton's wardrobe.

Simply astounding journalism.

Stephanopoulos is a weasly little b.... (0.00 / 0)
I'm having a hard time comprehending what I have been watching. Anyone else having this problem?  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
isn't it the muppet show? (4.00 / 1)
aren't those the two old guys in the upper booth???  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
I'm just glad it's over now (4.00 / 3)
You have to give them some credit - 20+ debates and these assholes managed to stand out as by far the worst moderators. Not an easy feat, given the competition.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
superdeligate question (0.00 / 0)
"what would you tell the super delegates because we all know they are the king makers."

dumb.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

Didn't watch, but from the liveblogs, this sounds like the worst debate of the cycle (0.00 / 0)
From the snippets on the liveblogs, this sounds like most inane, political garbage aired on national television, well, since the last Russert debate.  Gibson seems to be spouting supply-side economics as fact, and the focus on personality gotcha-fluff like the Weather Underground, the American flag, and the month old Wright story is ridiculous.

An hour to get to Iraq, inexcusable.  From the liveblogs, these guys seem to have out-Russerted Russert.

Also, why doesn't the Democratic Party insist on having progressive moderators in the Democratic primary.  With the current formats, the candidate are forced to answer questions about non-issues that progressive could care less about.  The voters in primaries are progressives and shouldn't have to put up with Charlie Gibson's junk-economics or a 10 minute discussion of the Weather Underground.

More meaningful political commentary could be found on the Drudge Report.  What a sad night for ABC.

Economics (0.00 / 0)
Yeah, the economic BS was too much. I was disappointed the candidates didn't hit back a little harder on that.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
That is a key point you've made (0.00 / 0)
By focusing on these rightwing concerns, the questions inherently presuppose the correctness of the Republican perspective on those issues. The whole thing is skewed.

Slacking toward the apocalypse
[ Parent ]
It would have nice to actually have covered her progressive policy positions (0.00 / 0)
Update 3: It appears that live focus group polling of undecideds favored Obama during the first round of questions that basically was a series of hit-jobs against him, while Clinton polled better in the focus group when it shifted to issues in the second half. Hmmm... perhaps her campaign should learn something from that.

But most of the left blogosphere did not actually cover her PROGRESSIVE policy positions.  Because if they did it would have been clear as day that the only progressive Democrat in the race is Hillary Clinton.

That is why I have always supported her.  And it was obvious long before he ran that Barack Obama was not a progressive....he was the moderate, DLC Demcorat in this race.  In terms of both policy, execution and even rhetoric.  

When she talked about Social Security she used the word p[rogressive.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

Clinton actually is in the DLC you realize? (4.00 / 2)
This line of argument is just ridiculous. Clinton is the chair of the DLC's American Dream Initiative. At least do some basic fact checking. Obama consistently rejected the DLC, and Clinton is one of its most prestigous members.  

The truth about John McCain.
[ Parent ]
he did that for show (0.00 / 0)
his policies are DLC and hers are not.

that's the standard

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
So, why does Clinton still belong to the DLC? (0.00 / 0)
If her rhetoric and actions are so progressive why would she still work with an organization that you yourself use as perjorative? If the DLC is so reprehensible, why is Clinton an active member? That doesn't quite make sense does it?

The truth about John McCain.
[ Parent ]
Clintons and DLC go hand in hand (0.00 / 0)
Bill was a former DLC chair.

Slacking toward the apocalypse
[ Parent ]
A close look at the SD's (4.00 / 2)
show that Clinton's super delegate lead is the direct and exclusive result of the support she gets from the DNC and DPL.  DCW reports that of all the SD's supporting either candidate, Clinton is behind Obama when you calculate SD's that are elected officials (C=97; O=104), but with non-elected officials she is ahead (C=152; O=116).  The Add-ons are not included in those figures, but with these Obama has an 8 to 1 lead.

Clinton is entrenched in the DNC ...  That is where her real support is.  Obama's real support is with all those who are held accountable to the electorate--go figure, when people have to report to the voters they give Obama the lead; when people do not have to report to the voters they give Clinton the lead.  Hmmm...something stinks!

[ Parent ]
The debate. (4.00 / 1)
   My favorite part of the debate was when Hillary declared there was a more progressive way to make social security more solvent than by raising the cap on the payroll tax.  We're all ears, Hillary.  Hillary spent the entire debate attacking Obama from the right, while Obama alone defended the progressive position.

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy
[ Parent ]
But... (0.00 / 0)
Bomb lobbing is FUN!!

Don't deny Sen. Clinton that one last joy!

Really, it was kinda hilarious seeing Clinton talk about the Ayers thing and have Obama swatting her back each time with his usually aloof manner.

[ Parent ]
Clinton spent far more time throwing gasoline (4.00 / 1)
on the fires that Stephanopolous and Gobson strated to try and burn Obama.

She looked petty.

BTW - where is her flag pin?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
I JUST SAW (0.00 / 0)
CHRIS BOWERS ON MY TELEVISION!!!

He's still there, standing right behind Chaka Fattah as he's being interviewed on 6ABC in philly. Go Chris Go!

He's now taking a picture of Fattah! On his digital camera!

If this stupid reporter could get out of the way......

Pretty much how I saw it (0.00 / 0)
''...undecideds favored Obama during the first round of questions that basically was a series of hit-jobs against him, while Clinton polled better in the focus group when it shifted to issues in the second half''.

And because the MSM will concentrate on the hit-job I think all in all it is probably a win for Obama because he handled it so well.

Wow (4.00 / 1)
Update 5: The crowd here is starting to boo Gibson. Like, a lot. Hilarious and well-deserved.

Can we get more details on that moment later?

Yes, more details, please. n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
The affirmative action was completely random (0.00 / 0)
Is AA really the most pressing issue of our time? I would think not.
should be "affirmative action question" (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Horrid. (4.00 / 1)
"Do you believe in the flag?"  WTF kind of question is that?  These people sicken me.  Nobody wore flag pins until which president?  I think it was Richard Nixon, who ended up being hounded out of town because he was a scoundrel.  Of all the things in this election that bother me, even more than the politicians themselves, is this freaking nutty main stream media.  They have way too much power in framing our political debate, or more accurately, avoiding one.  Obama had to know ABC was going to be one of the worst.
At least, this uniform stupidity (0.00 / 0)
is finally waking up the long-somnolent electorate.  There is good evidence this cycle that the people are really just brushing aside the MSM for the most part.  
[ Parent ]
This 1as nothing more than (4.00 / 1)
a tv show with two 'B' rated hosts who were high on themselves.  Each time the 'show' was introduced it stated something to the effect of, "and now, back to Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous."  And I naively thought this was about Obama and Clinton.

Regarding the candidates comments, and the questions asked each candidate--there was a clear bias in favor of Clinton.  Despite this bias I think Obama was able to deflect the implied 'wrong-doing' of the questions and consistently bring the conversation back to either the issues of importance to the campaign or to focus on the attitude and what should be considered as a proper approach to addressing these issues.  Clinton did have a few good answers, but I felt her responses had no connections--they were just answers to questions, and together lacked a common thread that revealed a core philosophy that grounded her thinking.  Obama's answers did have that connecting thread.  

This is, of course, my opinion.  But, I think Obama may have gained a few points this evening.

I have no idea (4.00 / 1)
what's going to come of this "debate."  There could be a Pro-Obama backlash... There could be an anti-Obama swing... Or nothing could happen...

He was clearly flustered and frustrated in the 2nd half of the debate from the atrocity that was the first half.  He handled himself much better than I would have.

Why ABC was discussing flag lapel pins and whether Obama's pastor loves America as much as Barack in a Democratic Primary is something I don't have an answer to.  Did anyone notice the wording of that Wright question??? it wasn't... "Does Reverend Wright love America?"  But it was a comparative... George should have just asked what he wanted to ask, "Senator Obama, do you hate America as much as Reverend Wright???"

John McCain believes "Women shouldn't have a choice."

[ Parent ]
Stephanopolous (4.00 / 3)
Does anyone else think that it smells a bit funny to have a former Clinton campaign operative (Stephanopolous) asking questions of the nominees in tonite's debate?
BINGO (4.00 / 1)
you got it right
[ Parent ]
Absolute disgrace (0.00 / 0)
There is no way to soften this. The debate was an absolute disgrace.

He may take a hit for a day or two as Morning Joe and the other idiots talk about what a pounding he took but meanwhile Jon Stewart, Keith Olberman, blogs, et al, will be hammering away on this. And then the pundits will figure it out, as usual, 3 days late, just in time for the PA primary.

He'll gain from this in the end, if not so much in PA then definitely with the super delegates.

George S' reputation will never be the same. Olberman's going to slam him for the next week.

ABC moderated ? (0.00 / 0)
 
Now here goes Pat Buchanan with count downs Mr. Zero Keith Olbermann whaling away because Hillary said it is likely America would respond with massive attacks if Iran took out Israel.

Of course with the approval of Congress. Look, the Jews are only one part of the infidels, America is the other part. It would be completely insane just to sit around and talk about peace if Iran boom, boom, boomed the Jews.

The worst part of the debate was at the end, Obama finally admitted he has started a new political collation. A very dumb thing to do or even to consider with renegade cross overs from the Red Staters is absolutely insane to risk.    

doesn't feel good, does it? (1.33 / 3)
None of the debates have been fair, but this is the first one that hasn't been fair to Obama. Yet at the same time, this is the first time he's had to address some of the stories swirling around him that will be tough to overcome in November. So maybe it's good to get them out in the open now.

By they way, Clinton outscored him on policy. And regardless of what you may think, Obama did not look good and did not address some of the questions very well. Didn't he know this stuff was coming sooner or later? He's come this far and still doesn't have better answers for Ayers and Wright?

I'm kind of shocked.

What? .. his response that .. (4.00 / 2)
Bill pardoned some Weather Underground members wasn't a good retort?
[ Parent ]
oh, and btw... (0.00 / 0)
The questions you (and I) think are really unimportant are just unimportant to us. There are a lot of people out there who do think they're important, and if we want to put them in the D column in November, we better realize that.
Then let the Republicans ask those questions (4.00 / 2)
To whom are these inane questions pertinent?

How many of the 80%+ of your fellow citizens that think the nation is headed in the wrong direction will attribute that feeling to which chirch Barack Obama worships at, or what his bowling score is, or whether his neighbor was in the Weather Underground?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Amen! Pun intended, of course. (4.00 / 1)
This bullshitty business of constantly trumpeting the idiotic, inconsequential, divisive and inane gripes of the loser sub-20% Limbaugh-Hannity-Drudge axis members has to stop for there to be any progress.  

The sooner "our" (read: Hillary and her Rethuggian ilk) side realizes this the better.

Obama is trying to appropriately marginalize this pseudo-patriotic brigade and our own monster is getting them back in the game.  She and her cheerleaders have dragged the reluctant MSM to that Rethuggian swampland, even as they were trying to take some cues from Obama.

Even a single vote in Penn or any of the other remaining states for her bodes ill for our hopes of changing the system.

[ Parent ]
When you are right, you are right (4.00 / 1)
"Obama is trying to appropriately marginalize this pseudo-patriotic brigade and our own monster is getting them back in the game. "

Precisely!  I noted that Obama actually tried to deflect such ridiculous questions from Clinton, too.  After she struggled through her answer to the Tuzla incident, he tried to push the "debate" in a positive direction - he did NOT pile-on, he did NOT kick her while she was down.

Clinton had every opportunity to step up and defend Obama and herself - but she chose not to help her fellow Democrat.

One example: She was not wearing a flag pin, either.  A simple statement like: "I think its a shame that we are spending so much time questioning my opponent's patriotism - I can assure you that Senator Obama is as patriotic as any one in this room.  You can all see that I do not sport a pin this evening - and it says nothing at all about my committment to this nation, or its people."

I'm CERTAIN that IF she HAD worn a flag pin last night - she would have been the first to point it out.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Ding, ding, ding! (0.00 / 0)
I'm CERTAIN that IF she HAD worn a flag pin last night - she would have been the first to point it out.

My thoughts exactly.  The reason I hate seeing her like this is that this (the destructive ruthlessness of the Clinton-gang) is the only issue on which the wing-nuts are being proven correct over time and I just hate that.

The loony-tunes had been so thoroughly proven wrong for so long now, that this is an immense set back -- I wish she would wake up and see the larger damage she is doing to the country, not just the party.

I was beginning to think Ralph Nader may actually be right, that the country had to wake up and would do so only after such a thorough unmasking of the right-wing -- but neither he nor I factored in the power-hunger of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I am disconsolate at having to say that, but I see no other explanation for what she is doing.  For a while after Obama jumped in the game, even I thought may be he should have let Hillary go first, since he could wait.  I am now reduced to hoping that this campaign will finish her career.

The reason I am more harsh on her than on Bill is that as someone pointed out somewhere else, every bad thing, except the sexual one, that was an issue in the 90's was all due to her, every last one of them...sad, really.

[ Parent ]
We deserve better, we really do (0.00 / 0)
"My thoughts exactly.  The reason I hate seeing her like this is that this (the destructive ruthlessness of the Clinton-gang) is the only issue on which the wing-nuts are being proven correct over time and I just hate that. "

I'm not talking about Democrats - I'm talking about the citizens of the the USA.



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
George S. = Grover Norquist? (4.00 / 1)
The questions focusing on the tabloid issues were bad enough, but then when they got to the economy, both of the moderators were bullying the candidates to "pledge" not to raise taxes - I couldn't believe it - that kind of garbage belongs to Norquist and Club for Growth. Guess it was ABC's way to try to "make" news.
We were anticipating an important debate at a crucial time (0.00 / 0)
But the citizenry were sorely cheated by a major network news organization. The story will not be which candidate won or did better than the other, but what an appallingly shameful performance was delivered by Stephanopolous and Gibson.

Slacking toward the apocalypse
The big story in the real world (0.00 / 0)
It was immediately obvious by public reaction out here in the blogosphere that this debate was a sham and an unmitigated disaster by that third party in the debate, the moderators.

But apparently it was not obvious to the rest of the television media. Either that or they are choosing to ignore it.

I just watched a recap of the debate on ABC's Nightline. They did an analysis on the candidates' performance, but they certainly kept mum on their own dismal showing - a choice case of ignoring the elephant in the parlor.

Slacking toward the apocalypse

[ Parent ]
Reminds me of New Hampshire debates (4.00 / 1)
This debate reminds me of the New Hamphire debates, which had Democrat and Republcian debates on the same night and were also moderated by ABC. Remember then the moderators asked all the Republican candidates, "Why not vote for Barack Obama? And not just because he's a Democrat -- you're not allowed to say that. I'd like to hear some specifics on why not him." This in a state with a high rate of independents that Obama was appealing to. Democrats were not given the opportunity to critique specific Republcian candidates.

That was also the debate where Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson were asked, "Is prior executive experience a key requirement for being president and is relative youth a detriment?" Obama was not given that question.

And then there was this softball lobbed to Clinton; "Does it mean that you're further down the road than your opponents in this, or are you saying that you can do things that these folks can't do when it comes to being an agent of change?"

Sadly, the media didn't criticize ABC for this debate.  Rather they focused on the narrative that Edwards and Obama "ganged up on Hillary".

Really, could a debate on FOX News have been any worse? (4.00 / 1)
Hmm?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
I give Obama all the credit tonight (4.00 / 1)
He was clearly the one with the bulls-eye on his back.  It was an unfair fight - 3 to 1.  But he managed to keep his cool and even attempted to answer the stupid-assed questions for those two nit-wits that pretend to be moderators, all the while brushing off the mud slung by Mrs. Clinton.  I give him credit because I would have been tempted to just refuse to answer any more inane questions.

Please - did they REALLY question his patriotism on national TV?  And because he doesn't wear a flag pin (Clinton didn't have one either - does that mean SHE hates America, too? Did the alleged moderators have flag pins?).

Yet, Obama takes all this and doesn't get angry - at least he doesn't show it - that's a presidential quality, no?

If all of this character assassination is intended to "toughen" Obama for the coming GE - I think he can handle the GOP noise makers.  It will actually be easier because he won't have to take on Clinton, too.

All Clinton managed to demonstrate is why she has managed to piss away her "inevitability" and lose a "sure thing".  I have absolutely no confidence that she would win an election against McCain - she has no leg to stand on in that race.

 

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Philadelphia Debate Thread | 70 comments
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox