Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Spinning the Debate's Aftermath

PHILADELPHIA -- The Fix is headed out on the campaign trail today to catch Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) at a few events (and to sample some of the reader recommendations for the best cheesesteak out there).

But, before we go, we would be remiss not to offer a quick update on the spin coming out of last night's Democratic presidential debate.

As you might expect, Clinton campaign aides in the spin room last night were quite pleased with the debate and then sought to capitalize on what they believe to be an opening during a conference call this morning.

"The debate last night was really about leadership," said Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson on the call. "Senator Clinton showed the strength of her leadership...Senator Obama, on the other hand, did not have a very good night."

Wolfson insisted that Barack Obama failed to fully answer questions about a 1996 questionnaire in which he appeared to back a total ban on guns and his connection to a former member of the radical anti-war Weather Underground.

"When Senator Obama had a chance to give clear, concise accurate answers...he failed to do," Wolfson said.

Asked about whether the debate sponsored by ABC News was slanted against Obama or dipped too much into trivia, Wolfson said that "in an ideal world I wish we could conduct our campaigns on questions of policy and policy differentiation" but added: "We have all learned that campaigns are about more than that and the kinds of questions Senator Obama was asked last night are the kind of questions that if he is our nominee he is likely to face on an ongoing basis in the fall."

For its part, the Obama campaign touted two pieces of good news in the wake of the debate: the endorsement of the Philadelphia Daily News and of a previously uncommitted Oklahoma superdelegate.

The spin wars are a vital exercise by the opposing camps in trying to influence the media's and the public's perception of who actually won a debate. The Clinton conference call was the first act of this most recent play, which will unfold throughout today and, likely, the rest of the way to next Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary.

Need more analysis from last night's debate? Check out The Fix and the Post's Anne Kornblut breaking down the proceedings from National Constitution Center last night.


By Chris Cillizza  |  April 17, 2008; 11:10 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: SEIU Joins the Pa. Fray
Next: Independent Spending Gurus Key to Battle for House

Comments

Is it over yet???


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 18, 2008 4:58 AM | Report abuse


-if 8 Chelsea cut-away shots did not happen
-if George S. was not a former Clinton communications aid
-if pundits mentioned the moderators ineptitude as much as Senator Obama's
-if"the number one issue" aka the economy was the first question
-if Senator Clinton's tone-deafness about negativity's usefulness to voters was not obvious
-if ABCnews took any accountability for criticism
-if the thousands of people criticizing was even reported!
-if immigration, torture, or a host of serious issues were discussed
-if Mark Penn was mentioned
-if "does Rev. Wright love America as much as you" wasn't said
-if "do you love love the flag" wasn't said


Then maybe this would be a credible media event. Sometimes I feel helpless as a citizen in the face of these experiences.

Yes I support Senator Obama. At least with him, i feel some agency as a citizen and believe there's a chance to get beyond this to solve difficult issues.

Posted by: TLR | April 18, 2008 2:35 AM | Report abuse

Obama got roiled last night: his first REAL taste of what it will be like in NOV. The amazing teflon dream coat, is worse for the wear; but, it would not be at all suprising to hear that the polls continue to flatline despite last night's revelations, which should send his numbers into defib. Revelations about how each candidate handles attacks, how they handle revealing truths and whether they are truly who they say they are...is what we learned last night.

And don't hold your breath on this NEWS FLASH, but the we can wait till June and we have nothing to rush about attitude of the Democratic Party just did a 360o. Chairman Dean came out on the CNN Politcal Ticker tonight, the night after the debate with this:

Dean: I need a decision 'now'
Posted: 08:36 PM ET


Watch Howard Dean's interview with Wolf Blitzer.
(CNN)-- An increasingly firm Howard Dean told CNN again Thursday that he needs superdelegates to say who they're for - and "I need them to say who they're for starting now."

"We cannot give up two or three months of active campaigning and healing time," the Democratic National Committee Chairman told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "We've got to know who our nominee is."

After facing criticism for a mostly hands-off leadership style during much of the primary season, Dean has been steadily raising the rhetorical pressure on superdelegates. He said Thursday that roughly 65 percent of them have made their preference plain, but that more than 300 have yet to make up their minds.

The national party chair, who has remained neutral throughout the primary process, said again it's his job to make sure both candidates feel they are treated fairly - but not to tell either of them when to end their run.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

If Democrats haven't figured this all out yet, someone on this blog, who gets it, please try to give them some pointers!

Posted by: VAMMAP | April 17, 2008 11:07 PM | Report abuse

I think this debate was a waste of Obama's time he is right he needs to spend time campigning instead of being set up in a smear job. Hilary set him up big time and her horns was showing as always. Hopeful the smart people in PA will see through her lies and remember her past history all she's good at is distorting the truth and making herself look like a saint which she is far from.

Obama just brush this off and keep your head up don't let Hilary's pot shots get you down. She has CNN, Foxnew, ABC, and all of the media in her back pocket that why she loosing because people are too smart Hilary has too much baggaged and all her experience just untrue.

Posted by: Judy | April 17, 2008 10:40 PM | Report abuse

I didn't see the debate last night, but heard some of it repeated today on radio. My sense throughout the campaign is that when I've tuned into This Week, Stephanopolous has had a pro-Clinton edge to him. Did he make a disclaimer at the beginning that he once worked for the Clintons?

If Fox is Republican, MSNBC is accused of being pro-Obama, then ABC is pro-HILLARY.

Posted by: JP | April 17, 2008 10:26 PM | Report abuse

Reading most of the comments, I can only say there is an absolute bias as to whoever your favorite is and in no way can any of you see the others point of view. Try and "THINK" about what issue you are most concerned about and then find how each of them has taken a stand on that specific issue you are most interested.

Posted by: lylepink | April 17, 2008 9:04 PM | Report abuse

Reading most of the comments, I can only say there is an absolute bias as to whoever your favorite is and in no way can any of you see the others point of view. Try and "THINK" about what issue you are most concerned about and then find how each of them has taken a stand on that specific issue you are most interested.

Posted by: lylepink | April 17, 2008 9:04 PM | Report abuse

Reading most of the comments, I can only say there is an absolute bias as to whoever your favorite is and in no way can any of you see the others point of view. Try and "THINK" about what issue you are most concerned about and then find how each of them has taken a stand on that specific issue you are most interested.

Posted by: lylepink | April 17, 2008 9:04 PM | Report abuse

An Open Letter To Disney & ABC

Whether you support Hillary or Barrack is irrelevant. Last night's brilliant Presidential Debate forum was very informative. I applaud Charles Gibson & George Spephanopoulos for their efforts to educate America about topics the media has not had the backbone to cover.

I am and will continue to be a loyal Disney and ABC supporter. ALWAYS!

I fully appreciate your eforts and hope that you keep up the good work. The American peope have been played for fools by the major news outlets for the duration of this election. It's about time someone told them the truth.

I honorably served in the United States Army and have serious concerns about the future of this great country. We have the grave task before us of choosing the leader of the free world. I do not take this lightly and am thankul for your exposure of facts that I and others should know in order to make the right decision. You are a true American patriots! Thank you again.

Sincerely,
Proud American Citizen &
United States Soldier

Posted by: topazhawk | April 17, 2008 7:56 PM | Report abuse

An Open Letter To Disney & ABC
Whether you support Hillary or Barrack is irrelevant. Last night's hijacking of the Presidential Debate forum, turning the USA into a laughing spectacle around the world, is unfathomable. I do not for the life of me understand why Charles & George purposely wanting to disgrace America, her political processes, and her citizens!

Having been a loyal Disney and ABC supporter for all of my adult life, even having made plans to have a three generation family reunion this summer at Disneyland, I can unequivocally (sp) say that never again will I support a Disney or ABC entity...EVER!

To be treated as mentally inferior sub human beings who would rather enjoy trash tabloid than hear what our potential leader of the United States of America, ABC should be banned from ever claiming itself a legitimate news organization.

I do not appreciate- not one single solitary bit - that your organization treated me and the rest of America to this public humiliation. Having formerly worked for US-AID, The White House, and the National Education Association, I have spoken with many of my friends around the world since last evening. Their thoughts equal mine in that what was once a respected world news organization has lost their credentials.

I will never, and I repeat, never again, as long as I have breath support in any way your organization again. You have disgraced the country I love and the country for which I honorable served as a United States Marine. My grandchildren will play with rocks and sticks before I ever take them to another Disney movie, buy a Disney product or be associated with an unpatriotic and unamerican organization such as ABC and Disney. And I will fervently seek to encourage other organizations, families, and individuals, regardless of political affiliation, to do the same. You are a disgrace to the legacy of Mr. Walt Disney, Peter Jennings, and a host of respectable media. You are no better than the sleazy tabloid magazines and television shows; willing to do anything for a buck.

Sincerely,
Proud American Citizen &
United States Marine

Posted by: emeraldfalcon | April 17, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

leichtman (assuming you are the anonymous 3:03 poster)

I am tired of your insults and outbursts and your unfounded accusations. You appear to be in need of medication, or off your meds if you have already had them prescribed.

I HAVE NOT been posting in your name, but only in my own. Please take your paranoia and go make some phone calls or knock on some doors for your precious candidate, and stop threatening Obama supporters on behalf of 13,000,000 people for whom you manifestly do not speak.

Your "take-my-marbles-and-go-home" philosophy is destructive, divisive, and decidedly unpatriotic -- even though I am sure you wear a flag pin in your lapel.

Posted by: jac13 | April 17, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Tralala, the difference is that Clinton is obnoxious and unlikeable, and seems to deserve anything she gets. Obama, by contrast, seems like a nice guy.


Posted by: Whoopdedoo | April 17, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

this is true.

stephen colbert's WORD the other night pointed out the fact that as hard as hillary is trying to convince the "little people" of our country how much she cares about them, she is willing to totally mow over the popular vote that THEY cast to get the nomination.

that should illuminate her true nature to all.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 17, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Dear Hillary,
Just a short letter to congratulate you on a succesful political debate yesterday. Sorry to see that like my country of Zimbabwe the people were expecting an unbiased debate with neutral hosts. What do they think we are - Stupid or something.
Regarding the forthcoming actual vote - Do you need me to send my football team along to quell the student body and help people to the poll? Would burning a few acres of crops, a house or two - you know, the usual rape and pillage of a village can do wonders for voters to see the light.
Regarding the actual congress in the coming months. Unfortunately my followers do not wear shoes ! Do you feel they will stand out in the crowd when they are required to assist the superdelegates? Perhaps a dark brown carpet would be best.
Congratulations and best wishes
Robert Mugabe

Posted by: presidentelect RG | April 17, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

stop changing the f*cking subject, moron.

Posted by: drindl | April 17, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, proud, I thought you said any republican who committed a crime would quit?

Guess not. Anyway -- at least he's doing his job.

Point is -- even republicans are getting tired of screwing americans--maybe a little worried about losing their seats, too, as well they should. I'm sure folks back home give 'em a hard time.

Americans don't like to see our money being flushed down the toilet like it's being done in Iraq.

Posted by: drindl | April 17, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Obama, After Saying He Won't Wear a Flag Pin, Says He Never Said He Wouldn't Wear One

Obama, last night: "I have never said that I don't wear flag pins or refuse to wear flag pins."

Obama, October 4, 2007:

"You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin," Obama said. "Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest."

"Instead," he said, "I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism."

Come on, man.

Obama's defenders are jumping up and down and screaming that the questions were unfair. But the "ordinary citizen" questioner asked a simple, pretty straightforward one:

NASH MCCABE (Latrobe, Pennsylvania): (From videotape.) Senator Obama, I have a question, and I want to know if you believe in the American flag. I am not questioning your patriotism, but all our servicemen, policemen and EMS wear the flag. I want to know why you don't.

If you can't answer that question without... well, either lying, or forgetting what your originally said about wearing a flag pin, then don't run for President.


http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/

Yeah, Obama's not going to wear a flag pin because it's a substitute for true patriotism, the kind of true patriotism he has shown over the years, like going to a black separationist church for 2 decades, or being friends with terrorists who plot bombings against the US Army like Ayers. The real kind.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 17, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

So last night.. Obama gets a couple questions on unpleasant topics -- do you understand why your San Francisco comment bothered some Pennsylvanians? Why did you ask Jeremiah Wright to not play a role in your campaign kickoff? Why don't you wear a flag pin? Can you explain your relationship with William Ayers? -- and his supporters go apoplectic, some even screaming Obama should retaliate against ABC as President. And his campaign whines that it's "gotcha politics and distractions."

Hey, welcome to the big leagues, rookie. You're gonna get some questions you're not going to like. Not everybody gets to have their main opponent's bid implode when their divorce records are unsealed and compete against Alan Keyes in a general election.

Seriously, if Barack Obama can't handle questions like this from Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopolous, maybe the portrait of the cracking-under-pressure whiner depicted in the Saturday Night Live sketch isn't as wild an exaggeration as we thought.

Posted by: http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/ | April 17, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

"I'm going to have a very hard time, very very hard, very hard and nuaghty, very hard, naughty and nasty, and difficult time going home and telling the people of Idaho that we're going to spend their money while Iraqi money is drawing interest in some bank somewhere in the world," said Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 17, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

This is f-ing priceless; drindl quoting Larry Craig. LMFAO!!!

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 17, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

'not drindl' is of course zouk, who has such an enormous obssession with me. It's not surprising he has to rely on someone he will never meet [thank god] to vent the emptiness, frustration and utter pointlessness of his pathetic existence, but I truly pity him.

Well, this war is going by badly and so expensively -- even republicans are starting to wake up. I guess it must be a little hard to defend to folks back home when people here can't pay for their kid's education or health care or retirement, yet we can spend yet another $108 BILLION on 'reconstruction' for a country dripping with oil riches --- billions and billions -- whose leaders are simply putting into their pockets.

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House defended its $108 billion request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on Wednesday, only to be upbraided by senators in both parties for taking a hard line against efforts to add money for domestic programs.
At a sometimes combative Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, White House budget director Jim Nussle chided lawmakers for a "sky-is-the-limit mind-set" regarding "the desire of some in Congress to load up this troop funding bill with tens of billions in additional spending."
Democrats and Republicans alike questioned why U.S. taxpayers should provide an additional $2.9 billion for reconstruction efforts in Iraq at the same time the Iraqi government's coffers are overflowing with revenues because of record oil prices.

"Here is a country that's making billions of dollars at our expense and yet we pay for their reconstruction," said Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii.

"I'm going to have a very difficult time going home and telling the people of Idaho that we're going to spend their money while Iraqi money is drawing interest in some bank somewhere in the world," said Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho.

Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., noted reports of rampant waste and corruption in Iraqi government ministries and suggested that the Iraqi government match any U.S. reconstruction funds provided in the upcoming war funding bill.

"The Iraqi government has been grotesquely irresponsible with the money we've given them," Gregg said.'


Posted by: drindl | April 17, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

bonjedi, jac13 and the juveniles here posting my name with racists comments tell me a lot of the type of people supporting Sen Obama and why those tactics will likely push me and millions of HC supporters to support John McCain. And don't dare come whining to the 13 million HC supporters who you you have insulted, abused and spit on for months and ask them to Sen Obama's support if he still becomes the nominee. Your campaign's tactics are disgusting and divisive; good luck with that strategy in Nov.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 17, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

LMAO< if you question Obama it's an "UNFAIR DEBATE"

all must kowtow before the great Obama!
He must not be asked questions!

bend and behold our great savior , Obama!

(but it's perfectly fair in the previous 20 debates to go after Clinton in the exact same way. )

Posted by: tralala | April 17, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

"a campaign that imploded this past week when finally after 15 months was scrutinized and confronted."

The Clinton campaign? You must mean that, because Obama is kicking the snot out of Hill all across the country.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 17, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

"I have seen our caucus goes spit on, received bogus robo calls telling them not to show up, I have had Obama thugs trespass onto my front yard rip up my HC sign and replace it with an Obama sign, we have been called old, evil, shriveled up and worse here and yet we are constantly lectured by your side how mature and above politics your campaign is by dredging up totally irrelevant 13 year old stories are. "

WAAAAAAH! If you are a lawyer, you should know about unclean hands. You have posted nothing but the rottenest campaign drivel, selectively choosing and emphasizing info out of context while ignoring forthright and reasonable demands from supporters of all stripes to justify the lying, chicanery, and dirty tricks of the Clinton campaign. Why don't you explain why you should get a pass on the garbage you have manufactured, and why we should listen to your crying when people call you on it?

The only reason Obama people pay attention to the Clinton campaign and its remaining deadenders is for the inevitable meltdowns and tantrums coming our way. This recent one of yours I'm sure will be the first of many.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 17, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

This is what we should see on Sunday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SsMTK7IFkw

Posted by: JDS | April 17, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

your 'comments' are desperate and pathetic. You are a lawyer, so what, that somehow makes everything that you say or repeat from the mouth of David Axelrod as valid? I saw the 13 year old story on your candidate's web site and every Obama blog site today so don't act like you are being cute or for that matter original we know its the story de jour from a campaign that imploded this past week when finally after 15 months was scrutinized and confronted.
Obama supporters some how have convinced themselves that their moniacal support makes them and their comments superior.

I made perfectly legitimate points to your post and you respond oh that is personal. Is it personal to say you are parrotting David Axelrod's talking points. Is it personal to say that story is 13 years old and is the oldest tactic of any knoweldgable trial attorney. Using misdirection arguments and rabbit trails to divert the attention from your own candidates' absolutely irresponsible statement. In any sane Presidential campaign those kinds of remarks, especially the truly reprehensable comment "they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them" would have driven your candidate out of the campaign. Do you now agree with the sentiment that economic bitterness causes antipathy towards people who aren't like them?
And yesterday one of the Obama supporters posted that the SEIU, while they thought that was a cool campaign stunt, their behavior did not comport with the sentiment that Sen Obama practices the politics as usual(from one of your Obama supporters).
I have seen our caucus goes spit on, received bogus robo calls telling them not to show up, I have had Obama thugs trespass onto my front yard rip up my HC sign and replace it with an Obama sign, we have been called old, evil, shriveled up and worse here and yet we are constantly lectured by your side how mature and above politics your campaign is by dredging up totally irrelevant 13 year old stories are. Hypocrisy/Duplicity/Misdirection.
And the final childish tactic is to type ugly racist comments here and sign in Clinton supporters names to intimidate and slander the supporter(that has been done repeatedly, hopefully not by an Obama supporter). And this all in the name of not practicing politics as usual. Bunk.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 17, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

I think that ABC is responsible for that disaster of a debate, and I actually think it was so bad that the rest of the media will treat Obama with kid gloves for a few days out of sheer sympathy for the muckraking gotcha questions they hurled his way. He took it in stride though, and came off seeming respectably above the fray of Gibson and Stephenopolis, not to mention Hillary. In fact, Hillary probably thought she had a good night, but I'd guess that her negatives go up another 2-5 points on last night's performance alone.

Posted by: TrevInVA | April 17, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

The debate was a travesty, I refuse to watch any major network anymore, internet all the way. I honestly dont know WHO would want to watch that mess.

Posted by: Francesca | April 17, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Chris,
I'm a fellow Hoya and love reading your column...but I really want to see something on how absolutely pathetic this debate was.

Flag pins?
Charlie Gibson not having enough money to buy his 3rd house?

this is what we are supposed to elect the leader of the free world on?

What a joke...call it like it is Chris, you know you're better than that

Posted by: Anonymous | April 17, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

It really was amazing how the attack questions were so heavily slanted towards Obama. It was so over the top I think most of the public was even turned off by it. Of course the Clinton camp is spinning it positively, they just got to sit back and let the media do their kneecapping for them.

I can't say I was surprised at George coming out like he did; it just reinforces the fact that he feels a strong allegiance to the Clintons from his year with them at the WH. But Charlie Gibson, wow I expected a LOT better out of him. Was disgraceful.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 17, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Amen to Angela's comments above, not the sexist knuckle-dragging dinosaur

Posted by: knuckle draggers are so dull | April 17, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Amen & Ditto to your comments above.

Also: "Obama is NOT ready to be president" above

Posted by: You go Angela! | April 17, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

all liberal presidents need an angry dish-throwing spouse to keep them in line.

Posted by: not drindl | April 17, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Obama better kiss the ground Clinton walks on for giving him this chance to learn a smidgen of what the real politics of the right wing smear media is going to be like if he's the nominee -- he has glided through marshmallow kiss-up treatment by the corporate controlled medai and Hillary haters of MSNBC, CNN, etc up until very recently --

He really ought to be vice president and develop for 8 years -- THEN he will be ready from day one -- something Clinton really is ready for from day one. Perfect? No, but ....

No matter what: there must NOT be a republican elected in November or we're in for the misery the current administration and those who supported it actually deserve but which everyone else will suffer.

Posted by: Obama is NOT ready to be president | April 17, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

leichtman (if it was you and not someone posting in your name) -

I am not "desperate" or "pathetic." (And, for the 1,000th time, I could really do without the personal attacks. You seem to be a reasonably smart, informed individual and, I gather from Mark, a fellow member of the bar. I'm sure you can make your points just fine without the invective.)

Although 13 years old, the quote is relevant because it proves that, for all of HRC's recent pious talk of elitism and condescension, she is a crass politician who has exhibited some elitist, dismissive talk of her own.

Posted by: jac13 | April 17, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

It is amazing, the last 20 debates were biased against Hillary Clinton and everyone was happy, last night ABC asked some tough questions of Obama and he failed to answer them, he has no idea on policy and he just got angrier what is he going to be like negotiating with world leaders is he going to stamp his feet when he doesn't get his own way. He has no experience, he xeroxs Hillarys policy ideas and most subjects he has no opinion.Obama only tells you what you want to hear, I have heard plenty of , sexist and insulting comments he has said about Hillary Clinton but you all act as if he is the Messiah. Wake up

Posted by: Angela | April 17, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

not drindl, Thanks for the laugh....Ferrigno knocks it out of the park again!

Michelle Obama is one angry woman, no? Caught her on the morning shows earlier this week, and she is sounding more angry all the time. Imagine her reaction last night. he he

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 17, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

A shameful mugging of Obama by a former Clinton aid and the moronic Charlie Gibson.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 17, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

http://www.votenic.com

Check Out The Results!

Only 28 Weeks Left Until The Election!

Posted by: votenic | April 17, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Gibson as usual performed like C grade journalist.

I was very much disappointed with Obama performance last night. He had so many days to prepare and put it rest about his small town "BITTER" comments. He just did not deliver it. Question is still open for many voters.

Obama is just killing time to get the democratic nomination over Clinton. Obama looked very tired and vulnerable last night. Definitely, not his finest hour!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 17, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

bonjedi there is a childish poster typing my name into their posts. I presume/hope it is not coming from your campaign. Oh I so miss your daily insults;they must certainly make you superior.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 17, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

so stupid racist, you have now concluded that every Hispanic in this country is illegal? how enlightened you and your friend Rush are. If the customer service company is marketing into Hispanic neighborhoods that would make good business sense something you always brag your side knows so much about. Actually most of the customer service numbers I have called into at Dell and Hp, announce I am Ms. Smith In Bangalore, tell W thanks for shipping our customer service jobs from Austin Texas to Bangalore.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 17, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

and there was Barry ... the president grinning away while he clapped his hands, and Michelle, as usual, looking like she wanted to slap somebody, anybody.

Nothing on the tube but those two, and nothing on radio but Air America from sea to shining sea, the bad-news-and-it's-your-fault radio network. Some girl in Salt Lake fell and skinned her knee, the American people and their past leaders had failed her, past leaders meaning him, Willie Boy, Elvis, the Big Him. Like he should have installed marshmallow sidewalks or given away bubble wrap pants. He absently rubbed the I'm Sorry button in his lapel. Well, he might be wearing the button, but he wasn't sorry....

Besides, the party needed somebody to reach out to regular folks, somebody who could talk the talk, because Barry sure couldn't do it. Man ate fried chicken with a napkin wrapped abound the leg so he didn't get grease on his fingers. He had seen him do it. President Daintyfingers and Princess Ticked-Off. They had barely beaten John McCain. This time . . .

Not that his job as Heartland Ambassador didn't carry some risks. He patted his ample belly. Getting pretty jowly too. He had put on over 30 pounds since his appointment. Seems like every group he talked to served nothing but barbeque, mashed potatoes, and peach cobbler -- his three favorite food groups. His cholesterol spiked higher every day, while the president and First Lady stayed sleek as minks, never missing a chance to flaunt themselves at the "Fat is More Dangerous than Terrorism" rallies that Nancy Pelosi organized. Which, as White House press secretary Chris Mathews put it, effectively made Bill the new Osama bin Laden. Ha ha.

No justice. Hillary was a New York senator for life, and last week he was asked to show I.D. before they'd cash his check at the Baskin Robbins in Martha's Vineyard. Meanwhile, George W., a.k.a., the luckiest man alive, lounged around his oceanfront hacienda in Mexico, fished for marlin, and blasted around the blue Pacific in his speedboat. Nights, he and Laura, who still looked hot hot hot, watched his baseball team, the Monterey Reconquistas. No problemo for that hombre. George W.'s biggest concern was that Dan Rather was going to go off his meds again, coming ashore in a wetsuit and flippers, holding a conch shell aloft and screaming he had finally found the evidence. If the facts don't fit, you must acquit, Danno.

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MmMwZjk2NWIyZjE3MTFiZjg0ZjAxYmY2NWU4Njk3ZWE=


Posted by: the future revealed | April 17, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

I don't routinely listen to Rush, but thanks for the update, poser.

After watching your candidate wither last night, I can see why you are desperate to change the subject.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 17, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

"I didn't hear you whoop and holler last week when HC picked up 3 new superdelegates."

Because I am preoccupied whooping and hollering over the seven supers Obama has grabbed in the last week. Oooh snap!

And cut the gutless anonymous posting, leichtman. We know it's you.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 17, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

I heard on Rush today that many telephone customer service centers begin the process by asking the caller to press one (or "markay oono") for Spanish, and two for English.

Why isn't English the first one? What more proof do you stupid libs need to demonstrate the illegal alien invasion?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 17, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

incidentally I didn't hear you whoop and holler last week when HC picked up 3 new superdelegates.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 17, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

2,024 bonjedi that is the only number that counts. Incidentally I have preserved your Pa prediction of a massive Obama blowout in Pa. would you like to amend that after last night or are you still Clinging to the delusion that Obama's performance last night guaranteed a big win for him in Pa? To the Obama lunatic fringe.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 17, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

I've been looking for like-minded Republicans. My IQ is 58. I see I have come to the right place. Praise Jeebus!

Posted by: Dummy McDummington | April 17, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

LA Times - "For those of you keeping score (leichtman, vammap, svreader, and the rest of the lunatic fringe), Barack Obama has now moved past Hillary Clinton in terms of announced support from elected superdelegates (governors, senators and representatives).

He picked up three more on Wednesday."


Posted by: bondjedi | April 17, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.'' Mr. Ayers, who spent the 1970's as a fugitive, was sitting in the kitchen of his big turn-of-the-19th-century stone house in the Hyde Park district of Chicago...the same one where he hosted a politcal fundraiser for Obama...

So, would Mr. Ayers do it all again, he is asked? ''I don't want to discount the possibility,'' he said.

What Ayers does not mention is that the bomb that killed his friends was an antipersonnel bomb meant for an army dance at Fort Dix in New Jersey.

Had it exploded at its chosen target, thousands of soldiers and their dates would have been killed. "Terrorists destroy randomly," he writes, "while our actions bore...the precise stamp of a cut diamond. Terrorists intimidate, while we aimed only to educate."

Somehow, the GIs his comrades aimed to kill--or the policemen he might have murdered had a bomb he planted in a Chicago station gone off--do not count. And the GIs' dates, and the civilians working at the police station, also do not count. Their deaths would simply have been a way of educating people--as Bill Ayers continues to educate them at the University of Illinois, Chicago.


Does Obama really think that Ayers is just like his Senate colleague, Tom Coburn?

That is the height of audacity. Obama is willing to throw everybody and anybody under the bus on his quest for greatness.


Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 17, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

hey, TMo - how long did it take you to think through that deep thought and come up calling chris a "tool"?

chris, keep on doing what you're doing. amazing how many folks will catigate you for having your own opinion and throwing it out there to spark conversation. on the other hand, maybe writers like TMo could take over for you and provide their own expertise to the uninformed; i'm sure the column would be sooo much better since that individual clearly knows so much more than anyone else, but can't be bothered to add anything of depth. i myself feel much more educated now that you've been labeled a "tool" and will be now be looking for someone lie TMo to tell me what to think.

Posted by: shabbycynic | April 17, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

A debate? I couldn't believe what I was hearing. ABC should have gone with R.Limbaugh and Chris Wallace as the moderators. And Charlie G. and George S. should have their "reporter Licences" removed for conducting such a petty and vindictive assault on Barama. Thank you corporate America.

Posted by: gerry | April 17, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Obama just needs to remain focused on his talk of hope, unity and solutions for America's problems, and he will do just fine in November.

Posted by: AJ | April 17, 2008 1:27 PM

aka - no substance, no answers

Posted by: not drindl | April 17, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

The Senate has so far refrained from passing a similar resolution because at least one Senate Democrat is objecting to the following statements contained in the Senate's resolution to welcome the Pope:

"Whereas Pope Benedict XVI has spoken approvingly of the vibrance of religious faith in the United States, a faith nourished by a constitutional commitment to religious liberty that neither attempts to strip our public spaces of religious expression nor denies the ultimate source of our rights and liberties"

"Whereas Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out for the weak and vulnerable, witnessing to the value of each and every human life;"

How dare those rotten Repups declare that every life is valued. we Dems will not have it.

Posted by: god is great | April 17, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

No worries my fellow Obama supporters...
Obama is just getting a taste of what the 527s groups and RNC will throw at him this November.

The first 50 minutes of this 80 minute "debate" centered on Republican talking points in a general election for Obama.

If Republicans focus on what the ABC "Debate" talking points against Obama was in a general election, Republicans will lose. Even Karl Rove has admitted it.

More and more bad news surrounding the economy just keeps coming out, and has no one notice that Iraqi violence is surging upward!

Obama just needs to remain focused on his talk of hope, unity and solutions for America's problems, and he will do just fine in November.

Posted by: AJ | April 17, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

I think Obama's going after the press or proof texting him would be alot more believable if his Campaign wasn't actively using the same tactics against HRC.

Obama keeps saying he wants to keep things about the issues, but he can't because 95% of his and HRC's platform are the same, and most of those HRC wasn't on board for firs.

Posted by: DCDave | April 17, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Jarda1 is posting garbage that has been shown to be lies again and again.

What is the fascination with dishonesty by the right wing? Why do they feel the need to lie and distort everything?

Anyway, the debate last night was a freaking joke.

Our national political media are an effing disgrace.

Posted by: Egilsson | April 17, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

In all fairness Proud, Jimmy carter did a splendid job of bringing the US down to the culural and economic level of Gaza strip. we can expect Barack to operate in much the same fashion, except for that losing by a landslide thing that keeps happening to extreme liberals over and over.

Posted by: not drindl | April 17, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

"It's amazing how the terrorists are so keen on liberals."

Proud, why don't you take the time to work through your backlog of requests, starting with explaining away your hypocrisy when it comes to terrorists and American politicians. You didn't cry like this when Cheney was making the rounds of the terrorists' moneymen in the Middle East last month.

Your post doesn't make any sense. If terrorists were concerned with their longevity, McStupid would be their choice. He doesn't even know which country to look for al-Qaida in, unless Lieberman whispers it in his ear.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 17, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

April 16, 2008
Hamas Endorses Obama
Hamas has endorsed Barack Obama for President. Yousef said, "We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election." Why? "He has a vision to change America." Maybe Yousef has some insight into what Obama means by all these vague references to "change."

Of course, Hamas's taste in American presidents is suspect. Yousef also described Jimmy Carter, who was about to pay a call on Hamas when the interview was taped, as "this noble man" who "did an excellent job as President."

Yousef was asked about Obama's condemnation of Carter's visit with Hamas, but didn't seem troubled by it. Hamas, he says, understands American politics..


http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/04/020315.php

It's amazing how the terrorists are so keen on liberals.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 17, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

I don't know, I'm not sure what to believe anymore from either Obama or Clinton. One of them will become the nominee, after which the white-hot spotlight will burn McCain, too. All 3 candidates are flawed (hey, who isn't), but in past elections many of these flaws wouldn't have been exposed in time. So is a 2-year presidential campaign too long? Or is it just the right amount of time to expose candidates' flaws?

Posted by: dognabbit | April 17, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Erin Burnette just said on CNBC that she wants zero taxes on corporations. That pretty much summarizes GOP talking points, zero taxes, zero public services.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 17, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

The spin wars are a vital exercise by the opposing camps in trying to influence the media's and the public's perception of who actually won a debate.


Fix Thanks for the update, was there an Obama conference call that you were in on. Or are you still auditioning for a job with Wolfson?

Posted by: Huh | April 17, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

blah, blah, blah... ...blah, blah, blah ....blah, blah, blah...both, call Republican's closet queens, be sure and use homosexuality in the most degrodatory sense possible...then, turn around and call anyone criticisning homosexuality a bigot. To paraphrase Shakespeare "out, out brief candle, life is but a poor player that struts and frets its hour upon the stage...tis but a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury and, then, is heard no more.

Posted by: Fed Up! | April 17, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Spin is all that Hillary can hold on to at this point. She held her own (and nearly beat Obama) last night, but it isn't good enough. Even she couldn't say that Obama would easily fall to McCain in the fall.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: matt | April 17, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Who won the ABC Democratic Debate in Philadelphia Pennsylvania?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=2137

.

Posted by: Frank, Austin | April 17, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Reruns of "Three's Company" had more relavence to today's society than what ever that was that happened last night.

I don't understand this statement about the Rebubs and November?!!?!? JM can't put two sentences together w/o the use of a teleprompter. Under what format are the "republicans" going to be in to "...look, see, I have my pin on, where is his?..."

What candidates are "hit with" in November stem from 527s, not one on one debates. Any person can only respond to what is asked of them. Hence, that makes the moderators the hit man/woman in that equation. That's what they both looked like last night. Dare I say, uppity, elitist, hit men.

News/journalism, across the board is so far off base IMO. I understood the job was to report what happened...not to report how I am supposed to react to what happened.

I have a working brain thank you. I'd like to feel I have the right to use it.

Posted by: Allen | April 17, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

the intellect of the left on display today. Potty jokes just never go out of style in thier world.

can you believe this is a full grown adult?

Posted by: not drindl | April 17, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

See what I mean, the media is laughing:

"Republican Sen. John McCain has pulled even with rival Democratic White House hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama by attracting a diverse crop of voters, an Associated Press-Yahoo News poll found.
McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, has attracted disgruntled Republican voters, independents and even some moderate Democrats, the poll, released Thursday, found. Five months ago, the poll showed that voters would have preferred sending an unnamed Democrat over a Republican to the White House by 13 percentage points.
Meanwhile, another poll shows McCain, R-Ariz., leading both Obama and Clinton. In the latest Rasmussen Reports daily presidential tracking poll, the Arizona senator is ahead of Obama 47% to 43%. Matched up with Clinton, McCain leads her 49% to 41%."

Posted by: annonymouse | April 17, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

The latest on the economy from the addlebrained McCain:

"Today on MSNBC, McCain was asked if he is understating the costs of his tax cuts. "Independent experts say your tax cuts would cost at least $100 billion more than you say and that the savings would not materialize," Andrea Mitchell said. McCain retorted:

I disagree. I disagree with the experts. I disagree. I disagree. I disagree with the experts. I have experts of my own. I have many experts of my own who say that this will stimulate the economy, will create jobs, and increase revenues over time.


The man is bonkers.

Posted by: Spectator2 | April 17, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Democrats wonder why they lose elections.

I agree with proudtobeGOP at April 17, 2008 12:08 PM in almost every respect, but consider the following.

How did Democrats let Obama get this far? He's going to get buried in November.

His supporters want to talk issues--and he doesn't have any solutions excepts slogans--but he doesn't have the fundamental level of character to be a part of the discussion. Send him back to Illinois to see if they re-elect him after the Wright tapes are replayed.

Obama supporters, listen to the rest of the country. You probably number about 40%, tops. You probably can't discuss Obama with 35% to 40% of the country, so you are really trying to sway only about 20% to 25% of the country, and those people are in the middle of the country and the voting spectrum. And I'm telling you, because I'm one of them, I can't get past Jeremiah Wright and I can't get past those disgraceful comments in San Fran.

After Wright was revealed, Obama came out with three different and waffling versions about what he supposedly knew. From there, I feel comfortable feeling that he took the political advice to lie. I'm not convicting him of a crime, so I don't have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Wright's influence is so alarming that the onus is on Obama to come clean.

I disagree with proudtobeGOP regarding the race speech. So what? He can speak well of a teleprompter. With his back to the wall, all he did was pull a rhetorical sleight of hand and change the subject from Wright
and his view to race. Obama supporters swooned, "Ah, that's what it's all about...race." HORSE HOCKEY. Answer the darned questions about Wright.

And the think Obama supporters don't get is that it is totally irrelevant what Obama says now. I cannot believe he was such a coward that he sat in those pews for 20 years listening to Wright, and he never once confronted Wright about the lies, hate, and anti-Semitism. That's disgraceful conduct for any public official, let alone a presidential candidate.

In the aftermath of the tapes, some black ministers have insisted that whites don't understand the black style of preaching--speaking truth to power. Well, who speaks truth to power to Wright? Obama should have. He was an intelligent, well-educated, and prominent member of that church, and he sat on his hands while his pastor infected the hearts and minds of a generation or two of congregants in that church. That's unconscionable conduct.

And why did Obama conduct himself in such a disgraceful manner? He sold his character and integrity for the political support of Wright and his congregants. I thought Obama was a different kind of politician. Heck, that's all he is, and he sold out the truth for his own career.

Explain that away Obama supporters. The fact is that you can't.

Posted by: SAM | April 17, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Not drindl, Zouk. Me! Woof woof... (hee hee)

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 17, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

run foire the hills drindl - an issue : and you know this why b/c maybe it fits into your stereotyping. And which McCain will show up in Nov and why in the world should he be believed or trusted when it comes to taxes? The one who said the Bush tax cuts were wrong and disastrous for the economy or the one who now sucks up to them and wants them made permanent? Why in the world would anyone trust McCain on taxes? His positions on taxes are mutiple choice. Which one will he select this week?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 17, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

I can't stop thinking of drindl! Even for a moment! Help me!

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 17, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

svreader, please stop teasing me. I must stay in the office and cannot come home to spank you, no matter how tempting that thought may be. I will be home at 6 as usual. Please be wearing your diaper.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 17, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Hello -- I've come to spend the whole day regaling you with rightwing propaganda! Here comes the lies! It's all I've got to do--I'm too obnoxious to get a job!

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 17, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

"A private business groups says that its index of leading economic indicators rose Thursday, reversing five months of decline."

first the war goes well, now the economy. you think God is mad at Liberals. Maybe god is bitter at Barack. why else would he keep making good things happen to america?

Posted by: god is great | April 17, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

The lapel pin question shows that the spectacle was edited by ABC Entertainment, not ABC News. Uniformed services are permitted to wear flag patches under the Flag Code of the United States; lapel pin flags fall outside provision 8j for most people.

See http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/stickin-it-to-obama/

Posted by: Mike Licht | April 17, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

"I must say, you are not reflecting your liberal candidate's universal unity and enlightenment platform very well."

Some of us are attracted to his more manly qualities, like the ease with which he will knock neo-con hacks into the historical obscurity you so richly deserve. What are you crying about, anyway - I thought that Obama supporters were effete and prissy. Can't take it, big boy? Get ready for more.

I would like to point out that you are doing a bang-up job reflecting how out of touch and morally decrepit John McBush is.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 17, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse


See The lapel pin question shows that the spectacle was edited by ABC Entertainment, not ABC News. Uniformed services are permitted to wear flag patches under the Flag Code of the United States; lapel pin flags fall outside provision 8j for most people.

Posted by: Mike Licht | April 17, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

' Why don't we just crown King McCain now?'

Don't worry, the media will. They always kill the Democrat nominee--every election. Because every media outlet is owned by just six men -- all Republicans. Democracy is an illusion.

Posted by: Geo | April 17, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

If nothing is done,(as the Lib congress is known for) and Congress takes no action, by 2011 you can expect the following tax increase:

The marginal income tax rates will increase as follows:
--35% bracket will increase to 39.6%
--33% bracket will increase to 36%
--28% bracket will increase to 31%
--25% bracket will increase to 28%
--10% and 15% brackets will condense to 15%

The capital gains rates for individuals will increase from 15% and 0% to 20% and 10%.
Dividends will no longer be taxed at the capital gains rates for individuals, thereby increasing the double taxation of dividends by as much as 62%.
The standard deduction for couples as a percentage of the standard deduction for singles will decrease from 200% to 167%--restoring the marriage penalty.
The top end of the 15% marginal income tax bracket for couples as a percentage of the top end for singles will decrease from 200% to 167%--restoring the marriage penalty.
The child tax credit will decrease from $1,000 to $500.
The "death" tax using the "stepped up" basis will return with a 55% maximum rate (including surtax) and a $1 million exemption, after years of decreasing "death" tax rates, increasing exemptions, and one year using the "carryover" basis to calculate the tax due.

Posted by: run foire the hills drindl - an issue | April 17, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

I burn for you, Zouk.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 17, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

""one more time annonymouse that was not my post. Some child apparently has come here today to intimidate everyone posting for HC and try to censor their voices. Its childish and hopefully not a strategy of Obama supporters. If it is, you are destroying the integrity of your candidate.

Leichtman, if this is your post to me, I apologize. I don't know why anyone would use someone else's ID except to show their stupidity. Hopefully it is not an Obama or Clinton supporter. These kind of posters are the ones who won't bother to vote.

Posted by: annonymouse | April 17, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

blarg both campaigns agreed to the moderators whether you liked them or not. George goes after HC almost every sunday on This Week so his questioning was not expected by HC supporters. If Axelrod didn't approve of him as a moderator then why did the Obama campaign agree to him? Were they presuming that he would give Sen Obama a pass like Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews and sing his praise like George does every sunday?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 17, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

This pecking away at Obama won't change matters. According to Rolling Stone he won the ten (?? I thought it was 11) primaries after Supertuesday by an average of 30 points. Until Clinton can show some 30-point wins she looks like a spoiler -- not a winner.

Posted by: Frank Palmer | April 17, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Here's my impression of Clinton during the debate:

"This [flag pin/Weather Underground/Rev. Wright/"bitter"] issue is incredibly important. I'm certainly above this kind of gutter politics, but I'll continue to bring these issues up, because if he can't counter my attacks now, how will he counter attacks from the Republicans in the general election that will be much worse? You're welcome, Barack."

Spare me. And many thanks to ABC and their moderators for wasting the first hour of the debate on pointless "gotcha" issues that have no effect on a single person in this country, but drag both candidates through the slime. Why don't we just crown King McCain now?

Posted by: ManUnitdFan | April 17, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

"To all you people who mock me, I have five words for you - BAA BAA BAA BAA BAA!"

bondjedi, Do you really plan on keeping up this type of discourse all the way to November? I must say, you are not reflecting your liberal candidate's universal unity and enlightenment platform very well.

Keep it up. You'll be going down in flames come fall.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 17, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

I have a question about the debate. One of the moderators was George Stephanopoulos. Considering that he was involved in Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign and worked in the Clinton White House, how can he be considered a neutral moderator?

Posted by: Blarg | April 17, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

one more time annonymouse that was not my post. Some child apparently has come here today to intimidate everyone posting for HC and try to censor their voices. Its childish and hopefully not a strategy of Obama supporters. If it is, you are destroying the integrity of your candidate.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 17, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

'' You don't even know what service to this country is, because you've never done it. ''

but... but you said serving in the military wasn't important.

don't feel sorry for me, braindead. feel sorry for yourself that you've brought ruination and unnessary death and destruction to this once great country through your blind following of a creed of greed, avarice, murder and utter stupidity.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 17, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Look at me. I am my own sock puppet.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 17, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

The 12:18 post is not mine, either. I never served in the military (but I have seen Full Metal Jacket 17 times).

To all you people who mock me, I have five words for you - BAA BAA BAA BAA BAA!

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 17, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Hey Chris, question for you:

As a DC-born politics junkie who moved to California and a business life, I'm always trying to suss the levels of distortion between

- Partisans / hill-rats / insiders
- political journalists inside the bubble
- voraciously over-informed outsiders
- Joey Bagadonuts

Right now, it's confusing:
- my buddies on the hill say it's already over
- Fix / Wolf / Politico crowd is exerting itself to talk up a very dramatic perilous cliff-edge for Obama (Blumenthal even stripped out the concept of time from a recent polls analysis)
- My buddies out here (Bay Area capitalists, go figure) see Clinton as having crossed the subtle line between aggressive and tacky/uncomfortable, but are honest about our out-of-touchness with Scranton-area ex-urbanites
- the PA polls seem to indicate a tightening race (Joey Bagadonuts?)

You can turn a phrase on occasion, how would you call these perception/distortion differences?

Posted by: Tenders | April 17, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Proud, did you really think they were going to discuss issues?

you fight the war with the Army you have. In the battle of wits, they are unarmed. On the issues, it is a 49 state landslide. best to stick with anon insults.

Posted by: not drindl | April 17, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Ann C. (above) places "NASCAR" and "God" as (equivalent?) factors determining who is and is not a "real American." To which I say "Yee-freakin'-haw."

Ann, put down the Wal-Mart bag - slowly! - and proceed to the nearest McDonald's with your hands in the air.

Guess I'm not a "real American." Coincidentally, I hear that the political, historical, and cultural literacy of "real Americans" is at Third World levels. They does love them their NASCAR and fatty foods, though.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 17, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

drindl must be very important for so many people to be so fixated on her/him.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 17, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "Last night, Obama was not able to satisfactorily explain why Florida and Michigan should not be seated. Therefore, Hillary Clinton is the winner of the Democratic nomination.

That's it. End of story."

Leichtman, you are hilarious. You base your selection on whether two states should be seated. How about the economy, gas prices, illegal immigration, (the smog in Houston) the things that really matter. Maybe Florida and Michigan are important where you come from, but not from most thinking people.

Posted by: annonymouse | April 17, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

the 12:11 post was not mine.

All you cowards out there who cannot even sign their own made-up name are pathetic. You don't even know what service to this country is, because you've never done it. You only serve yourself and nothing more. I pity you.

Sometime when you've had 22+ years in the US armed forces, come back and tell me then how much it means.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 17, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Ann Kornbluth -- one of the biggest hacks/wh*res in the business.

Journalism in America is officially dead. Rightwing propaganda rules the airwaves.

Welcome to the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

Posted by: Sam | April 17, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

This debate was easy to call. John McCain won and ABC lost. And America died a little more.

Posted by: aleks | April 17, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

NBC Deputy Political Director Mark Murray gives a post-game analysis of last night's debate and looks ahead at the approaching Pennsylvania primary.

"Where we go from here: Overall, with the spotlight on him very bright, Obama didn't step up. He got rattled early on and never picked his game back up"

Why wasn't there a followup to Sen. Obama's handwritten answers to a handgun questionaire. I will call it dissembling not a lie. Its too bad that HC didn't have a copy of that questionaire to hand to Sen Obama last night, that might have been devistating.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 17, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

and this blog was doing so well the last few days with drindl not in attendence. the ignoRANT coward is back with a vengence. what a waste of a blog and a life.

Look for all day spoofing, anononymous insults, ignorant rants and other purely leftist hate monger drindl-esque activites for the rest of the day.

Posted by: not drindl | April 17, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

"It is an article of faith with the Democrats that they must fool Americans by simulating agreement with normal people. "

Brilliant!
Welcome back Anne C! (I hope this means you're not actually voting for Hillary.)

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 17, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

That's not my 12:11 post.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 17, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

proudtobe gop is proud that so many young americans have died for nothing. but you know, marines are worthless. serving in the military means nothing.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 17, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

I will never watch ABC again either.

Posted by: Susan | April 17, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

"why did he sit there silently for 20 years? "

same reason Jimmy Carter sat there for 444 days.

Posted by: I dunno what to do???? | April 17, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

If after the last seven years in this country, you're still proudtobeGOP, not much more needs to be said.

George W. is still proud of all the disasterous blunders, er..., decisions he's made, too.

Posted by: UTMA | April 17, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Continuing to keep 140,000 American has a number of detrimental strategic effects:

- Afghanistan continues to be under-resourced. As Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has noted, "having forces in Iraq don't - at the level they are at - don't allow us to fill the need we have in Afghanistan."

- Iran's regional position continues to be enhanced. Contrary to the administration's description, Iran's best ally in Iraq isn't Muqtada al-Sadr's fickle militia, it's the American-supported Iraqi government - a government dominated by parties with extensive links to Tehran.

- American military readiness continues to erode. Outgoing Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Richard Cody recently told the Senate Armed Services Committee that "...our readiness is being consumed as fast as we build it. If unaddressed, this lack of balance poses a significant risk to the all-volunteer force and degrades the Army's ability to make a timely response to other contingencies."

- Al Qaeda continues to derive propaganda benefits from a continued American military presence in Iraq, while continuing to operate largely unmolested in its safe-haven on the Afghan-Pakistan border.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 17, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Since their respective "primaries," Hillary Clinton has not been able to satisfactorily explain why Florida and Michigan should be seated, given that THE DNC TOLD CANDIDATES NOT TO PARTICIPATE BECAUSE THE DELEGATES WOULD NOT BE SEATED. Of course, being a good Democrat, Hillary agreed, but still found a way to manufacture bogus "victories" in each state. Therefore, Hillary Clinton has shown herself to be unfit for the Democratic nomination.

That's it. End of story.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 17, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

It doesn't mean anything to serve in the military. It's nothing. I don't know why anyone bothers, because soldiers are so useless and the military is a waste of time and money.

Posted by: proudtobegop | April 17, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

What debate? This wasn't a debate! The real issues were hardly mentioned. McCain is getting a free ride to the White House and the media is loving this stuff.

I have watched ABC News for the last time.

Whether you were a Clinton or Obama backer, you were the loser last night.

Posted by: annonymouse | April 17, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

These Democrats can't even pull off attending a NASCAR race without embarrassing themselves. In August 2004, Kerry exclaimed: "Who among us does not love NASCAR?" And then, about six months ago, Democratic congressional staffers to Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., sent out a memo urging aides going to NASCAR races to get inoculated before attending.

Obama had been so careful until now, "framing" his message as "change" -- rather than partial birth abortion, driver's licenses for illegal aliens, tax hikes, socialized medicine and abandoning mandatory minimum prison sentences for federal crimes.

His message is "change" -- not that his wife has not been proud to be an American for most of her life.

He is for "change" -- and don't mind the crazy racist loon who has been Obama's spiritual mentor for two decades.

One can only hope that Obama got his shots before bowling in Altoona, Pa.

Posted by: ann C. | April 17, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

In the aftermath of last night's splendid affair, the venrable Frank Luntz was once again poised with his bevy of undecided, knobs in hand to test their reactions. Luntz asks why the group responded so negatively to the discussion of Rev. Wright. One of the guys says,


"I resent the fact that he explained Reverend Wright's patriotism by saying he was a Marine. Timothy McVeigh was in the Army. You know, that doesn't mean anything. He has yet to explain whether he not he truly was there, and what he actually thought of it for 20 years."


Exactly. Obama gave a great speech on race, or so we're told, but he never answered the fundamental question: why did he sit there silently for 20 years?

No one believes he didn't know what was going on at his own church.

No one believes he didn't think it was supposed to be a private conversation in SF between him and his rich liberal elitist kindred spirits.

No one believes he didn't use high rollers like Rezko and Ayers for every amount of political influence he could when the opportunity presented itself.

No one, except maybe Obama himself. He's getting downright Clintonian with the denial lately.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 17, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

CC,

I enjoy the Fix a lot, and respect your work. Still, I'm stunned that you haven't offered any critique or comments re the pathetic performance turned in by the ABC "debate" "moderators". Is their some kind of code of silence which restrains your from criticizing others in the media? Or did you really not see a problem with what went on last night. I thought it was pitiful. I really puzzled as to why you're just letting this go.

Posted by: UTMA | April 17, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Everything I beleive is settled.

Posted by: drindl and al gore | April 17, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

It's going to take a lot of "framing" for Democrats to recast Obama's explanation to San Francisco cafe society that gun ownership and a belief in God are the byproducts of a psychological disorder brought on by economic hardship.

It is an article of faith with the Democrats that they must fool Americans by simulating agreement with normal people. The winner of the Democratic primary is always the candidate who does the best impersonation of an American.

But then, after all their hard work making believe they're into NASCAR and God, some Democrat invariably slips and lets us know it's all a big fake-out. They're like a gay guy trying to act straight who accidentally refers to Brad Pitt as "yummy!"

Posted by: Ann C. | April 17, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Continuing to keep 140,000 American has a number of detrimental strategic effects:

- Afghanistan continues to be under-resourced. As Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has noted, "having forces in Iraq don't - at the level they are at - don't allow us to fill the need we have in Afghanistan."

- Iran's regional position continues to be enhanced. Contrary to the administration's description, Iran's best ally in Iraq isn't Muqtada al-Sadr's fickle militia, it's the American-supported Iraqi government - a government dominated by parties with extensive links to Tehran.

- American military readiness continues to erode. Outgoing Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Richard Cody recently told the Senate Armed Services Committee that "...our readiness is being consumed as fast as we build it. If unaddressed, this lack of balance poses a significant risk to the all-volunteer force and degrades the Army's ability to make a timely response to other contingencies."

- Al Qaeda continues to derive propaganda benefits from a continued American military presence in Iraq, while continuing to operate largely unmolested in its safe-haven on the Afghan-Pakistan border.

Posted by: just plain dangerous | April 17, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

please tell hillary to stick a sock in it and go home!

Posted by: jmh | April 17, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

jac13 some child is posting under my name. What a useless creep.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 17, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse


For the last five-plus years, America's foreign policy and national security strategy have been subordinated to a fixation on the tactical problems in Iraq. Pressing strategic problems - the unfinished war in Afghanistan, North Korea's nuclear program, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and others - have been given inadequate resources, inadequate attention, or both. The U.S. Army is suffering unprecedented strain on its personnel and equipment.

Despite these grave and growing strategic problems, war supporters continue to advocate a tactical argument for an open-ended military commitment to Iraq under the misleading label of "strategic patience."

In fact, there is nothing strategically wise about maintaining an indefinite military presence in Iraq in the hopes that Iraq's major political problems will somehow magically be solved. As has been seen in Basra, Iraqis remain all too willing to settle their internal political disputes through violence. Rather, maintaining "strategic patience" in Iraq will lead to a strategic blunder of great proportions.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 17, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

In Milwaukee yesterday morning, McCain campaign advisor Carly Fiorina described how -- as the former CEO of Hewlett Packard -- she parked profits overseas even though it negatively impacted the U.S. economy.

American corporations can postpone U.S. taxes on foreign profits indefinitely by keeping profits overseas. Since U.S. taxes are effectively voluntary, it's not surprising that few corporations choose to pay them.

While Fiorina was leading HP, the company aggressively exploited offshore tax planning. The company held more than $14 billion overseas in 2004, according to the Washington Post, reducing its tax rate from 35 percent to 12 percent. At the time, Fiorina was a prominent defender of the offshoring of American jobs -- or, as she called it, "right-shoring."

Now she is advising Sen. John McCain, who has refused to support the elimination of incentives to invest overseas. He even voted against an amendment to require companies to pay taxes on money they earn from foreign-made products sold in the U.S.

The bottom line: While proposing $175 billion in corporate tax cuts, McCain would continue to allow CEOs invest overseas, rather than at home. The result is lower wages and a higher share of the tax burden for American workers.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 17, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

jac13 you sound awfully desperate today regurgitating a 13 year old quote fed to you directly from David Axelrod. Is that supposed to direct our attention from something said by your candidate 10 days ago? How pathetic again from the campaign that claims they are above politics as usual.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 17, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

This document provides insight into how Saddam operated his regime and his ties to terrorism.'

more BS and fiction from war cheerleaders.

yes-- there are 'documents' and then there's this transmission you get though your fillings and tinfoil hat.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 17, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

leichtman -

You cannot be serious. Was he even asked? (I did not see it all.)

Posted by: jac13 | April 17, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Chris - Best cheesesteaks can be found on Broad Street at Tony Luke's. The classic is amazing, but the Broccoli Rabe cheesesteak is to die for. Jim's on Fourth and South also do a good job. Remember, Pat's and Geno's are tourist traps.

Posted by: Jeff | April 17, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Saddam and al-Qaeda
By Debra Baker
Claims that there were no links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda are wrong. Documents just released by the Pentagon prove it.


In March 2008, the Pentagon released a document that details some of the classified documents from Saddam's regime. This document called the Iraqi Perspectives Project Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents Volume 1 (Redacted) is an overview of "more than 600,000 original captured documents and several thousand hours of audio and video footage archived in a US Department of Defense (DOD) database. As of August 2006, only 15 percent of the captured documents have English translations."[1] This document provides insight into how Saddam operated his regime and his ties to terrorism.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/saddam_and_alqaeda_1.html

Posted by: drindl's facts are fiction - as usual | April 17, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Last night, Obama was not able to satisfactorily explain why Florida and Michigan should not be seated. Therefore, Hillary Clinton is the winner of the Democratic nomination.

That's it. End of story.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 17, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

The flag lapel-pin question was absolutely ridiculous. If only true patriotism was as easy as wearing a pin.

Posted by: PhilD | April 17, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Chris,

Try Jim's Steaks on South Street - doesn't get the attention of "the big two," but very good & nice place.

Posted by: bc | April 17, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

I was outraged and shocked at the smear fest on Obama. I tried to turn to my bible for solace, but it left me bitter and resentful. then I got my trusty revolver out from under my pillow, but no confort there either. finally I was left to throwing empty beer bottles at the illegal immigrants down at the 7-11. If only Obama could get elected and then the government could fix everything in my life.

Posted by: woe is me - sad and bitter | April 17, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Why aren't we hearing anything about Hillary's documented statement to Bill about Southern white voters, "Screw 'em. They haven't done anything for you and you don't owe them anything"?

Posted by: jac13 | April 17, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Obama "came under withering attack" for his "refusal to wear a flag lapel".

That says it all about the sorry state of America today.

Wave the flag while you tear up the Constitution!

Our own (British) Samuel Johnson said that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Guess he saw Hillary coming from three centuries off.

A sad parody of a once-great country.

Posted by: OD | April 17, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Chris... I used to respect you. If you leave this atrocity unturned, you are just another tool and you will lose many intelligent readers. Take a note from Tom Shales.

Posted by: TMo | April 17, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Well when you read all about HRC scandals you have to admit that media are so nice to her because nothing is mentioned anywhere, nobody is asking about all of it ...mainly that they are all asking about Obama's flag pin...

Posted by: Jarda1 | April 17, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Ad how about Peter Paul?
The Nemesis Who Won't Go Away
Increasingly, Hillary and company have projected onto Republicans the "the culture of corruption" mantra and, onto President Bush, the "I" word - impeachment. This is to deflect attention away from Hillary's latest scandal, one in which she will undoubtedly deny everything to escape accountability or even criminal indictment.

In short, Hillary's current nemesis, Peter Paul - the largest single campaign contributor to her 2000 Senatorial campaign - has filed a suit against her and President Clinton - among many others.

According to Mr. Paul, the suit is "for committing a series of business frauds against me that involved me spending more than $1.2 million for Hillary's Senate campaign; having a Clinton front man go into business with my Japanese investor partner, causing the collapse of my public company; and filing fraudulent reports to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in the amount of nearly three-quarters-of-a-million dollars."

Today, all of the many codefendants in the case - except Hillary - have exhausted their appeals and are now poised for discovery and trial, the schedule for which will be set by the court after a hearing on Hillary's anti-SLAPP motion in Los Angeles in March.

NOTE: SLAPP suits, or Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, are recognized in California as lawsuits that are brought against individuals, corporations or organizations in an attempt to silence defendants who speak out on matters of public concern. An anti-SLAPP motion seeks to strike all claims against a defendant - in this case, Hillary herself!

Initially, Hillary's anti-SLAPP motion appeal was denied by both trial and appellate courts but then sent back to the trial court to clarify a discrepancy. But on February 3, 2006, the judge changed his original ruling. He ignored the tardiness of Hillary's original filing and agreed to allow her to argue that her 1st Amendment rights (to conduct her senatorial campaign) included her own and her husband's right to defraud her largest contributor. This action will allow Mr. Paul's lawyers to depose Hillary. [Read more about this case in Part II of this series].

As the disposition of Hillary's appeal approaches, the Clintons, their lawyers and spinners, as well as their echo chamber in what used to be the "mainstream" media - but is now known as the Old Media and even the Antique Media - are using all of their formidable resources to make sure that Hillary dodges yet another scandal.

Sound familiar? This is exactly what the leftwing media did when they tried to smear Paula Jones when she accused the Philander-in-Chief of sexual harassment. What they didn't count on, however, was that Mrs. Jones had the truth on her side and believed so fervently that justice would be served that she refused to knuckle under to their unceasing assaults.

Today, Peter Paul (http://www.hillcap.org) also refuses to be intimidated by the Clinton machine and is equally assured that justice will out. He has become yet another Clinton nemesis who won't go away.

Posted by: Jarda1 | April 17, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Senator Obama, How do you respond to reports that you like to eat your scrambled eggs with ketchup? What do you think that says to the voting public and specifically to superdelegates?

Senator Obama, you once shook hands with a man who had $274 in unpaid parking tickets. Can you explain your association with him?

Senator Obama, we had an intern trailing you in the bathroom and he said that you only washed your hands for 27 seconds, instead of the recommended 60 seconds. What do you think that say about your qualifications to be commander in chief?

Posted by: Rob, Indianapolis | April 17, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Or may be she finds time to explain this other scandals???
Hillary's...Um...Character
Throughout her scandal-contaminated eight years in the White House, Hillary - having refined her skills in deflection, dissimulation and denial - became comfortably entrenched in her self-created briar patch. With increasing audacity and a confidence borne of "beating the system," she also displayed behavior that didn't quite rise to the level of scandal but certainly occupied other, rather lowly, categories:

Megalomania: Hillary refused to acknowledge - publicly or in print - the woman who in essence wrote her 1996 book, "It Takes a Village."

Lying: Hillary gave false testimony about her co-defendant Ira Magaziner, who helped her conduct secret meetings about her failed plan to socialize U.S. medicine.

Obstruction of Justice: the "smartest woman in the world" couldn't remember where she placed the Rose law firm billing records that were subpoenaed in 1994, until they magically reappeared two years later in the White House library.

Tastelessness: In 1999, after the wife of terrorist Yasir Arafat told the co-president that Israel was deliberately poisoning Palestinians, Hillary saw fit to embrace her. And that is not to omit what Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Michael Goodwin called her "rancid race baiting" remarks at a recent Martin Luther King Jr. celebration about Republicans running "the House" like a "plantation." Significantly, she omitted mention of the holiday that Arkansans celebrated during her years in the state house that honored Dr. King while at the same time honoring Robert E. Lee, the Confederate general who fought to allow the South to keep blacks enslaved.

Selective Amnesia: In her 2004 book, "Living History," Hillary strangely omitted mention of her own and her husband's key associates, men with whom she took numerous photographs and who donated millions of dollars to her husband's campaigns, going back to their Arkansas days. These include - among dozens of other shady characters and outright criminals - Moctar Riady, the Indonesian billionaire owner of the Lippo banking company (the partner of which is the Chinese communist government and reputedly a front for Chinese espionage), and his son James, who eventually pleaded guilty to campaign violations.

Contempt for Women: The world got its first glimpse of Hillary's shabby character when she was co-running for the co-presidency in 1992 and - with what turned out to be supreme irony - told Steve Kroft on "60 Minutes" that she "wouldn't be some 'stand by your man' woman like [country-music icon] Tammy Wynette."

Her low regard for women continued through the 1990s as the White House went after many but certainly not all of the president's women - Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and Elizabeth Ward Gracen - by auditing their tax returns, and, in 1997, leaking Paula Jones' confidential tax returns to the press.

According to Candace E. Jackson in her book, "The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine," Hillary "was right there in the inner circle taking a lead in giving these women zero credibility, in attacking them in public and through the press and in participating in all of these scare tactics, like hiring private investigators to threaten them and follow them...[she] is either as misogynistic as her husband or she is simply willing to conspire to mistreat women if that's what it takes to preserve their political careers."

In "Hillaryland," Ryan Lizza writes in TheNewRepublicOnline, the New York senator has many Kool-Aid-drinking "crawl-across-broken-glass-for-Hillary" types [and] a "vast political empire based in Washington and New York...she has made every effort to change her image from far-left liberal by enacting legislation with Republicans...the more right-wing the co-sponsor, the better; extra points for anyone involved with her husband's impeachment."

But will her extreme makeover work? According to columnist Jonah Goldberg, Hillary's recent return of a campaign contribution from Wal-Mart, on whose board she sat from 1986 until 1992, "is a perfect illustration not merely of her hypocrisy but of the quicksand she is now in. She thinks it's a winning message to say she's too good for Wal-Mart's money but not Hollywood's. That's not exactly red-state savvy."

"The amazing thing about [Hillary]," Goldberg says, "is that she's so unappealing. Even liberals don't like what they see...at every turn, [her] Zelig-like public persona has been a fabrication - either by her fans, her enemies or herself..."

All of which may explain a recent CNN-Gallup poll in which 51 percent of respondents said they definitely would "not vote" for Hillary in a presidential race.

Indeed, according to an online conservative site, even "media liberals are starting to jump ship" on Hillary, with "one CNN veteran [Ken Bode] calling her a `certain loser,' a Newsweek scribe [Jonathan Alter] warning that she'll take Democrats on a `kamikaze' mission in 2008," and arch-leftist Maureen Dowd of the Clinton-fawning New York Times batting her away as one would an irritating gnat.

Posted by: Jarda1 | April 17, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

It seems to me that Clinton can spin all she wants it doesn't change the fact that she didn't knock Obama out tonight and she still is down by a cool 40-50 million bucks. Obama will use that huge money advantage to close the gap this week and sqeauk a win in PA.

Posted by: Andy R | April 17, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

I am just curious to read when HRC will explain this:
An Expert at Scandal
Unlike Brer Rabbit, Hillary wasn't born and bred in the world of political scandal - far from it. In fact her family were Republicans and young Hillary supported the1964 presidential bid of Barry Goldwater, the archconservative senator from Arizona. Unphased by his loss, she continued her conservative ways by becoming the president of the Wellesley College chapter of College Republicans.

But with her exposure at Wellesley to the radical leftist Saul Alinsky and her subsequent introduction to Yale Law School's draft-dodging leftist Bill Clinton, the die was cast for her hate-America's-military-intelligence-defense establishment. To the smartest woman in the world and her then-boyfriend, the path to changing what they hated was clear: Get power and hold onto it no matter what it takes!

What it took in Arkansas was first learning and then becoming a scandal expert. Within months of taking up residence in the White House, Hillary put her expertise to work.

In May 1993, the co-president was accused of having a central hand in firing several long-time employees of the White House Travel Office, the better to give the pricey travel business to her Hollywood pals, Linda Bloodworth Thomason and Harry Thomason. In true scandal-mode form, Hillary denied everything and when Whitewater Independent Counsel Robert Ray investigated Travelgate, he concluded that there was substantial evidence that involved Hillary but not enough to warrant an indictment.

A couple of months later, in July 1993, White House Deputy Counsel Vince Foster was said to have committed suicide, although the case for his murder has been made persuasively by, among others, Christopher Ruddy, in his 1993 book, "The Strange Death of Vincent Foster: An Investigation."

But the case didn't end there. In 1996, Hillary was accused by the Senate Special Whitewater Committee of ordering the removal of potentially damaging files related to Whitewater from Foster's office on the night of his death. Hillary denied everything, once again proving her adeptness in the scandal briar patch.

In June 1996, White House security head Craig Livingstone, a political operative and former bouncer, illegally obtained over 700 FBI files of mostly White House personnel from former Republican administrations. Hillary was accused of requesting the files and, in fact, hiring Mr. Livingstone, but she denied everything to yet another Independent Counsel, and Filegate became one more notch in her briar patch scandal belt.

Ultimately, her co-presidency brought about the fall of more elected and appointed members of her regime, as well as "friends" who met untimely deaths, were indicted, pleaded the fifth, fled the country, and were imprisoned, than in any administration in American history.

Posted by: Jarda1 | April 17, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

I'd rather hear from the Obama campaign today about what they make of the ambush last night, Hillary is only going to tell you how wonderful she is, despite her clear memory deficits.

Anything that doesnt kill you, makes you stronger

Posted by: nclwtk | April 17, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED, CC. THIS WASN'T A DEBATE -- IT WAS A RIGHTWING SMEAR FESTIVAL.

CALL IT WHAT IT IS--OUTRAGEOUS.

this country is rapidly sinking into serious fascism. what a gigantic pile of steaming propaganda.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 17, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company