Worst moderated debate ever

[TexasTiger 13,136]

Gibson and little Stephanopolous are beyond pathetic. No policy questions the first 50 minutes. These guys are the most overpaid bast@rds in America.

[TitanTiger 20,542]

I read on one news site that they sort of pounded on Obama the first 40 minutes or so except for one sniper-fire question for Clinton.

[TexasTiger 13,136]

I read on one news site that they sort of pounded on Obama the first 40 minutes or so except for one sniper-fire question for Clinton.

Didn't hit a single policy question for almost an hour. Obama passed on the sniper question, HRC jumped on Wright, Bittergate, Ayres-- Obama did slap back that Bill pardoned 2 of the Weathermen. But no health care, environment, terrorism, and so much more.

[jw 4 au 526]

Gibson and little Stephanopolous are beyond pathetic. No policy questions the first 50 minutes. These guys are the most overpaid bast@rds in America.

I did not watch much of the debate, but maybe they assumed that everyone is clear on where they stand on the policy issues, but not clear on who has the best moral character. Hopefully it cleared things up a bit on who is the lesser of two evils.

[TexasTiger 13,136]

Gibson and little Stephanopolous are beyond pathetic. No policy questions the first 50 minutes. These guys are the most overpaid bast@rds in America.

I did not watch much of the debate, but maybe they assumed that everyone is clear on where they stand on the policy issues, but not clear on who has the best moral character. Hopefully it cleared things up a bit on who is the lesser of two evils.

If that's the question, it ain't even close. Hillary lacks the integrity to be President.

[TitanTiger 20,542]

One of those cases where "the devil you know" is not better.

[otterinbham 0]

I wasn't particularly affronted by it, and I like Obama a lot more than I like Clinton.

Here's the deal. You couldn't slide a piece of paper between the two's policy positions. They are almost identical. As a result, the primary boils down to nonsensical crap like this.

More to the point, the Obama crowd is ticked off because, suddenly, he's being treated like a frontrunner. No more softball questions. I mean, if you applaud Clinton's evisceration over the Tuzla fiasco, surely you can't dispute's the press' right to roast Obama over Wright or his strange misperception of middle America. This is what happens when the press stops handling you with kid gloves and throwing softballs in the press conference--and Obama doesn't like it one bit.

[RunInRed 16,528]

The press has been handling Obama with kid gloves? Give me a break - every one on the right and many on the left have been trying to tear down this "feel good story" ever since Super Tuesday. While the Clinton camp has literally been throwing the "kitchen sink" at him, the media on the right has been relentless. To suggest he has not been vetted is laughable.

As for the debate...I agree it was terrible. For several reasons:

1) The entire first hour was literally and interrogation on Obama. For a second, I thought I was listening to Sean Hannity. It really was that bad. What I found most telling was that on the one question directed towards Hillary (Bosnia), Obama refused to jump on board and attack her. Yet every single time they asked Obama a question (Wright, "bitter", Ayers, American flag pin, etc.) she always came back and piled on.

2) As pointed out, there were no real substantive questions on the issues for the entire first half of the debate and once they did finally come, they still had personal attack overtones

3) There was one really good question - both candidates were asked if they would commit to not raising any taxes on those making less than 250k (the top income bracket) and they both said a definitive "YES" and even added that they are proposing new tax cuts for the middle class (earned income tax credits, more affordable healthcare, etc.) - so we'll see.

4) I did not think it was a good debate performance for Obama. He seemed to be thrown off his game early by the attacks and his responses (outside of his point that Clinton pardoned 2 members of the Ayers group) were not good. The most akward moment came when he slipped and said he had "disowned" Wright and then had to quickly correct and say he had "disowned the comments."

I was also disappointed with several of his answers and thought Hillary performed better especially in regards to Iran and Israel. Obama seemed to "triangulate" a little bit...he always arrived at his point but I liked the way she was much more to the point and definitive about things. For example, she clearly came out on the question and said "an attack against Israel by Iran would incur massive retaliation by the U.S." where as Obama would say "the U.S. has a paramount relationship with Israel as our strongest ally in the middle east...the U.S. would take appropriate action, etc." The same type thing happened on the tax question, she was just more direct.

Overall, I did not think it was Obama's best peformance (maybe his worst) and the moderators were beyond a joke. Give me Tim Russert over these two clowns any day.

[TitanTiger 20,542]

3) There was one really good question - both candidates were asked if they would commit to not raising any taxes on those making less than 250k (the top income bracket) and they both said a definitive "YES" and even added that they are proposing new tax cuts for the middle class (earned income tax credits, more affordable healthcare, etc.) - so we'll see.

However, I know that Obama has proposed to change the Social Security taxes that are now only levied against the first $102,000 of a person's income so that they start taxing again on income of $200,000 or more. That would be a tax increase on people making less than $250,000 would it not?

[RunInRed 16,528]

3) There was one really good question - both candidates were asked if they would commit to not raising any taxes on those making less than 250k (the top income bracket) and they both said a definitive "YES" and even added that they are proposing new tax cuts for the middle class (earned income tax credits, more affordable healthcare, etc.) - so we'll see.

However, I know that Obama has proposed to change the Social Security taxes that are now only levied against the first $102,000 of a person's income so that they start taxing again on income of $200,000 or more. That would be a tax increase on people making less than $250,000 would it not?

He was pressed on this exact question....and his answer was potentially, but he did say he would consider an exclusion clause to prevent those in the gap (102k to 250k) from incurring increased taxes. Ultimately, he reiterated his support for SS and said the underlying goal would be to make it solvent without decreasing benefits or raising the retirement age.

[RunInRed 16,528]

Good recap from the Washington Post:

------------------------------

In Pa. Debate, The Clear Loser Is ABC

When Barack Obama met Hillary Clinton for another televised Democratic candidates' debate last night, it was more than a step forward in the 2008 presidential election. It was another step downward for network news -- in particular ABC News, which hosted the debate from Philadelphia and whose usually dependable anchors, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances.

For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with.

The fact is, cable networks CNN and MSNBC both did better jobs with earlier candidate debates. Also, neither of those cable networks, if memory serves, rushed to a commercial break just five minutes into the proceedings, after giving each candidate a tiny, token moment to make an opening statement. Cable news is indeed taking over from network news, and merely by being competent.

Gibson sat there peering down at the candidates over glasses perched on the end of his nose, looking prosecutorial and at times portraying himself as a spokesman for the working class. Blunderingly he addressed an early question, about whether each would be willing to serve as the other's running mate, "to both of you," which is simple ineptitude or bad manners. It was his job to indicate which candidate should answer first. When, understandably, both waited politely for the other to talk, Gibson said snidely, "Don't all speak at once."

For that matter, the running-mate question that Gibson made such a big deal over was decidedly not a big deal -- especially since Wolf Blitzer asked it during a previous debate televised and produced by CNN.

The boyish Stephanopoulos, who has done wonders with the network's Sunday morning hour, "This Week" (as, indeed, has Gibson with the nightly "World News"), looked like an overly ambitious intern helping out at a subcommittee hearing, digging through notes for something smart-alecky and slimy. He came up with such tired tripe as a charge that Obama once associated with a nutty bomb-throwing anarchist. That was "40 years ago, when I was 8 years old," Obama said with exasperation.

Obama was right on the money when he complained about the campaign being bogged down in media-driven inanities and obsessiveness over any misstatement a candidate might make along the way, whether in a speech or while being eavesdropped upon by the opposition. The tactic has been to "take one statement and beat it to death," he said.

No sooner was that said than Gibson brought up, yet again, the controversial ravings of the pastor at a church attended by Obama. "Charlie, I've discussed this," he said, and indeed he has, ad infinitum. If he tried to avoid repeating himself when clarifying his position, the networks would accuse him of changing his story, or changing his tune, or some other baloney.

This is precisely what has happened with widely reported comments that Obama made about working-class people "clinging" to religion and guns during these times of cynicism about their federal government.

"It's not the first time I made a misstatement that was mangled up, and it won't be the last," said Obama, with refreshing candor. But candor is dangerous in a national campaign, what with network newsniks waiting for mistakes or foul-ups like dogs panting for treats after performing a trick. The networks' trick is covering an election with as little emphasis on issues as possible, then blaming everyone else for failing to focus on "the issues."

Some news may have come out of the debate (ABC News will pretend it did a great job on today's edition of its soppy, soap-operatic "Good Morning America"). Asked point-blank if she thought Obama could defeat presumptive Republican contender John McCain in the general election, Clinton said, "Yes, yes, yes," in apparent contrast to previous remarks in which she reportedly told other Democrats that Obama could never win. And in turn, Obama said that Clinton could "absolutely" win against McCain.

To this observer, ABC's coverage seemed slanted against Obama. The director cut several times to reaction shots of such Clinton supporters as her daughter, Chelsea, who sat in the audience at the Kimmel Theater in Philly's National Constitution Center. Obama supporters did not get equal screen time, giving the impression that there weren't any in the hall. The director also clumsily chose to pan the audience at the very start of the debate, when the candidates made their opening statements, so Obama and Clinton were barely seen before the first commercial break.

At the end, Gibson pompously thanked the candidates -- or was he really patting himself on the back? -- for "what I think has been a fascinating debate." He's entitled to his opinion, but the most fascinating aspect was waiting to see how low he and Stephanopoulos would go, and then being appalled at the answer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8041700013.html

[otterinbham 0]

Oh, good grief, Ruin. You're beginning to squeal like a little girl. "Waaaaahhhhh, politics is mean. Waaaaahhhh! They're not longer throwing Obama softballs....waaaaaahhhhhhhhh!!!!"

For a reality check, here's David Brooks of the New York Times. He's kind of a moderate Republican, but usually fair.

Back to front page »

April 16, 2008, 10:46 pm

No Whining About the Media

By DAVID BROOKS

Three quick points on the Democratic debate tonight:

First, Democrats, and especially Obama supporters, are going to jump all over ABC for the choice of topics: too many gaffe questions, not enough policy questions.

I understand the complaints, but I thought the questions were excellent. The journalist’s job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities. Almost every question tonight did that. The candidates each looked foolish at times, but that’s their own fault.

We may not like it, but issues like Jeremiah Wright, flag lapels and the Tuzla airport will be important in the fall. Remember how George H.W. Bush toured flag factories to expose Michael Dukakis. It’s legitimate to see how the candidates will respond to these sorts of symbolic issues.

The middle section of the debate, meanwhile, was stupendous. Those could be the most important 30 minutes of this entire campaign, for reasons I will explain in point two:

Second, Obama and Clinton were completely irresponsible. As the first President Bush discovered, it is simply irresponsible statesmanship (and stupid politics) to make blanket pledges to win votes. Both candidates did that on vital issues.

Both promised to not raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 or $250,000 a year. They both just emasculated their domestic programs. Returning the rich to their Clinton-era tax rates will yield, at best, $40 billion a year in revenue. It’s impossible to fund a health care plan, let alone anything else, with that kind of money. The consequences are clear: if elected they will have to break their pledge, and thus destroy their credibility, or run a minimalist administration.

The second pledge was just as bad. Nobody knows what the situation in Iraq will be like. To pledge an automatic withdrawal is just insane. A mature politician would’ve been honest and said: I fully intend to withdraw, but I want to know what the reality is at that moment.

The third point concerns electability. The Democrats have a problem. All the signs point to a big Democratic year, and I still wouldn’t bet against Obama winning the White House, but his background as a Hyde Park liberal is going to continue to dog him. No issue is crushing on its own, but it all adds up. For the life of me I can’t figure out why he didn’t have better answers on Wright and on the “bitter” comments. The superdelegates cannot have been comforted by his performance.

Final grades:

ABC: A

Clinton: B

Obama: D+

[RunInRed 16,528]

what? that was not my point. further, I said above I thought Obama performed poorly in the debate.

[otterinbham 0]

3) There was one really good question - both candidates were asked if they would commit to not raising any taxes on those making less than 250k (the top income bracket) and they both said a definitive "YES" and even added that they are proposing new tax cuts for the middle class (earned income tax credits, more affordable healthcare, etc.) - so we'll see.

However, I know that Obama has proposed to change the Social Security taxes that are now only levied against the first $102,000 of a person's income so that they start taxing again on income of $200,000 or more. That would be a tax increase on people making less than $250,000 would it not?

He was pressed on this exact question....and his answer was potentially, but he did say he would consider an exclusion clause to prevent those in the gap (102k to 250k) from incurring increased taxes. Ultimately, he reiterated his support for SS and said the underlying goal would be to make it solvent without decreasing benefits or raising the retirement age.

Translation: We're going to jack up payroll taxes to keep this Ponzi scheme going for five more years.

[RunInRed 16,528]

Translation: We're going to jack up payroll taxes to keep this Ponzi scheme going for five more years.

True Translation: People makng more than 250k are going to have to pay SS tax on more than just the first 99k they earn.

[otterinbham 0]

Translation: We're going to jack up payroll taxes to keep this Ponzi scheme going for five more years.

True Translation: People makng more than 250k are going to have to pay SS tax on more than just the first 99k they earn.

Why? The entire point of Social Security was to only tax people to the point of what they could reasonably expect to withdraw for their retirement. Now, suddenly you want the over 250K bunch to subsidize everybody's retirement. When are you going to realize that, structurally, the entire SS system is broken, and increased taxes only forestall its collapse?

[RunInRed 16,528]

Translation: We're going to jack up payroll taxes to keep this Ponzi scheme going for five more years.

True Translation: People makng more than 250k are going to have to pay SS tax on more than just the first 99k they earn.

Why? The entire point of Social Security was to only tax people to the point of what they could reasonably expect to withdraw for their retirement. Now, suddenly you want the over 250K bunch to subsidize everybody's retirement. When are you going to realize that, structurally, the entire SS system is broken, and increased taxes only forestall its collapse?

1) This system is insolvent and this is a solution w/o having to cut benefits or raise the retirement age

2) People depend on the SS safety net

3) Some live soley on SSI

4) Why should the average earner pay SS tax on all their income and the wealthiest only pay it on a small percentage?

This is where we are going to disagree but it comes back to the notion of a society with shared benefits and shared prosperities. It seems many on the right want to let the poor fend for themselves on everything from healthcare to SS. That's just not the America I believe in.

[CCTAU 3,355]

This is where we are going to disagree but it comes back to the notion of a society with shared benefits and shared prosperities.

Isn't that REAL close to being SOCIALISM?

[RunInRed 16,528]

This is where we are going to disagree but it comes back to the notion of a society with shared benefits and shared prosperities.

Isn't that REAL close to being SOCIALISM?

Wanting to keep SS solvent is socialism? Wanting to provide everyone the opportunity to purchase reasonable healthcare is socialism? Wanting a government that works for more than just those at the top is socialism?

No.

[Auburn85 434]

So this means those making $100k- $249,999 won't have to pay the additonal cap? Why? Those making $97,500 or under are currently paying on all of their income.

[TitanTiger 20,542]

So this means those making $100k- $249,999 won't have to pay the additonal cap? Why? Those making $97,500 or under are currently paying on all of their income.

I'm not saying I agree with his proposal (I don't), but the rationale for making the additional SS cap start at $250k is so that they won't be raising SS taxes on people making under that amount. They don't want to make it so that folks who make $105k or $150k to see their taxes go up. The idea is to help shore up the SS reserves but only do so by raising SS taxes on the top 2% of wage earners.

[Auburn85 434]

this proposal, along with a few others, make this tax system look like a bad haricut.

All this snip, snip, snip....whoops, snipped too much. let me go to the other side and snip some to even it out to make it not look as bad. then, you end up with a haircut that makes it look like the hairline of dick cheney.

heck, if he wants the top 1,2,3,4,5% pay more social security to make it more solvent, don't be bashful about the proposal. Go ahead and exempt people making up to $100k of social security taxes. Cause basically that's what it's coming down to. The very people who have been paying social security taxes into this system for years and years, can no longer sustain the system with their own funds. To make it more solvent and to pay out benefits to the very people who paid into it, higher income people have to pay more in social security taxes.

i'm well aware that the social security funds have been raided before.

social security needs an overhaul, not a band aid.

[AURaptor 1,128]

Gibson and Stephie get an A. Gibson was particularly savvy in getting Obama to admit raising taxes is nothing more than a hate the rich ploy and redistribution of the wealth.

WTG Charlie!

Obama concedes that cutting the capital gains tax actually increased revenues, but says that he’d raise it anyway for the sake of “fairness.” Because hedge fund mangers make too much money.

Say what? Cutting the cap gains tax INCREASES revenue!! History shows that, it's happened every time! And yet Obama says he doesn't care about raising $$ for the Government, he wants to punish the rich.

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/obama_on_..._make_too_much/

[TexasTiger 13,136]

Where would you be if you and your puppeteers couldn't just make things up?

Gibson and Stephie get an A. Gibson was particularly savvy in getting Obama to admit raising taxes is nothing more than a hate the rich ploy and redistribution of the wealth.

WTG Charlie!

Obama concedes that cutting the capital gains tax actually increased revenues, but says that he’d raise it anyway for the sake of “fairness.” Because hedge fund mangers make too much money.

Say what? Cutting the cap gains tax INCREASES revenue!! History shows that, it's happened every time! And yet Obama says he doesn't care about raising $$ for the Government, he wants to punish the rich.

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/obama_on_..._make_too_much/

[AFTiger 282]

TT, where would you be if you could not ignore facts?

Where would you be if you and your puppeteers couldn't just make things up?

Gibson and Stephie get an A. Gibson was particularly savvy in getting Obama to admit raising taxes is nothing more than a hate the rich ploy and redistribution of the wealth.

WTG Charlie!

Obama concedes that cutting the capital gains tax actually increased revenues, but says that he’d raise it anyway for the sake of “fairness.” Because hedge fund mangers make too much money.

Say what? Cutting the cap gains tax INCREASES revenue!! History shows that, it's happened every time! And yet Obama says he doesn't care about raising $$ for the Government, he wants to punish the rich.

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/obama_on_..._make_too_much/