Massive backlash against ABC News' Pennsylvania debate marks a turning point

Its good to know that we can trust the media...haha

Logic vs. Illogic101 Example:

Two 30 year olds agreed that they weren't going anywhere in life and decided they should go to college to get ahead. The first guy then went and saw an undergraduate advisor, who told him to take math, history, and logic. "What's 'logic'?" the first guy asked.
The professor answered by saying, "Let me give you an example. Do you own a weed-eater?" "I sure do."
"Then I can assume, using logic, that you have a yard," replied the professor. "That's real good!" said the first guy. The professor continued, "Logic will also tell me that since you have a yard, you also own a house." Impressed, he says "exactly!" "And since you own a house, logic dictates that you have a wife."
"That's true, I do!" This guy was obviously catching on. "Finally, since you have a wife, logically I can assume that you are heterosexual," said the professor. "You're absolutely right! I can't wait to take that logic class!"

The first guy, proud of the new world opening up to him, walked back into the hallway, where his friend was waiting. "So what classes are you taking?" asked the friend. "Math, history, and logic!" he replied.
"What in the heck is 'logic?'" asked his friend.
"Let me give you an example. Do you own a weed-eater?" asked the first guy. "No," his friend replied. "Wow, then you’re gay aren’t you?"

Maltesetitan:

Basic Logic 101: In philosophy, there is an entire study devoted to the crafting and analysis of sound arguments, and that study is called "logic." One of the most basic tenets of that study is that an argument must proceed from premises and lead to a conclusion. That holds for all sets of statements that can be called arguments, whether they end up being valid or not.

Valid arguments, additionally, are those in which the conclusion proceeds from valid (indisputably true) premises, and the premises do in fact prove what is asserted by the conclusion.

maltesetitan,
As usual you have little idea of what you are going on about. I, much like the rest of the community here have either humored &/or ignored your ridiculous rants and pointless raves. The Constitution grants you the right of free speech and you should feel free to say what you feel but know that your rights end where mine begin. You are in no position to tell me what I need or make any so called adjustments. Please believe me when I tell you - you do not want any part of me on a personal level. Keep your comments constrained to the fantasies running through your head.

It is clear you know absolutely nothing about me, The Black Value System, Trinity Church or Black Panthers. You are simply toiling in groundless speculation. Your comment about the Hells Angels, among others was non sequitur, in keeping with the majority of what you have to say. Understand the Internet is much like statistics, it can be used to support any position. Try not to believe the hype.

I am always willing to discuss, debate and or satirize current events. Opposing points of view are always welcome and sometimes entertaining as well as informative. There is the outside chance you did not intend to make this personal perhaps it was just poor wording. In any case we are now clear now - here ends the lesson.

Journalism has hardly had intergrity since being bought out to corporate owners. Now journalists only print what they are directed to, and our debates have become 3-ring pop media circuses. I would say ABC should be ashamed of themselves but this is business as usual from the mainstream media.

From my perspective, this debate was a total waste of time because it didn't hit the core issues that will affect American policies. Things like:

Plans for Troop Withdrawls/ Treatment for soldiers
Details on Foreign policies
Eviromental Plans/ Ideas
American Economy
Healthcare
Taxes

And a slew of other issues that would've helped Penn choose the best represenative instead of voting against a canidate. Instead of asking the questions the people wanted to hear, they rehashed Fox News talking points from a couple months ago.

I would have been really interested to see how Hillary would answer to those as well, but apparently the concept on debating on important global and federal issues is dead.

eldamon,

Something is seriously wrong with you. I would not even jokingly state such a thing. Because this is NO JOKE.

As anyone can see this can straight from Trinty United Church of Christ Web site and is still on their web site if you look hard enough you will find it.

The Black Value System that Obama has Pledged his Allegiance to shows us why he does not salute the American Flag.

This is also the reason why he refuses to answer the questions asked of him and this is why the Black Panthers have endorsed him.

I'm no child I'm 51 years old and a Colonel and I'm fully aware of what use to be the Black Panthers and I'm very aware of the Hells Angels. So you who are by you're attitude a kid with an attitude that needs some adjustment needs to pay attention to the fact that this man that you so much follow is no better then Hitler because he was a white extremist and Obama is a black extremist. And Rev. Wright is he mentor.

Just as Louis Farrakhan is Rev. Wright's.

Yes, Senator Hillary Clinton did vote for the War, Obama said he did not. Why didn't he.

At the time of 911 everyone in this country wanted to kick the ass of the one who caused that! But Obama said he did not?

What he and Wright and Bin Laden and the ones that caused it were the only ones that would not have voted to go get the ass hole that caused 911.

OH BUT WAIT? How was it that Obama did not vote for the War! He said he did not namy times he has said this. On National tv HE HAS SAID THIS.

WHen he wasn't even a Senator, at the time to be able to vote on going to War.

OH NOT ANOTHER LIE!

Want to hear some more .

eldamon, You better believe I know he is an anti Patroit you need to my first comment and check out the link or just look it up for yourself.

Find out if what I say is the truth read it in Black and white.

tHEN IF YOU DO NOT HAVE THE PRESENTS OF MIND to understand that Obama is no true American ,meaning he has no love for this country but to have power over a group of people and he believes in that system .

I do not know what to tell you but you need to read the story of the Pied Piper.

Those that folow him will end up in a world of hurt.

"remarks which Sen. Obama has categorically and unequivocally denounced"

No . . . he has not.

Is it possible that some are looking for an "excuse" to not support this particular candidate for some odd reason? Much better arguments can be made against Senators McCain and Clinton using the very same criteria and yet some continue to harp on one certain candidate, why is that?

Sen. McCain voted against the King amendment to make the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King's birthday a national holiday. He was part of the Keating 5 and a known friend and associate of a convicted felon. He has accepted and embraced endorsements from two controversial clergy men who have made anti gay, semitic and catholic remarks. And, he was introduced on two occasions by one person making reference to Sen. Obama's middle name implying he is not American/Christian and another disparagingly calling Sen. Obama "Tiger Woods". All these are a matter of public record, resent enough to be relevant and directly connected to Sen. McCain.

Sen. Clinton voted for the current war basically to further her political ambitions. She supports NAFTA and trade with Columbia when it's politically or monetarily expedient. Her husband is a former president convicted of perjury, impeached and lied to the American people as well as admitting to taking drugs in college. She's been involved in questionable land and legal deals and flat out lied about her trip to Bosnia where she wasn't wearing a flag pin by the way - again to foster her political goals. Once again these are all a matter of public record and not subject to debate.

On the other hand, we have Sen. Obama who is getting grief over a flag pin and how he chooses to stand during the national anthem. He admitted to using drugs in high school - much like most of us and over 25 years ago. His pastor made some controversial and provocative remarks which Sen. Obama has categorically and unequivocally denounced and has nothing to do with his point of view or the content of his character.

Conceding the point they all have "issues", for the sake of argument, why are Sen. Obama's issues singled out as particularly heinous? Why is his patriotism and religion question and why are people looking to legitimize excuses for not supporting him?

But it really wasn't the flag pin...
It was however, the reason why he chooses NOT to place his hand above his heart during the playing of the National Anthem.

Such a little item isn't it?

Well, yes but it's the first thing we learn about our country in Kindergarten and the pledge, right?

Now, I've seen a report from one staffer who said that he does sometimes and sometimes not..

Why?

And then there is the proverbial remark about his Grandmother who is White:

"A typical white woman"

I mean, this is HIS GRANDMOTHER and he insults her like this in PUBLIC?

A 'typical white"?

Hey, I don't know about you but this doesn't sound like something I want to hear from my president.

And I'm NOT an african american either!

All of these things add up to one thing...this man has some problems and I don't know exactly what they are called but it's not someone I would want as my president!

you need to realize jawnybnsc america have blood on it hands from selling weapons to iraq and iran to the civil-right movement america have alot of problem america is so busy fixing the world's problem but america have it's own problems to deal with and obama said it time and time again that he does not agree with rev.wright's comments he did his part but i don't hear no one questioning john mccain's ties to rev.higgin or higgie comments about catholics and he said things alot worst than rev.wright and another thing obama love america just because he does'nt wear a flag pin does not mean he's anti-american you people on the right need to give it a rest

So now that it's clear that this thing is going to go on for a while yet, any of you Obama supporters care to divulge for us what topics are off limits?

So far the list is:

Rev. Wright
The Flag
Jimmy Carter
Osama bin-Laden
The Weathermen
Middle Names
The Popular Vote Count
Rezko
Farrakhan
Grandmothers
More Debates
Rubes Who Cling to Guns and Religion

So other than "Senator Obama, which do you love more, puppies or kittens?" What do we ask this man who wants to be the President of The United States of America?

Defending a friend is not what Obama is being asked to do. As you say, Rev. Wright is a grown man and can defend himself. What Obama is being asked to do is define himself. His relationship with Rev. Wright gives us a marker to judge him against. This was and EASY QUESTION for Obama to answer and he should have hit a home run. Instead, he flubbed it and became petulant in the aftermath. Does anybody think that anyone would be complaining if Obama had hit a home run? I seriously doubt it. Obama still has some growing to do as a candidate and there isn't much time left. If he doesn't improve he's gonna get his clock cleaned in the general election.

Mr Murray,
You of course have the right to vote of whom you see fit and for the reasons that work best for you but I have to say the reasons you've presented here are arcane to say the least. I truly appreciate that YOU never experimented with drugs but I'm willing to wager you've had a drink or two? At one time someone would have looked at that as outrageous behavior but we evolved passed that.

Watch any sporting event and you will find thousands of people standing and giving their attention the to flag (s) has the appropriate anthem is played but few of them with their hands over their hearts. Are they all unpatriotic. How is that a measure of one's patriotism in any case and where is the "law" you speak of? How one demonstrates their patriotism is up to the individual. No doubt Timothy McVeigh believed he was a patriot as well and would have an issue with Sen. Obama's not wearing a flag pin as well.

Again you can vote the way you choose and for the reasons you wish but keep in mind the country is in SERIOUS trouble because people chose the wrong person for the wrong reasons based on outdated ideas the last time around. We truly need someone that isn't business as usual. I was a supporter of Sen. Clinton's until she resorted to the old school, outdated political dogma that got us where we are today.

Change is what we need to get us back on course and Sen. Obama is the best agent of change of the remaining candidates. Please consider the relevant facts and I hope you'll support Sen. Obama when he wins the party's nomination.

I live in Bucks County, Pennsylvania (8th C.D.) which is suburban Philadelphia. Over the years I've worked for many democrats, been a campaign manager for two for a little while, been a treasurer and successfully spearheaded and won the Hart Presidential Primary Campaign placing 2nd in a field of 30 in 1984. This past year I was a Northeast Regional Director and Pennsylvania State Director for AlGore.org.

I voted FOR Hillary.

I saw the debate and I feel that she won.

I will NOT vote for Obama and if I had a choice between him and Jesse Jackson, I would vote for Jesse because I trust him.

You have to realize that Obama is only 6 years younger, he is part of my generation and I feel that we can do MUCH BETTER.

I never smoked pot and never did Cocaine.
I can just hear young folks asking their parents why they shouldn't do Cocaine when "The President of The United States" did?

And if you don't believe that Republicans won't bring this up then I have many bridges to sell you:)

I also have problems with his idea of patriotism and wearing a flag pin really isn't the issue.
Our flag is a symbol of our country and us so I have to wonder why someone who should know that it is more
than just "tradition" to place your hand above your heart when the National Anthem is played or the Pledge recited, it happens to be something that as my
12 year old nephew reminded me was something learned in Kindergarten and it is part of the U.S. Code in other words it's the law.

And then there are the votes in the Illinois State Legislature of "present"?

I mean, really?

Lastly, I have to say the man just doesn't have enough experience. He hasn't even had 1 term in the Senate and during this time he has not become a great advocate for any group on any issue.

I greatly fear that he will NOT be able to "hit the ground running".

And it's true that it's great to finally see younger folks really get involved but they don't have the experience that us older folks have.

I feel that Disney, the owner of ABC, has been contributing to the systematic dumbing down of America for years and should take full responsibility for trying to simplify or trivialize the debate to make it more viewer friendly. This is a process that should never, ever, be tampered with. Unfortunately, Disney will not see it this way and continue trying to tell us when and what to think.

jawnybnsc,

I wouldn't go as far as calling his response "chickenshit". It's true that Obama didn't handle that question very well. He was exasperated and losing his patience. Wouldn't you be if you were forced to defend a good friend again and again, who you know to be a good person but has a penchant of saying crazy things? I would have lost patience long ago if I was in his shoes. The fact that he has no taste for ABC's petty theater just shows that he is not similarly petty himself.

As for Wright's AIDS comment, Obama has made it pretty clear that he strongly disagrees. He definitely denounced that comment in his race speech. That's one thing I admire about him. He doesn't entertain any conspiracy theories. No matter who is saying them. He prefers solid facts and the reasonable statements that can be inferred from them.

This is a strong departure from our current president who doesn't care anything about facts. After all, he brought a nation into war based on conspiracy theories. Which would you rather have? More of the same or someone who can separate fact from fiction?

Oh and maltesetitan,
You know I actually helped write the tenants of the Black Value System. Amongst ourselves we call it the PLAN. We discuss it at every meeting. We're currently putting together the Black Manifesto as we speak. I'll see if I can leak a copy out to the net so you can find it in time to save those you're close to.

asa lama lakum '-)

Why is it important to drill down on Rev. Wright's statements in regards to Sen. Obama? Rev. Wright is an American citizen, a Marine and fully capable of answering for himself. Sen. Obama can only give his personal opinion on the remarks - which he's done time and again. Is it that some people are looking for a certain answer they aren't getting?

If nothing else, the perfect answer notwithstanding, Sen. Obama has shown courage and integrity in the face of adversity. That has to be an admirable leadership quality.

Fair enough . . . and that's always been one of the things I've admired about the response. But how does answering specific questions . . . or even general questions about the nature of Wright's comments constitute throwing him under the bus? He can still profess love and admiration for the man while saying that he's totally wrong about America's culpability for 9/11 or about America giving AIDS to blacks. It's a tough position to maintain, but at least it's honest and complete. Pushing this off into the corner and complaining about having to answer these questions is chickenshit to me and I'd bet to most Americans. He should take this stuff head on.

I don't see why Dr. Wright stirs such a big controversy when other preachers have said their fair share of crazy things. From Rev. Phelp's infamous "God hates fags" to Pat Robertson's blaming of the 9-11 attacks on "gays, lesbians and feminists", why single out Dr. Wright?

Obama did address Reverend Wright. The racism that Wright speaks of is real to millions of African Americans living in this country. While Obama did not agree with the fiery rhetoric, he does think that both races, black and white, need to air their grievances with each other instead of retreating to separate corners. What's wrong with that? Is America so insecure that it cannot hear the truth?

Obama is not going to throw Wright under the bus because this preacher officiated him and his wife's marriage and baptized his children. What's wrong with that?

Agree or not agree with the things Wright said (and yes, his conspiracy theories do get pretty crazy) the fact that Obama didn't throw him under the bus when it's politically convenient speaks more about his character than anything ABC can "uncover".

Do I think Obama is anti-America? No. Do I think that he should give straight answers to questions about people who he's associated with? Yes. If he doesn't believe that America is to blame for the attacks of 9/11, then why not say that? To say that he's addressed questions about Rev. Wright by answering that he disavows Wright's controversial statements is a cop out. Which statements? The ones I find controversial, or the ones he finds controversial? The ones Dr. Wright thinks are controversial? Seriously . . . what kind of answer is that? Obama gave a speech on race. That says nothing about his view of America's culpability in 911 or America giving AIDS to blacks. What does Obama love about America? Has America been a force for good?

Ccashman, stepthomson, Wisegrrl, WhiteGal,

The PDF File that I spoke of has nothing to do with the Christian Faith. You need to study your Bible more closely. Jesus tells us to follow him, and to treat our neighbors as we would ourselves.

Not Kill them and put them into concentration camps, and then pledge allegiance to this way of thinking. ( this has reference to the PDF file on the web site of Trinity United Church of Christ web site. That Obama agrees to and that is why he does not salute the American Flag.

Now do not take what I'm saying out of context. I 'm not talking about a Pin you wear. NO, I'M talking about saluting the Flag of the United States of American while the national anthem is being played in front of the world on national TV in front of the families of the troops that have given their lives in Wars that were not what they did or did not want to do, but they died and this man will not salute or place his hand on his hearth in honor of those men and women who gave their lives.

BUT HE WILL PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO A SYSTEM THAT SPEAKS OF MAKING ONE GROUP INTO A ILLEGALLY MOTIVATED EXTREMIST SECT.

The Theology that I studied and received my certificate in and the over 8 teaches of Doctrines of various Denominations and Sects have nothing to do with this type of teaching.

I studied under the " Church of Christ "

NOT! connected to NOT! THE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST!

The only group that had such a System like this ( what i spoke of earlier and placed link concerning Black Value System ) was Hitler check you History, that is why the Jewish community is NOT supporting NOT obama.

stepthomson,

You better learn to read more and find out about your Pied Piper.
Or you will learn the truth to late.

Wisegrrl,

Sean Hannity was NOT advising Stephanopolis. Hannity made to him two questions that I am aware of and what that is only journalism.

Look at when Tim Russet grilled Clinton in the Ohio Debate he obtained some of his questions from Chris Mattews and while talking to him on Hardball MSNBC so YOU WHO ARE CRYING WERE NOT CRYING FOWL WHEN THAT TOOK PLACE!

WhiteGal,

Yes, she is a PIT BULL and that is what we need in the White House not a whiner. It will take a strong and determined individual with the experience and a proven record to get us back to where we once were before Bush destroyed the progress the previous administration had made with the economy as far as lowering the deficit and correcting our foreign relationships, besides the way businesses were doing. I know at that time I had one and the businesses and stock market was doing great.

" This position does not come with on the job training. "

Though it did for BUSH

I agree there's nothing more annoying then the typical "talk a lot but say nothing" political response. That's that turns me off about Sen. Clinton the most. Her long winded tortured answers or her insipid dismissive laughter is an non responsive as you can get. I've never understood why you would want anything to do with the person that can best NOT answer a question.

More to the point, the debate did little to uncover anything you were looking because of the way it was conducted far more than either candidates failure to answer. Think about what you truly wanted to know and try to match that with anything from the first half of that debate.

As for Sen. Obama's views, do you really think he's anti-America or believes we conspired to attack ourselves on 9/11? Consider the question carefully, it's not about any of his associates, acquaintances or alike. Do you believe Barack Obama is a foreign agent or an anti-patriot?

Whether you are for Obama or not, there's no debating that the questions focused on trivialities and gossip. It was as low-brow as low-brow "journalism" goes. I didn't find the questions tough. Not at all. Just asinine and pointless. I didn't learn anything from it except that Stephanopoulus and Gibson are more unprofessional than I thought!

Now, if you really want to get tough on Obama, ask him why he doesn't mandate health care but still call it universal coverage. Ask him how he plans to save people from getting kicked out of their homes without putting a freeze on foreclosures for a time period. Or ask him why he supports nuclear power when he's running on a green earth platform.

As much as I like Obama and will vote for him, those are the real tough questions that never seem to get asked! I'd like to see a reporter with enough cajuns to ask them. (Probably Keith Olbermann or Stephen Colbert. Sadly, they're not journalists.)

This isn't about Obama versus Hillary. People were equally outraged when sexist comments from Chris Matthews and the like were directed towards Hillary Clinton.

It's about the lack of professional journalism from supposed journalists. It's about passing off trivial theater as serious national debate. That's what it's about. And ABC has failed to deliver on both accounts. No wonder the US ranked at the bottom of the heap (53rd) in the freedom of the press.

And I tell you one thing that really turns me off. An unresponsive candidate for president. Especially one who doesn't have a whole lot of time logged on the public scene. That's a real turn off. So you enjoy your waffle there Senator and I'll give a little more thought to how I'm gonna use my vote.

Here's the thing. These are legitimate questions that go to electability. These questions are particularly pertinent in a battleground state like Pennsylvania.

Yes, this Rev. Wright stuff has been addressed, but Obama focused the discussion on race alone. There are other aspects of what Wright said and Obama needs to say specifically what he disagrees with. This is an opportunity for him to clear the air. He needs to step up. If he loves America, then show us. If he agrees with Wright on the ways in which we provoked 9/11, then say that. Explain it and tell America why you believe it and what you think that you can do about it as President. Now is the time for an open and honest accounting. Do you really want all of this shoved into some corner . . . until when . . . October?

Yes there are other issues. We understand that. We can go to the candidate's websites to understand their positions. Do you just want these debates to be platforms for these candidates to read their policy papers? Let's just read them ourselves, instead of endless recitation before a debate audience.

As for who I'm for . . . I haven't made up my mind yet. All of these candidates have serious flaws in my mind. I'm not deciding this on one issue, or on how candidate x or y makes me feel.

jawnybnsc,
I have to admit you stated your arguments well. I understand what you are saying about the Rev. Wright issue, although I do not agree. Sen. Obama clearly stated he did not agree, condone or support any of the reverend's inflammatory statements. He will not throw his pastor, the man that performed his marriage ceremony under the bus for political gain - now that's revealing of his overall character.

The big problem is the question itself. Your argument is somewhat valid and again well stated but the question put to Sen. Obama had little to do with provoking the response you were looking for. The question should have been, "will you denounce or reject Rev. Wright?" The problem there however is that has already been addressed in the speech Sen. Obama gave. So it was truly just rehashing of a provocative or salacious topic.

I think we agree on the whole flag pin thing being a galactic waste of time and effort.

In either case, Sen. Obama didn't whine about anything. He did point out the topic of the questions asked were not what the people truly wanted or needed to hear in that setting. I believe you and I just proved that point just now.

May I ask who you support or are leaning towards?

I think these are issues that a lot of American's are concerned about. The first question is a great opportunity for Obama to separate himself from Rev. Wright's most problematic stance. We all were treated to a response on the issue of race, but I don't think Obama ever addressed Wright's statements directly challenging America. Agree or disagree with that stance, it's a legitimate question and one that a good candidate for president should knock out of the park. The fact that he didn't. The fact that he was unprepared. The fact that he whined about it in the aftermath provide me with some very key insights into Candidate Obama.

The lapel pin question is probably overkill along that same line, but it was another opportunity for Obama to knock one out of the park. He handled it a whole lot better than he handled the Wright questions. In terms of due diligence, his responses to this didn't really tell me much, but I think they're revealing when juxtaposed with his Rev. Wright responses. What this tells me is that he's less able to be dispassionate about Wright than he is about a symbol. Not a bad response, but revealing nonetheless.

jawnybnsc,
I apologize for the inherent sarcasm in this question, none was actually intended, but can you please explain how "Do you think Rev. Wright loves the country as much as you do?" or anything to do with a lapel pin helps you do your "due diligence"?

McCain's health is not the most pertinent issue of his campaign, but it is something to give some small amount of consideration. I'm not saying that he's going to become a doddering, senile fool as soon as he would take the oath of office, but there is a distinct possibility that he could die in office due to his advanced age. In the end, this possibility is not the reason I would never vote for him. His stances on the war, health care, the climate change problem, and so on are what repels me from him.

And once again, there is nothing wrong with those questions. Especially given that we know a lot more about Hillary Clinton than we do Barak Obama. He should have been better prepared. The fact that he wasn't tells me that he's gotten used to certain treatment from the media. His whiny reaction pretty much confirms my suspicions in that regard.

Sorry folks, but all this complaining just doesn't serve you or your candidate. This is an issue that only the most die hard among you cares about. Americans in general are watching Obama's reaction. They're measuring him and vetting him for this job. If you want to be a fan, be a fan, but the rest of us are going to continue with the due diligence if you don't mind.

It's a long way to November, my friends.

I would love to see a woman in the White House some day, but Hillary Clinton terrifies me. She knows that she has NO chance of getting the nomination and is only staying in to visiously attack and damage Barak Obama in hopes that her damage will prevent him from defeating McCain in November. Then she can run again in 2012. Hillary cares more about her personal ambitions than our country. She's earned the nick name of the PIT BULL for her repulsive behavior.

Barak Obama on the other hand is just what this troubled nation needs. He has the love, passion, and integrity for leading our country. He has demonstrated that he will attract a team of top talent and dedication to reverse what has happened in the White House for the last 8 years. Just look at the former Cllinton supporters that have endoresed him. We need to help Barak Obama secure the nomination ASAP and get on with a more respectable campaign that focuses on the real issues that we citizens are concerned about.

To Pennsylvania voters: Please take your vote seriously today. I encourage you to vote for a better future by casting your vote for Barak Obama.

So for all you people so interested in substance and issues . . . do you think questions about McCain's health are substantive or targeted at the issues? If so, why?

Much like a couple of people here, ABC itself doesn't get what went horribly wrong with the debacle they called a debate. They (ABC) are using the same "spin" the Clinton campaign is using to try and deflect the heat they are justly receiving by claiming it's just the Obama supporters upset about their candidates performance.

The fact is by and large the vast number of complaints and dissenting remarks are about the questions themselves as well as there order and time spent on each topic. It was the poor execution and apparent lack of basic journalism that drew the majority of the fire from concerned citizens.

Honestly, what kind of question is "Do you think Rev. Wright loves the country as much as you do?" That's right up there with "are you still beating your wife? " One would have to be clairvoyant to be able to answer that.

Was anyone on the stage wearing a flag pin? In fact, when is the last time you saw Sen. Clinton wearing a flag pin? Was her patriotism questioned? Her husband took $800 million to speak on behalf of a foreign government which she claims to oppose and yet that was never mentioned. America was not sitting on the edge of its collective seats to hear any ridiculous chatter about a lapel accessory.

Barack Obama was 8 (eight) years old when William Ayers was part of the Weather Underground. Most people can't even remember what the Weather Underground was all about. Moreover, William Ayers has never been convicted or even tried for a single crime - all charges relating to his activities during the period in question were dropped. What association with him of any kind would reflect in any way on Sen. Obama or the decision to vote for or against him?

If you are going to do guilt by association keep in mind Sen. McCain was part of the "Keating 5" and a personal friend of convicted felon Charles Keating. Sen. Clinton 's husband was found guilty of lying under oath and impeached. However the true bottom line is neither Rev. Wright, William Ayers, Bill Clinton nor Charles Keating are running for anything this year and should be treated equally or better still, ignored completely in making a decision on whom to vote.

A lot of valuable information could have been gleaned from ABC's debate but instead they went for tabloid headlines and ratings. George Stephanopoulus apparently paid back a favor he owed to the Clintons at the viewer's expense. The saddest part of all is ABC truly still doesn't get it, as evidenced by their critique of the debate on the following link. Again, and once and for all - it wasn't Sen. Obama's performance it was the moderators and line of questions in general that caused the back lash.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4689960&affil=kabc

Maybe I should have been a little clearer by what I meant when I said I didn't care about all of those things. As long as a candidate's spiritual leader or his/her close advisers do not preach or promote open or passive bigotry, then I have no problem with them performing their jobs. These charges are ill-founded, superfluous, and obfuscate the real issues of this campaign. To call this "whining" means to me that you really don't care about politics and just want to be an antagonistic thread troll.

There is one thing that we do agree on, though, and that is that there is no magic wand to wave and instantly cure all of our woes. However, they can be worked on and be set on a path that will benefit the people of this great country. We, in our republican democracy, vote on who best represents our vision for a better nation and has the best chance at bringing these ideas into reality. Technically, this is "correcting the issues", although it is done in increments.

In the future, please do not write such platitudes as they do not add anything worthwhile to a legitimate debate.

There is no magic wand. Issues just "get corrected" in dictatorships . . . not in republican democracies. If you want to live somewhere where issues just "get corrected", might I suggest China or North Korea.

This why some people hate politics. I wish the fight would stop and the issues get corrected.

You don't think who a candidate for president associates himself with is relevant? You don't think his judgment in that regard has any bearing? You are aware that the president selects a cabinet and makes a whole lot of political appointments, aren't you? Maybe you don't care, but I can promise you that the American electorate cares. I can promise you that voters care about the politics and attitudes of people who a candidate has associations with. I can promise you that all this stuff is going to come up again in the general election and I can promise you that if all you and Obama can do is whine about it that you'll be going down in flames. You can take that to the bank.

Maltese.... capitalizing all the letters in your post does not make it any more important. It does not make your point any more valid. It does make you look like an idiot. I've read the PDF, and I'm not particularly outraged or incensed. It does not say anything about hating "whitey" or any other group, it just promotes the idea of community building. It's part of liberation theology, which is a recognized and respected form of the Christian faith.

Back to the original point of this thread:
The questions asked by George and Charlie were out of line and completely unnecessary to the political discussion. Unless they murdered an underage hooked that was addicted to heroin, meth, and crack on the floor of the senate, then I really don't care about their personal lives or what beliefs their reverend, priest, imam, or rabbi hold. I just care about what political positions they have, and how they intend to implement them.

wisegrrl, you can flag posts by clicking 'flag' on the lower right of a post.

for some posts, that means you'll have to scroll down a lot ;-)

thanks for the novel, maltese. I read 1 word, your name.

To aschneider - thanks for mentioning the VERY IMPORTANT National Conference on Media Reform that's coming up in June. Perhaps someone from Current should also be attending this?? Al Gore, perhaps??

That debate was pathetic and I am an undecided voter until November 4, 2008. Even some of my conservative/Republican friends thought it was pathetic. Did anyone know that Sean Hannity was advising Stephanopolis before the debate took place (Stephanopolis was a guest on one of Hannity's shows - either the Radio or TV one prior to Wed's debate. Ref: NPR's On The Media program 4/18/08)? It was the FOX News debate that never was, but was snuck in anyway. ABC should indeed be ashamed. Debates are supposed to inform and educate, not play out like "Entertainment Tonight." By the way, can there be a way to control the "trolling" that's occurring in some of these comment areas? Trolling is NOT constructive criticism. These posts should be of constructive criticisms, not self-serving, argumentive, disrespectful trolling.

I hate to jump into the lynch mob, that really that debate was pretty terrible. Didn't seem professional.

crop80227, ohh_Donna,

crop80227,

Yes, Hillary won and the people in Pennsylvania are very well educated. If your candidate had won you would be signing his praises and kissing his ass all day long leaving comments on here about what smart people are in Pennsylvania. BUT you are scared now you are shaking in your boots. You should be. Because you are one of them who has yet to see the latest News that the Republicans have been holding back on.
Yes this they were planning to spring on him (Obama) and wipe the floor with him.

This would turn any person with a piece of human dignity in their body to McCain if Hillary was not running.

At the end of this comment I will place a link. This link and the info before it is what will guide you to the most breaking story since Hilter's Storm Troopers.

ohh_Donna,

I understand that YOU STATED! I reject the notion that if Obama becomes the candidate the lemmings will instantly and in unision vote for McCain. YA! I SAY AGAIN YA!

I'm a Democrat and I would rather vote for a stupid wish washie, doesn't know what he is doing and can not remember sh#t person then to vote for someone with 31/2 years experience, a Lier, someone who takes advice from people who hate the United States, Does not salute the American Flag. Who allows their own children to be subject to a non family member who speaks and teaches hate for the United States, Is friends and associates himself or herself with Louis Farrakhan. And Pledges himself or herself to the Allegiance of a Racial Extremist System Called The Black Value System.

Jawnybnsc,

You seem to be the only one with any brains in this whole group. ABC and George Sthephanopolus I believe went after the real issues that needed to be asked. The truth is these questions are on everyones minds it is just that he had the guts to ask them and Obama has the gaul to think as do most of these Obamanations that he will not have to face these type of questions that some how he will be able to avoid them.

Not a chance. Obama has no experience for this job and he thinks he can deal with foreign leaders of Communist countries. And those that hate the United States, does he think you can whine your way of deaking with these issues. Hillary knows that can not be done you have to be able to handle the Heat.

And you all who defend him ( or try to make it look like you are going after ABC) when he does not ask for your protection do you even know what type of person you are defending?

Do you believe he will come up riding on a horse to save you from you various debts. Keep wishing not going to happen! WHY!

READ THIS! BREAKING NEWS!

THIS WILL SOON BE COMING TO A DEBATE NEAR YOU!

ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE QUESTIONS THAT YOU OBAMA SUPPORTS DO NOT WANT TO HEAR ASKED!

OH AND IF AFTER READING THIS YOU REMAIN AN OBAMA SUPPORTER.

ALL I CAN SAY IS YOU MUST AGREE TO THIS DOCTRINE OR TEACHING.

THIS WILL BE A PART OF THE GENERAL ELECTION IF HILLARY IS NOT NOMINATED AND ALL OF US DO NOT WANT ANYONE BUT HILLARY TO BE NOMINATED!

READ THIS FOR YOURSELF, DO NOT BELIEVE ME PLEASE READ THIS FOR YOURSELF!

REMEMBER ONE THIS IS THE INTERNET AND LARGE COMPANIES SAVE OLD WEB SITES ON THERE DATA FILES ALL THE TIME.

Let's not go into McCain's baggage until after the actually nominate him. I'd hate to drag out everything and have them choose someone else that doesn't have all that just waiting to be exposed. He's a senile, dishonest, bad tempered, old fool, just what we want to run against.

I think in terms of fairness.

McCain was part of the Keating five, a famous lobying scandal involving five legislators who helped to halt legislation for the savings and loan industry that ripped of seniors to the tunes of billions before a crash in the eighties. And has lobyists on his campaign staff. This being said, he promised in writing to utelize public financing and did recieve public funds which he used in a critical juncture in his campaign when he was so far behind in financing compared to his republican competitors that there were calls for him to drop out of the race as he had no chance. He then used this money to finance a loan which saved his candidacy, then broke campaign finance law and exceeded to matching funds limit. He was unrepentant despite having violated the law. Shouldn't that get as much atention as Rezko with Obama or Clintons lobyist ties? No, it should get far more! Its a violation of the law and it may have charachter implications as well. How a candidate conducts themselves during thier campaign has a lot to say about how they will perform in the whitehouse and those elements say alot more about McCain than Reverend Wright, or Rezko, or Geraldine Feraro, or Stephanie Powers combined say about Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama.

The point of saying that this was a poor or unbalanced debate is that the media's job while covering candidates is to help us make informed judgements on them. How they cover those candidates matters. Perhaps now more than ever. To say that Gaffe's or charachter questions are on par with policy is simply wrong. After a certain point they become nothing more than a distraction from the purpose of our elections and our media simply fails us. Especialy things as trivial as flagpins! McCain refusing to vote on the new G.I. bill or the bill ensuring survivors benefits can't be taken away from sole survivors within the military conequently writen by a veteran with a son in Iraq, is perhaps the least patriotic thing he could do especialy while on a tour toutuing his own military service. He hasn't had any flack for it. That says something apaling about the conduct of our media .when comparing this to the coverage of the flagpins non issue.

Yes, but first watch and see who sponsors them. Then write the sponsors and tell them you aren't watching and why. Stop buying the newspaper. You can find the news Online. I meant what I said, don't visit Disney theme parks. They need to feel it in the pocket just like we do when they don't report the actual news and people are ignorant about who to vote for. They sold people Bush, and look what that has cost us.

Well, to me, ABC news just seems too elitest. I remember, before the debate was off, they were doing their final goodbyes and thank yous, which is where I came in from work.

Anyways, they were thanking various people, and they got to the point where they mentioned the local station, and people, understandably, cheered. Charles Gibson made some remark like, "I have never heard such a response about a LOCAL station". That, to me, rubbed off on me as a slightly sarcastic remark.

I know if my local station had some national event on tv like the debate, I would be proud and cheer too, but with a remark like that, I would lose a ton of respect for that national news. Again, I am not commenting on the actual debate, but the snippit I caught at the end.

Boycott Disney. Seems pretty simple to me.

Nothing new there.

First there was I invented the Internet Love Story and Love Canal.
Then James Lee Witt, the dog and the mother-in-law, that lullaby and that girl in the Florida classroom.
And now Wright and Ayres.

Between the those two waves more than 4000 troops died in Iraq.

About 112% of political journalists are idiots.

The questions were stupid no doubt, plus they were asked in a very stupid manner by two stupid people and it obviously bothered/pissed off Obama, he stumbled over his words more in this one debate then he has all campaign long.

In the long run what did it do? Not much, both candidates still seem like great choices to me and I'll be proud of my party no matter who gets the nod.

You know, this wasn't an Obama or Clinton thing when the first hour was devoted to recapping the highlights fo the last six weeks of Silly Season.... Where every gaffe was brought up against and given the limelight.

With alllllllllllllll the crap that's people need to know stances on -- they brought back Wright, Tuzla, the lapel pins, etc?

You're a Pennsylvania voter and you want to know about both candidates and their stances on X issue. You haven't been paying that close attention up until recently and still had questions. This debate was like seeing Ken Starr investigate Bill's extrimarital affair... It had no bearing on the future course fo the country. There was nothign that should tell people more about the candidates.

It was an overglorified soap opera for the first hour. A boring one at that if you're used to steamy soap operas.

I wrote an email to ABC -- and I bring this up because even with 20k online comments, ABC Executuives were also inundated with loads of emails -- saying they shamed the legacy of ABC News. That and they failed America along with themselves for that farce of a debate.

As for fairness . . . when did that become an operative concept in politics? Are we only being fair when we ask candidates questions that they've been endlessly prepped for? What do we learn from such "questions and responses"? Don't we want to catch the candidates off guard? Don't we want them to have to think on their feet? Don't we want to see how they'll react when challenged? Grow up folks. This is just getting started and the majority of us aren't quite ready to coronate your messiah.

He's gonna face tougher questions than this. He's also going to face a very different opponent in the general election. When I say exposed, what I mean is that his response revealed a great deal about his character. Do we really want a whiner in the Oval Office? Is that who we're going to send to negotiate with Ahmahdinejad?

Obama's rounding third......

I find it heartening that so much is being said about poor journalism techniques. It's harder to hide that way. :)

The outrage over the debate has very little to do with the target of the petty negativity and more to do with the fact that the topics were petty, inconsequential , and devoid of any meaningful substance when this country and its citizens face very real, very serious issues that effect Americans' lives every day that ABC, Gibson, and Stephanopolis apparently think don't matter..

ABC = asinine boneheaded clowns

Hillary seemed exposed to me. She made outlandish claims that the Weather Underground "killed people" when they only ever killed themselves accidentally. She was doing some serious manipulation of the facts there, and she got called on it when Obama remarked that it was her white house that pardoned the Underground members in question.

george sthephonopolus and charlie gibson need to be ashamed of themselves that is journalism at it's worse no wonder why the news media like ABC news and fox news channel can't be trusted because of their bias way america don't care about rev.wright comments or him not wearing a flag pin america care about real issues like healthcare,education,job and why american soldiers getting killed for nothing.they just tried to make barack obama look bad they did'nt exposed obama but they exposed themselves now see who charlie and george really are and who they are going for and that will be hillary.

georgie was communications director for Clinton in 92. i find it a little strange that he would moderate a debate after having worked so closely with (for) one of the candidates.

What was he supposed to be exposed of, jawnybnsc? lying to get us into a war? shredding of our constitution? torture? letting mortgage companies run ponzi schemes that kick millions of Americans out of their homes? Letting big corporations ship jobs overseas? Oh wait. THAT WAS BUSH!

Obama merely told the truth about America's situation. The elitist reporters just think its hell.

How was he exposed? What new information was revealed? I tend to agree that the backlash over the debate is being overblown, but I think the word "exposed" reveals some serious wishful thinking.

Jawnynsc,

Who was really exposed, Obama was jumped on , an attempted beat down by 3 1 hilliary and 2 journalist for ABC, what does that say about the 3 of them in the eyes of millions. Because you are not obviously for Obama, it was ok? I will consider the source on that comment, because evidently you must have some issues with FAIRNESS, the Government have dupped you so much that you forgot what FAIRNESS is. Nothing more informative than what has already been played. It was not Fair no matter who you do not like. That is where Love and harmony comes in, I guess you do play fair, no Love huh.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see what was wrong with ABC's debate. You're just upset because Obama was EXPOSED.

I like that ABC has been covering the 'story' of their craptastic debate by offering 'exclusives', copied and pasted from their feedback emails.