Debate rages over the debate

Lol, after the way Campbell Brown sucked Obama's toes, and Tim Russert looked like a vicious troll ready to leap over the table at Clinton, I think it's pretty rich that Obama supporters and the Obamedia are crying over this debate. This is far from the nastiest questioning in a debate, but this time some of it was aimed at Obama for a change. The problem wasn't the debate format or questions, it was Obama's performance. If he'd handled his responses really well, y'all would be rejoicing and showering him with praise. He didn't.

For the record, I still think the flag pin crap is nonsense. And I'll concede that MAYBE because I've seen so much bias against Clinton, a little bias against Obama isn't visible to me. Either way, she's faced the firing line in these debates numerous times, and the bias was obvious - it's a little late, and lame, to be crying fowl now, and the media uproar coming to his defense just makes that more obvious.

This debate was the most fair one yet. I liked that the responses were timed, and each were given an equal amount of time. I liked that the questions were staggered, and that they "flipped a coin" to see who would go first on opening and closings. I was impressed that both were challenged with tough questions and not allowed to wiggle out of fully answering.

ABC handled this debate in a very admirable way, and I think both candidates supporters should have been satisfied with the fairness of the debate, for a change. This is how journalists should handle debates. Anyone remember journalism? Both got hit with three very tough issues, some of which have been dominating the news. Obama: Rev. Wright, his infamous "bitter" remarks, and his association with William Ayers. Clinton: Her Bosnia exaggeration, her purported statements that Obama was unelectable, and a public opinion poll about her honesty.

For his part, Obama rationalized, made excuses, stammered a lot, and declared the subjects absurd and a distraction from the issues. While Clinton apologized and ate a lot of crow for her "mistakes," describing her trip to Bosnia and got badgered into saying Obama is electable.

Their discussion of the issues wasn't anything all that new; however, Obama did stumble a bit on his position on payroll and capital gains taxes. My main observation is that Clinton was ASKED questions about her positions on Wright and Obama's bitter comments, and she responded, owning her position, while Obama hedged on the Bosnia question, admitting his "campaign" was hammering on it, "of course," yet somehow dodging personal responsibility for what his campaign is doing? That just seemed dishonest to me. If his campaign is doing it - HE is. I'd much rather see the candidates own their positions and actions, than try and appear above the fray, when their actions don't match the perception they're trying to falsely portray.

From what was seen on ABC, though lop-sided due to the failure of picking out any of Hillary's issues from a mountain of Federally and Nationally certified garbage, I saw Barak maintain dignity and grace under fire from specifically being singled out to be slapped. Hillary appeared to revell in the fact she did not receive the same treatment.
Just an observation!

Bottom line.

No one can be unfair to you unless you are ill-prepared.

Obama has not been and is not vetted. The moderators did not give the usual free pass.

Put it like this - if there was a bank robbery around the corner, and the police walked up to you and another person, held you at bay, and asked one at a time - "do you have the gun used in the robbery?" You either answer yes or no. If you answer no and you don't have it, you're clean. If you answer no and you do have it, then you have some explaining to do.

Obama has some explaining to do, but voters want to accept his answers and not check for the gun.

Was last night's debate supposed to be a joke or did it just turn out that way because of the incompetent moderators ? Charlie Gibson and George ( can't enough of those good years that I worked for the Clintons ) Stephanoupolis. How can McCain possibly lose this election. He has such a commanding grasp of economical issues . His way to fix the problem of soaring gas prices is " Let's give the people a tax holiday." I am afraid that it is John McCain who needs a holiday

you know you've hit rock bottom in debate questions when a moderator asks "who loves the country more?"

ABC and George Stephanopoulos (thankfully not the public) showed their third grade understanding of the issues last night.

George, i watched the debates last night and I was so excited to see someone finally ask Obama a real question.
Thank you for a real debate with some substance. If the media had been doing their job and trying to find out something about this unknown guy we wouldnt be in this spot today.
Thanks again for stepping up to the plate and asking things that the viewers are concerned instead of all the FLUFF we've been seeing from NBC, MSNBC, CNN.
Thanks, again, George, great job.

"Appropriate" my tush. These questions are for no one but the out-of-touch media and political elite in Washington and New York. None of the questions in the first 40-plus minutes of this debate came remotely close to helping Americans become better, more informed citizens. Absurd. It's no wonder less than 50% of Americans vote in even our most crucial elections.

I was extremely disappointed in the debate. I expected the candiates to continue in the same manner they have campaigned but I was shocked at the questions the moderators asked. Normally it is hard to get the candidates to stick to the questions asked and deal with issues. In this case the moderators could not have performed worse. The first half of the debate was ridiculous and I am sure some turned the channel thinking it an absolute waste of time. I am accustomed to this tabloid type of questioning by George Stephanopoulos but I was shocked and disappointed that Charles Gibson would participate in such a shoddy exhibition. ABC News has solidified their place at the bottom of reputable news and everyone involved should be ashamed of what they allowed to happen.

"But it got great ratings!"

Why do people keep saying that like it's good news for ABC. That means that a whole hell of a lot of people who are taking this campaign very seriously just got to see that ABC isn't.

I was so disappointed by last night’s debate. Instead of focusing on the real issues Americans are facing today, Senator Obama was asked about a FLAG PIN!

What does his wearing/not wearing of a flag pin have to do with his ability to run the country? Seriously?

I've had it with the pandering. I've had it with the media patting us on the head and pretending that they know what issues Americans really want to know about. I've had it with the media feigning shock and moral outrage over non-issues, and treating us like we are all blathering idiots who can't see exactly what they are doing. What about the economy? The housing crisis? The war?

I will still be voting for Obama in the Fall if he is the nominee. However, if he isn't, I can safely say that I will be done with politics for a long time. Not because my candidate will have lost the race, but because I don't want any part of politics as they are being played right now. Politics today have nothing to do with the issues, or what the candidates can really do for this country. It's about God-damning America, sniper fire in Bosnia, and a 100-year war. Politics are nothing more than a game of one-upsmanship, and tearing down anyone who gets in the way.

And the media is just as much to blame as the candidates who engage in these types of politics. Elections are not won by the best candidate, but by the PR firm that can get the media to help them spin non-issues into campaign-crushing issues. It happened in 2004, and it will happen again this year. In the end, it will be the candidate that comes up with the best sound bite, and is better at spinning his/her opponent's words and making them stick, that wins. It won't matter what that candidate actually believes in – just what they (and the media) made the American public believe their opponent believes in.

Bitter? I'm not just bitter. I'm bitter, I'm angry, and I'm done with this game!

I heard someone say that they believe this debate will be cited in books on the downfall of jounalism in America, as the day things hit rock bottom. I have to agree. I couldn't believe that it was really happening. If I had been watching Rush Limbaugh asking the questions I would still have been surprised at the stupidity of what was asked.

Did the candidates do well, who the heck knows. What would I say if someone asked me why I have a friend who is a racist, or cult member, or gay or whatever? I do have friends who have ideas that I strongly disagree with, but all of them are good people who have come to vastly different conclusions than me. What do you say about sort of exaggerating some incident or another? We all have "fish" stories that we have told, it is a problem if there is a pattern or an intent to seriously deceive but the lie itself is of no great significance. All of the issues brought up in this debate have been beaten beyond death.

We wanted to learn something new, something that actually would effect an anyone who was vote would have been effected by that debate was either completely out of touch with the campaign or stupid beyond hope.

What on earth is all this "indignant" reaction to ABC's debate about? Please people, we are talking about looking at hiring someone (and it is that) to do the toughest job in the world and we are afraid to ask the really tough questions that linger in the minds of many, many people? I can read about the plans of both people on their websites, ad nauseum, and I can read the opinions of those plans or things less tangible about the candidates in columns, but I want to see how these people can handle the really tough, revealing questions that show a person's character, on pointe, without a speech or teleprompter. This was a very tough, stark (no applause - love that!) debate that pushed issues we have with both candidates and those that will certainly be pushed by the Republicans. This is not a job for the faint of heart, or light of spirit, otherwise we all would be applying.

I sat thru the entire debate and tried very hard to keep an open mind. Afterall, one of these two people could be the next President. The only problem I had with the moderators was not nailing the candidates on a direct answer to a specific question, or even an indirect answer would have been nice. All in all, I think Hillary won this one. She seemed to maintain her composure (a good thing when times are tough as a President) and answer most of the questions, more so than Obama. She did loft a few bombs his way and one can argue it was personal, but I thought maybe there's another reason: maybe she really knows that if he is the nominee, that the Republicans will make mincemeat of him with his questionable ties to Rezko, Ayers, Wright, and his revealing comments behind closed doors when cameras aren't rolling and teleprompter is off. If the Republicans can destroy the character of two very good, credible men (Gore, Kerry) without much to work with, what on earth will they do to this guy? Afterall, isn't it MOST important that we elect anyone except a Republican who still thinks Sunni's and Shiites are reversed and thinks GWB's policies are "OK"?!

From here in Canada where we are pleasantly removed from the larger consideration the so-called 'debate' was indeed a travesty of responsible journalism. Edward R. Murrow would be rolling in his grave on this one and Thorstein Veblen would have had another heyday with the tripe spewed by the ABC moderators.

Shameful and trivial ... the primary contest has however certainly brought out the core attitudes of Ms. Clinton ... perhaps another decent woman at another time can be considered ... Mr. Obama is now 'damaged goods' from the actions of an egocentric former first lady and a media that seems to be rooted in a 'Banana Republic' approach to responsible journalism.

America we weep for you .... you had a chance with the youngster from Illinois but have let the worst aspects of your society deny you a saving moment in history ... Good night and Good Luck .... you will need it!

Who is the RADICAL Hard Left Liberal? Easy guess, right? That is the label that pins the tail on the Donkey. It won't be hard for Republican's to make that claim STICK. And they won't need obama to wear it on his lapel for all to see.

Will that win our presidency?

Not likely anytime soon. And for good reason it is slanted toward one side of the fence which leaves out everyone else who does not agree with them.

When we talk about change as a gray area then it is ambiguous. No one knows what that means so it is easy to say yes. Once it begins to take shape and form as taxes, sharp cuts or painful realizations then a different kind of reality fills that gray space. That is when disappointment sets in.

Change is overrated. Anyone who says we need a lot or sweeping changes is obviously one of the media beneficiaries of all the obama campaign FLUSH money.

Look at the man behind the curtain. Where is all the new money really coming from? Just some odd Internet artifact or is there something – someone driving cash into the trough?

I’ve never seen money cluster in this size and shape without an artificial stimulant. In the dotcom boom no one wanted to see that the lines of cash did not connect with any substance or reality. When it came crashing down then the disappointments of that LACK set in.

A smart leader can make small corrections to the big machine that will have a net positive benefit. They don't need to throw out everything and make wild claims that never really pan out.

We are still the worlds greatest super power. If people insist on BIG CHANGE then the radical change they employ will alter that forever.

At least Hilary can’t get caught with her pants down while someone is giving her something. But ALL men do at some point in time or another when they are idolized by hordes of groupies that fawn and faint over them.

No insult to Cindy but she certainly looks like a trophy wife. Not someone who would know how women work to support their families come hell or high water... Only one candidate knows how to work that kind of magic, Hilary. Its called hard work and determination. Women who don't like her are afraid of her. She sets the bar higher for us. Women who want to lay around and have some guy take care of them want barack. He promises them what they want to hear even if he never returns their call. Its called fantasy.

Obama's wife recently claimed that “we don't know her” yeah, and so when we do what will we know? This is not a secure image of our first lady.

How will Obama's wife shake out against Cindy?

Hilary is such an easy target. It is absurd for obama to say that his attacking a female opponent is going to be the same as coming up against the Republican's.

Republican’s like the idea of torture, they stay up for it. It is part of their recreational activities. Obama has no substance, grit or wisdom. He is untested and un-vetted. He really is a question mark.

He only has superlative qualities to his adoring fan base. Do we really want a rock star for president? He doesn't even play an instrument.

I thought ABC news really disgraced themselves. The whole tenor of the questions to both Sens. Clinton and Obama were "gotcha" type of questions and definitely did not emphasize policy issues enough. Charlie Gibson certainly knows better. George Stephanopoulos was waiting like a tiger to pounce on anything hesistant either candidate said. If there is a worse way to elect a candidate, I would be hard pressed to find it -- more than 15 months of spurious debates, out of hand fundraising and relentless travel all over the country. We have really messed it up this time. The candidates should have revolted last night and said enough is enough. We won't answer any more of these personal attack questions. Ask us something real. They certainly should do it now.

I hope George and Charles are knocked down a peg. Maybe they can get jobs at The Globe or National Enquirer where they fit right in. Maybe George wants to defend himself, but I fell ABC should appologize to the views on behalf of those 2 morons and try to save face. I for one will be contacting all the companies that advertise on their (George and Charles) shows. I read in a textbook that if you want to hurt the show, contact the advertisers. I encourage everyone to join in. Money talks abd BS walks.

Am I missing something here? Hillary Clinton actually acknowledged in the debate that she had lied about her Bosnia landiing. I can't believe no one is paying any attention to this, focusing instead on whom Obama knew in the Seventies. Clinton's story about being under sniper fire was a pure fabrication and she admitted it. If she can do that, why does she have any credibility? After being misled into a war with Iraq by a president and a vice president with no shame, do Americans want to elect someone like that again, who can lie through her teeth and expect to get away with it? The moment when Clinton finally told the truth about her deception was not what one alls a "Gotcha" moment. It was a highly significant revelation about character and it was shocking.

THE DEBATE WAS COMPLETELY FAIR. THE QUESTIONS ASKED OF OBAMA WERE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS THAT NEEDED TO BE ASKED IN A SETTING LIKE YESTERDAY'S DEBATE IN WHICH OBAMA WASN'T EASILY ALLOWED TO DEFLECT THESE VALID ISSUES.
NATURALLY THE OBAMA CAMP IS COMPLAINING & RAISING THE CRY OF "UNFAIR" AS IT ALWAYS DOES WHEN HE'S FORCED INTO SOME SEMBLANCE OF ACCOUNTABILITY. BUT THE QUESTIONS ASKED & OBAMA'S ATTEMPTED ANSWERS NEEDED TO BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE PUBLIC.

Stephanopoulos is the former press secretary of President Clinton, I thought it was a poor choice on ABC's part to have him moderate the debate.

A petition has been created to demand an apology from ABC News for the poor job that the "moderators" did: http://www.petitiononline.com/abc41608/petition.html

I watched the entire debate and I thought Barack Obama handled the continual attacks from Hillary Clinton very well. He could have creamed her with the Bosnia comments she made up. I would have pointed out that making up stories about sniper fire is exactly the kind of thing that got us unneccesarily into the Iraq War in the first place. Instead, Barack Obama was a gentleman and kept a victory by the Democratic Party, regardless of who is nominated, foremost in his mind. He was also respectful towards the American people when he said the they are smarter than the media might think. He was absolutely right that the media can distract from the real issues. I was shocked that the moderators spent so much time pointing attack questions at Barack Obama but never once questioned Hillary Clinton's fickleness regarding NAFTA. The fact that ABC aired this on nationwide TV and used this forum as a means to attack Barack Obama continually has confirmed for me that those few individuals who do make multi millions and run this country, including our multi-media systems, deliberatly set the stage for this event. If Hillary wins the nomination and runs against McCain, the Democrats will lose. The Republicans will not be as kind as Barack Obama was towards all of her baggage. I found she was distasteful throughout the entire 'debate' if you could actually call it that.

It is amazing how any slightest calling to bear accountability for Obama creates such hysterical backlash. His followers seem to honestly believe that to offer even semi-hard question, even the slightest critique at all, is heretical.

This was the most even-handed debate thus far. Voters from every camp, undecided, McCains, and Clinton's see it. Only his don't.

When our country is in such peril what kind of vetting has to be made that includes someone's neighbor? So am I responsible for who my next door neighbor is? This whole vetting thing is nonsense. There are facts and then there is bullshit. This isn't a fraternity - a Presidential candidate doesn't need to be hazed.

The right-wing media and HRC needs to grow and securely attach the kitchen sink to the cabinets!

Glad so many of you posters feel like flag pins, the black church, bosnia, etc are more important issues to discuss than the war, the economy, free trade, china, energy policy, health care. Nice to see you have your true priorites straight. Or maybe, just maybe, like ABC, you had another agenda in mind....character assassination, perhaps?

IT WAS THE WORST DEBATE EVER. TO MUCH TIME ON THINGS NO ONE REALLY CARES ABOUT. I THOUGHT THAT I WAS WATCHING A DEBATE SPONSERED BY THE ENQUIRER.

REGARDING SENATOR OBAMAS "MISSING" FLAG PIN I NOTICED THAT HILARY WASN'T WEARING ONE EITHER...BUT I GUESS THAT'S OK.

ALSO, IF GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS WAS SO CONCERNED WITH ASKING "TOUGH BUT APPROPRIATE" QUESTIONS AS HE CLAIMS, WHY DID'NT HE ASK HILARY ABOUT HER 1994 COMMENT "SCREW 'EM" WHEN SHE
REFERRED TO THE SOUTHERN WORKING CLASS?

Its a shame what this debate has come to. H&H (Hanity and Haillity) joining hands! Her Mantra - "I wont leave my husband, wont apologize for my brother's deeds, will create a make believe bubble of entitlement, will change postitions on Iraq, Nafta, outsourcing while I will continue taking money from Indo-Chinese Outsourcing Companies and yet will keep pointing fingers at my rival for his friends, friends of friends, firends of friends of friends linkage! Will damage the party and party's chances - if dont get to play it atlest I can spoil it for someone".
Who cares about Hillary meeting Saddam agents - when we have the flag pin issue.

Why no personal guilt by association accusations for her? Why questions about being black enough or getting attention only because he is black or he wont get elected because he is black - how can he escape! He is linked to church / pastor - let us question him. His middle name sounds like muslim - let us question him (how can he escape)! He is soft, reaches out to republicans, praises Reagan or Is he a liberal, elitist - how can he escape these extreme questions! Forget Policy - Hope - Change - let us destroy the leading inspiring candidate that we have in the race!

Politics, Hate, Personal Attacks - that sums up the debate!

Who needs a winner when we can ensure that we snatch defeat out of potential victory path!

Absolutely fair and honest to have asked him questions concerning his relationship with people of questionable character.

It is about time that the "media darling" OBAMA is finally being made to expose his past, like Clinton's past , which by her own admission has and is OUT IN THE OPEN.

The only sorry thing is that the media should have begun to investigate WHO AND WHAT IS BARACK OBAMA- I BEING FROM CALIFORNIA NEVER HEARD OF HIM OR SAW HIS FACE OR EXPERIENCED ALL THE THINGS HE SAYS HE HAS DONE TO HELP PEOPLE, LONG AGO, BEFORE ALL THE PRIMARIES AND CAUCASAS TOOK PLACE Maybe there would not be a contest anymore between Hillary and Obama., if all these negatives would have come out.- people would not have voted for him--- I am only hoping that it is NOT TOO LATE- I DO NOT THINK THAT A MAN WHO ASSOCIATES HIMSELF WITH SOMEONE LIKE AYERS, WRIGHT AND THE AFFLUENT PEOPLE SHOULD BE THE PRESIDENT OF ALL THE PEOPLE, MIDDLE CLASS AMERICA AS WELL AS THE AFFLUENT. .

After about 30 minutes into the debate I realized I was watching what had basically degenerated into a drawn out Saturday Night Live skit. I started mocking Charlie Gibson's tone with my family and the whole house was laughing at the so called moderators on TV. It was gut splitting comedy at it's finest. Those boys have a whole new career ahead of them.

Good thing too because clearly broadcast journalism is not a good fit for those two clowns.

Real issues are not as interesting as stupid ones, I guess. Truth is that we have heard much more than we need to from both of the candidates. The picture is very clear, and the candidates should stop wasting their money and our time beating a dead horse.

ABC is a joke....

...too bad its on us, the american people!

Shame on you ABC! Perhaps stick to cooking and gardening shows in the future.

Teri B, which debate did you watch? The rest of us watched the one on ABC.

As a single mother with 2 kids and no health insurance, what I watched last night was an insult to my 23 years of paying tax in this country. It is not only the politicians who don't give a hoot about the hardships we are experiencing but the news media is pushing their own agenda and have no loyalty to the American people. So I am angry, bitter and God knows whatever else can be used to describe, not being able to take my son to the Doctor because I can't pay for it.
And who is the least patriotic of them all... ? ABC

Clinton and Obama have avoided substance this far, why should this debate be any different?

If this debate is what this country is focused on, we might as well give China, Russia and al Qaeda the keys to the house. Funding national health care when we can't pay for Medicare and Social Security? Reducing the deficit? Becoming self sufficient for energy? Defeating terrorism without becoming a secret police state? No, what the main issues of this country are deciding on controversial topics auch as gun control in rural america and the reburgeoning radical underground movement. If this is democracy then we will surely fall behind. It is up to the media to try to do a better job than this Paris Hilton level of reporting.

A debate is basically a job interview and Barack clearly failed his. Time and time again he appeared frustrated with the questions and did not provide coherent, or in some cases even rational responses. For at least two questions he provided solid positioning and should have left the issue behind but attempted to rebut Clinton and gave her an opening to hit him again on the "bitter" comment and his association to Rev. Wright.

Both candidate gave ABC ample ammunition to pose questions concerning topics which made them feel uncomfortable. If Hillary had not lied about her Bosnia landing and Barack had not let his true feelings towards white middle class Americans slip these questions would have been posed.

I find it funny how so many Democrats like to accuse Bush as a liar but when you point out PROOF of actual lies from Hillary they accuse the media of playing rough. Clinton basically admitted last night that she lied on the campaign trail multiple times. Not the sign key undecieded voters are looking for.

Meanwhile Obama looked shaky, ill prepared and down right flustered. What is he going to do when McCain asks him why he has not presented a single co-sponsored bill during his entire Senate tenure? For someone who supposedly is all about reaching across the aisle he has earned the most liberal voting record of any US Seantor during his term. Kind of hard to bring people together when you aren't willing to meet people half way or bettet yet think they are bitter because they are religious, own a gun or feel that late-term abortion is murder.

These displays are not debates and are not worth watching. I get my information elsewhere.

SG
Texas

We had a debate watch party. Thank god the food was good, the accomodations were fine, the company was terrific, but the quality stopped after we got to the fact that our candidates were not being asked any important questions on ABC.

I will not watch George or Charlie or ABC News anymore. I can't be asked to waste my time or life in that way again and I would hope that candidates would refuse from this day forward as well.

They treated them both as if they were Anna Nicole Smith rather than candidates for the Presidency of the United States in a time when we are engaged in wars on two different fronts. They embarrassed us in front of the world and should have stink eye written in boldface at the top of their resumes.

The debate questions were crap; that's not in doubt. But I will say that Hillary has been beaten up and mugged by moderator after moderator in the past, especially when she was still seen as the front runner. Obama should faced the tough questions that come with being frontrunner, but those questions should have come with meaning, instead of the triviality.

Miserable moderators, miserable questions, miserable debate. ABC should be punished for staging this debacle.

"No one can be unfair to you unless you are ill-prepared."

That may be one of dumbest comments I've ever read. Simply put, his was more like a Russian debate.

Moderator:

"Putin , why are your eyes so lovely?"

"Opponent , why are you an enemy of the people?"

"Putin, you're such a great man, how can we thank you?"

"Opponent, your papers indicate you are part Jewish, why should real Russians ever elect you?"

Face it, if Bush had ever been subjected to questioning along those lines heads would roll at ABC and Georgie S. and Charlie G. would have fled the country in fear by now. This was 'managed democracy" in action.

I've watched all 21 Democratic debates, and all of those between the GOP candidates, and until last night, I had never seen so much time spent on such tabloid type "what did you say?" and "who do / did you know?" questions that had NO relationship to our economy or foreign policy.

ABC should be ashamed. Especially Stephanapoulis, whose question about the "relationship" to William Ayers, came from Sean Hannitty on Fox News, on air, while talking to George before the debate. We all know that Hannitty and Hannitty alone has been harping about Ayers for a long time -- along with a single, incomplete line from Michelle Obama's masters degree thesis (taken completely out of context and twisted to a totally contradictory meaning than Michelle's actual point of view, which is also in her thesis, but which Hannitty will not reference). Hannitty, in short, will dig up anything to tarnish Obama, and Stephanapoulis was used by him last night.

The Ayers issue is total BS. As Obama said, if his serving on a charity board with Professor Ayers & many others, is important, then Bill Clinton's pardon of two people who were actually convicted of crimes that Ayers is suspected of, is much more important. Oh yes, and Barack and Obama attended a fundraiser party at the Ayers' home one time. Wow, they must really be terrorists!

WELL THAT WAS A WASTED 90 MINUTES OF MY LIFE THAT I WILL NEVER GET BACK. THANKS A LOT CHARLIE GIBSON & GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS. YOU GUYS AND ABC NEWS ARE A BUNCH OF HACKS.

I WILL NEVER WATCH ABC NEWS AGAIN. YOU GUYS REALLY BLEW IT.

If both sitting US Senators are committed to bringing our troops home as President why have they failed to file a petition to do that over the past 18 months? Barack claims to be able to, "bring people together" and serve as a unifier. If he feels that this is an unjust war with people being killed for no reason than isn't it incumbent on him to stop this NOW?!!

Both Clinton and Obama, along with the Democratic led Congress have failed to deliver on their promise of the 2006 election to end this war. A lot of people voted for the Democrats specifically for this reason yet they have not done anything about the troop levels. They cannot simply blame it on President Bush as they own the key to funding the war and simply could have voted to cut the DoD budget thus forcing his hand. If this is not the case then the American public was lied to because that was the promise Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid made consistently while on the stump during the 2006 election cycle. So they either made up their ability to bring the troops home or have failed to do so, it is one or the other.

I also found it interesting that last night both said they would make it their mission to halt Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. So what if Iran, much like Iraq, ignores UN sanctions, diplomacy, etc. and continues wiht its attempts? Will a President Clinton or Obama invade? What is a just war, when it is appropriate to go on the offensive? Sounds eerily similar to the situation we were faced with in 2003 when former President Clinton, John Edwards, Harry Reid and other democratic leaders said it was imperative that we stop Saddam Hussein from acquiring nucleas weapons. Which everyone agreed he was working to obtain, check the videos from that timeframe and you will find everyone agreeing that Iraq could not be allowed to become a nuclear-armed power.

At one point - I believe during the question about either the flag pin or Rev. Wright or Ayers - an exasperated Obama asked why they couldn't ask him something of substance. Why, indeed. I wish he'd refused to answer until they asked him something substantive like what he would do about the economy, health care, the war, and the weak dollar. Instead, I get to hear that his patriotism is suspect because he knows a COLLEGE PROFESSOR who had a radical history, who was never charged with murder and apparently is not under indictment, and gave him all of $200 for a political campaign a few years ago. Talk about guilt by association. Stephanopolous and Gibson are frauds masquerading as serious journalists. How dare they foist this tabloid crap on the American people? And Hillary, how dare she go along with the big joke and allow the slight whiff of suspicion of Obama's patriotism to hang in the air? They all discuss me.

A disgusting event. So typical in today's electronic media. Made the FOX network look like Pulitzer Prize material. That tells you how awful it was.

No flag on your lapel?

The same question was asked in Nazi Germany in the 1930's. No Swastica on your lapel? No Swastica arm-band? Off to the concentration camp!

Is that what is next here in the home of the brave?

At this point Obama should be answering more substantative questions in real world, viable and relateable terms. Why ask questions of issues and substance if you keep saying the same general policy format over and over again. Enough already - what does it look like? How does the economic policy driven strategic recovery plan translate to local economies? What does it mean to a strapped work force? How does it look Senator Obama? ... a little fuzzy but manageable? ... We are at less than finite resources right now - where are the tightly crafter goals? I would love to see them! EVen if they come down with a set of assumptions that say things like:
1. assuming there is no huge global crisis
2. assuming there is no huge domestic crisis such as an earthquake, or hurricane (god forbid)
3. assuming the global economy does not chase the US into destablization
4. assuming feather heads do not follow the economic recommendations of the IMF in servicing debt
5. etc. etc. etc

I agree with your problem definition ... so what does the solution look like? ... Can you follow an example from policy level to local level? Where is there a gap that can immediately be seen in the market place where a need has not been met? ... Can this be a rich source of job creation if managed well? It is true that the private sector creates business but the interaction between government incentives and local economic development initiatives is an important one ... You are pointing to "green jobs" - what does that mean? Or what do you THINK it could mean?

What about product development? You know - tthings that could work without plugging in? Is there some serious bread and butter to be placed on the table yet?... Anyone?

Did anyone else notice that Obama was given the chance to get back at Clinton, but was gracious enough not to take the opportunity to hit her on the head with her Bosnia lies?

Of course, that didn't stop her from continuing twisting the knife in on completely irrelevant nasty personal attacks, saying all the while "the Republicans will do it...like so".

Sorry - in my book, professionalism, dignity and graciousness count for a lot. Is this how she will deal with world leaders?

The performance of George Stephanopoulos was excellent. There has been so
much rehash of the same issues and the same questions that people are getting bored about the redundancy. Politicians have their staff to monitor the polls, see on what issues they get a low rating, then twist their answers on the same issue - under supposed clarification by stooges planted in by their audiences, and at the end the public has a revolving door of tweaking, twisting,
fine tuning -supposedly free for all, but all pre-planned and pre-arranged like the World Wrestling Federation bouts- but which in fact is going around in circles but not covering any new ground.

Then we have those supposed Washington pundits and know-it-all, to paraphrase the late Ronald Reagan, that have all the answers in the pocket on
any subject, and any question or issue that doesn't fit their squared mentality
is treated like a round log and unsuitable. Maybe they should have their own convention, select the best candidate from each party, tell each party to endorse them, and do away with campaigning and the whole chaff that comes with it.

Tough questioning has been the style that propelled Italian journalist Oriana Falachi to global fame, and produced the imitators of Mike Wallace, Barbara Walters etc., in the U.S. And if Gary Hart, who was ahead in the polls during his run for the presidency, had to answer tough questions about Donna Rice
that sunk his presidential aspirations, why not Obama? Is the debate on
the who is who in the presidential race based on what their campaigns inject into
the forum through stooges -journalists and critics- or it is an open field that every issue must be put on the table - regardless if it is moral, ethical, economical, social, or embarrassing? Is the American public better served by
digging out all the issues related to the candidates, or it is better served by being fed like a nursing home catatonic patient all the virtues and pluses the candidate's campaign and their highly paid consultants want to serve us in their platter? Can we hear it all and then make up our minds, or we can just take it from the Washington insiders at face value?

Unfortunately, we are slaves of the mass media, the power of publication -also known as the Second Government. And it is not only political. It is also
a life and death factor. People die in hospitals while waiting for a kidney or a heart transplant, but a recipient who happens to know an editor and put
themselves on the first page of a major newspaper, they get their kidney or
their transplant within 48 hours. That is not fair; that is not moral or ethical,
and that is not how a democracy is supposed to work.

George Stephanopoulos is getting a bum rap for doing just what every reporter did to Gerry Hart without a hint of impropriety. And Gerry Hart's issue was extramarital sex, a misnomer that Jack Kennedy passed with flying colors, not an issue of violent resistance to the government. And at the time that we fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on the basis of our democratic principles, how about some decency on how we have sustained
those democratic principles here? And if Obama was one associating with
those who wanted a violent change in our government, why is it unethical
to ask him about? I am a right winger or Fox news client, and there are
on Internet dozens of other comments I have written to prove that. But
I had no clue about that Obama issue, and I am glad George brought that
up - and I don't think I am the only one thankful to George.

I have heard that George Stephanopoulos is the son of a Christian Orthodox priest, and as a Christian Orthodox myself I wouldn't have the slightest doubt on his moral character and ethical values. Thank you George for having the courage to give the voters all the information they need before they cast their vote. It encompasses, as Aristotle said, the virtues
of wisdom and temperance. Nikos Retsos, retired academic

This is one time I don't mind being redundant, last night was the worse debate I've heard/witness in all my 75 years.. :-( Well if they (the media) think they're going to change my mind, they got another thought coming.

Stephanopolous' rather stupid questions can be summed up as "busy man you"ve had a little day".

President-Elect Obama performed like the true champion he is is last night's "debate". Faced with ridiculous questions, he still got HIS point across. He continuously steered the direction of the discussion back to the issues that really interest the American people: gas prices, stagnant wages, and he mortgage prices. Hillary Clinton proved that she is more interested in tearing Barack Obama down than lifting up the country. Wikipedia defines evil as: a broad term used to indicate a negative moral or ethical judgment, often used to describe INTENTIONAL ACTS THAT ARE CRUEL, UNJUST, OR SELFISH.

It is truly shocking when some people continue to try to pull the wool over the average American's eyes by rehashing a bunch of non-issues like flag pins.

Senator Obama tried time and time again to bring the debate into serious questions which are facing the American people. However with the tag team of character assassination going on with Clinton and the moderators it took 45 minutes for a real question even came up. The moderators at ABC should be fired.

Senator Obama received two rounds of applause even though the crowd was not suppose to applaud and that was because he did not take the bait and attack Clinton over such things like "sniper fire" but instead chose to try on focus on the real issues the average American faces everyday.

My vote is for Senator Obama.

It is truly shocking when some people continue to try to pull the wool over the average American's eyes by rehashing a bunch of non-issues like flag pins.

Senator Obama tried time and time again to bring the debate into serious questions which are facing the American people. However with the tag team of character assassination going on with Clinton and the moderators it took 45 minutes for a real question even came up. The moderators at ABC should be fired.

Senator Obama received two rounds of applause even though the crowd was not suppose to applaud and that was because he did not take the bait and attack Clinton over such things like "sniper fire" but instead chose to try on focus on the real issues the average American faces everyday.

My vote is for Senator Obama.

What a shame! What a wasted opportunity to inform the electorate about the important issues facing us today. Stephanopoulous defends the tabloid journalism that dominated the first hour as debating Ňelectability questions.Ó Oh, please! Journalists are supposed to ask questions about the relevant issues, candidates are supposed to answer, and the electorate then considers and decides whom to vote for. That's how so-called electability gets determined. Or at least that's how it's supposed to work. Again, what a shame.... P.S. Funny how most of these "gotcha" questions were leveled at Obama, ignoring the much more substantive material--NAFTA flip-flop, Colombian $800,000, Peter Paul fraud lawsuit beginning on 4/25/08-- about the Clintons . Talk about heeding the Clinton campaign talking points! Makes one wonder whether the new boss is same as the old boss.... P.P.S. But--THE Boss knows better and is for Obama!

Applause to ABC! Obama's free press pass was long overdue for cancellation. Yet again he played word games about regrets that people were offended by his condescending, elitist remarks and anger mongering, hate exploiting close associates. He should look up "repent" in his bible dictionary and then make a sincere try at it rather than blaming the people he offended. A character who offends the innocent sensibilities of so many good Americans and refuses to offer sincere regret for doing the offense is a character with much room to grow before he is qualified for high office. Obama seems to have contracted the "W" disease of being unable to honestly own up to wrong actions without implicating his victims. Tell him to grow up.

Once again Obama proved to be an uniter !!! OB 08

I'm concerned about the loss of civil liberties, the costs of the war, national debt/borrowing from China, corporate greed/lobbyists, college education costs, and a healthcare system I can't afford. I don't want to know about FLAG PINS. If you want to FOCUS ON CONTROVERSY take a look at gas prices while EXXON gets mega-rich.

No doubt, the people that were digusted with ABC are Obamaniac's! Face it, everything asked was legitimate, and I for one had not seen either candidate answer those questions. So, yes, I was interested. The responses to health care, economy, the war and all others have been responded to numerous times. So, the reasons we chose who we chose, is because we know where they stand. I hope you Obamaist's have come to grips that you are holding on to a dead horse, because the Republicans aren't going to be as nice as George and Charlie. If this is the kind of childish response we should expect from the Obamaistas, then you need to do a little growing up and catch up on your issues and quit living in a fantasy world. Reality means you will need to deal with real people and not zombies. Real people will attack you and make you accountable. It's about time Obama was put in this position. Go Hillary!

I can see why the effete liberals are so upset! Why, those moderators treated the Dem candidates as if they were Republican candidates!

Dems shouldn't be treated that way. They are just not used to it.

Stephanopolous and Gibson were a disgrace. Shame on them. Shame on ABC. What a waste of time.

At some point all of the excitement will end. The American people were dumb enough to elect Bush twice. Keep up the foolishness and we'll be eating beans out of the can and walking/cycling everywhere we go. The facts are the facts:

1. McCain WILL continue the war; the rich will continue to send our kids to the war; The McCain's & Clinton's will continue to be millionaires
2. Hillary will keep lying and laughing at the American people. Although she says great things, SHE CAN'T BE TRUSTED.
3. Obama is the man for the White House, I believe it's God's Plan.

What God has for OBAMA is for him, and NO Man can take it away.....
You WATCH and SEE.

if obama could not survive in this debate with a fellow democrat whome he claims most americans dislike b then HOW WILL HE FACE THE WAR HERO JOHN MCCAIN. HE IS LIKE A COPPER POT WITH NICKLE PLATING BUT THE PLATING IS NOW WEARING OUT AND UGLY COPPER POT IS EXPOSED.
HE HAS USED RACE ALL THE TIME IN HIS FAVOUR. IF ANY ONE CRITICISES HIM ON POLICY MATTER OR BEHAVIOUR THEN THAT POOR FELLOW IS TABBED AS RACIST. SO NO ONE DARES TO QUESTION HIS MISDEEDS OF THE PAST. REPUBLICANS DO NOT GIVE A DAM ABOUT RACISM AND THEY WILL TEAR HIM APART IF UNFORTUNATELY HE BECOMES THE DEM. NOMINEE.

THIS MAN IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN EGOISTIC POWER HUNGRY INEXPERINCED AL0OF PERSON TRYING TO WIN ON EMPTY RHETORIC.
bhagwan deol los angeles

It is so funny to think the debate is only about him and her.

Why so angry on those long-due questions?

Except you and you and you, how many else know what he really is?

You are like bunch dictator, do not question me but just follow me otherwise you are lalala lalala.

That is shame.

What do you think what you are? Are you GOD trying to save bitter people?

I agree with the criticism here. The debate was absolutely terrible; I would offer my apology to Barack Obama on behalf of ABC. Wait, actually I don't wan't to be associated w/ them. Nevermind. Barack: don't stop offering your positive vision for the nation. Hillary supporters can't name a SINGLE thing she's done to deserve the office; you've done more in four years in the Senate than she has in eight. (I.E. the website, usaspending , which tracks tax dollar spending. ) Obama 2008.

So, it was all right during all the other debates in the past to attack Hillary, but now when they finally ask Obama, it is not fair. It is also very funny to see Obama campaign bring Stephanopoulos ties to Clinton administration, while at the same time forgetting that the majority of Obama campaign stuff worked in the same Clinton administration too. I cannot escape the feeling that Obama supporters would somehow suspend election processes and media and crown their candidate, which makes me very very uncomfortable. This is not how Ameirca works!

awwwwww poor wittew Bawak, finally you venomous Obama people have been served a small sample of what Hillary has had to put up with for a whole year now from the media and these debate moderators, cry me a ####### river..

GO Hillary.

I CANNOT believe that there's such an outcry. Last night, I actually turned to a friend and said, "Finally, two moderators tackling a range of topics calmly and fairly." Far more so than their predecessors, I thought Gibson and Stephanopolous did a good job generating substantive discussion on both foreign and domestic policy (Clinton's description of what she would do re the Middle East was masterful).

And by the way, why is it such a horrible thing to bring up Revered Wright and BO's San Francisco remarks? Both are relevant issues that have recently dominated the public discourse. It is the moderators' job to push all candidates, but unfortunately Russert et al thought that this obligation only applied when questioning HRC, doing the electorate a major disservice over the past several months. (Before you freak out, Obama supporters, take note that Gibson and Stephanopolous also pressed Clinton on the Bosnia incident, so I don't want to hear about bias).

Also, did anyone else notice how many times Obama talked about embodying all that is great and good and right for America? As Bill so many months ago said, "Give me a break!" You're not that special, dude.

Look, it is very obvious that Stephanopolous was in fact giving Obama a pre-taste of the Republican campaign against him and that that is an appropriate use of debate time at this critical juncture. By challenging Obama in front of the wide viewership to begin to deal with the attacks that will inevitably come, Stephanopolous was doing a service to the Democratic party and all and any anti-Bush forces. I support Obama, yes. But I need to see how he can win. I think Stephanopolous knew just what he was doing and Obama got a chance to see if the choices he is making about how to handle it will fly.

The debate was a disgrace. It's not a question of who they were attacking, but what they were attacking them on.

Obama was right when he said that these controversies are largely "manufactured" by the media. When he mentioned Hillary's "milk and cookies" remark, I didn't see it as an attack at all, but rather an olive branch. I believe that Obama sincerely thinks that all of this attacking and counterattacking really is a complete waste of time at a moment in history when we truly can't afford that kind of distraction.

"Preparing" someone for future below-the-belt attacks by leveling those very same attacks on that person is a pretty flimsy excuse if you ask me.

To quite a few posters on this article - get it straight!

Obama says the questions were FAIR. He doesn't begrudge Clinton or ABC their chances to try to stick it to him with their little "gotchas." He simply says that this is a poor way to try to solve America's problems. He says his campaign is about changing this way that things are done in Washington.

Notice that he passed when Stephanopoulos gave him the chance to maul Clinton over her mis-statements on Bosnia.

Could not believe that sponsors would actually pay for this waste of media time. ABC and its moderators must really believe that voters are bunch of ignorant fools who are swayed by any junk that it is put on by this tabloid ridden "debate"! What happened to all the questions that are supposed to be relevant to this very important election? What was ABC thinking? That the viewers will believe Stephanopolous will remain neutral and objective, like any real journalist should be?

How dare Clinton challenge Obama's relationship with Rev. Wright. This whole issue about Rev. Wright and his affiliation with Obama has really angered me. I don't understand how people can question the character of Obama for being associated with Rev. Wright, pastor of a church that Obama stopped attending along time ago and someone who he hasn't seen or been around in years, but yet don't question the character of Hillary Clinton for being married to a former PRESIDENT, someone who she sees on a regular basis and sleeps in the same bed with, who had sexual relationships with an intern in the White House. This world is so screwed up!

They both lost.
Honestly.
Nobody improved their image.
Nobody clarified their views.
The bit of differentiation they managed did not flatter either.
It is also clear that media veterans can not be trusted to help with the above.
The entire process seems to be geared to prove the points of the moderators.

HILLARY'S POOR JUDGMENT leaves AMERICANS FOOTING THE BILL....

THE WAR IN IRAQ IS HAVING SERIOUS NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON OUR ECONOMY and those who voted for the war (i.e. hillary) should be to blame, in part, for the state of the US economy.

Look how the WAR IN IRAQ is affecting the US economy...

$3,000,000,000… 3 Billion dollars PER WEEK!

That is the amount America is paying for the Iraq War PER WEEK, money that should have been used here, at home.

Add to this:

Interest. We are financing the war with borrowed money (e.g. treasuries) that carries interest; so in actuality, the war is costing the United States MORE THAN 3 billion dollars PER WEEK.

Higher oil and energy prices. Instability from the war in Iraq is adding roughly 30 dollars per barrel as a premium.

High oil prices mean high utility bills. Higher oil prices shifts demand to other sources of energy - gas, coal, etc. - and greater demand will raise the equilibrium price of all sources of energy -- Can you say high energy bills?

High oil prices (a raw material used in the production of many goods, fertilizers, gasoline, diesel, plastics, etc.) mean high prices of goods and services -- Can you say INFLATION?

Higher trade deficit. High oil prices mean a higher trade deficit because most of our oil comes from foreign sources. A higher trade deficit means more money is leaving the country than is coming into the country -- Can you say Goodbye to your hard-earned money!

The US dollar is weak and getting weaker. Since we have a trade deficit and is growing in large part to the rising cost of imported oil, the value of goods and services we import exceeds the value of goods we export. You know that foreign car you're thinking of buying or the computer you're using, or that trip abroad you've been thinking of taking....well, guess what? It is going to cost more, Ceteris Peribus, because the dollar is weak and getting weaker.

Lastly, how do you think the world views our country since the argument was made for war? The evidence was weak and circumstantial, yet we rushed into war with Iraq thanks to hillary’s authorization.

Remember, Hillary Voted FOR THE IRAQ WAR

An underinformed, overstimulated Wesleyan sophomore liveblogs the Democratic debate:

\"8:22: Gibson poses a question to Obama about Jeremiah Wright\'s anti-American comments. But has anyone considered that Wright said some pretty true things about pervasive racism in America? Read your Cornel West, folks.\"

http://www.236.com/news/2008/04/17/the_democratic_debate_guest_li_5926.php

HILLARY'S POOR JUDGMENT leaves AMERICANS FOOTING THE BILL....

THE WAR IN IRAQ IS HAVING SERIOUS NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON OUR ECONOMY and those who voted for the war (i.e. hillary) should be to blame, in part, for the state of the US economy.

Look how the WAR IN IRAQ is affecting the US economy...

$3,000,000,000… 3 Billion dollars PER WEEK!

That is the amount America is paying for the Iraq War PER WEEK, money that should have been used here, at home.

Add to this:

Interest. We are financing the war with borrowed money (e.g. treasuries) that carries interest; so in actuality, the war is costing the United States MORE THAN 3 billion dollars PER WEEK.

Higher oil and energy prices. Instability from the war in Iraq is adding roughly 30 dollars per barrel as a premium.

High oil prices mean high utility bills. Higher oil prices shifts demand to other sources of energy - gas, coal, etc. - and greater demand will raise the equilibrium price of all sources of energy -- Can you say high energy bills?

High oil prices (a raw material used in the production of many goods, fertilizers, gasoline, diesel, plastics, etc.) mean high prices of goods and services -- Can you say INFLATION?

Higher trade deficit. High oil prices mean a higher trade deficit because most of our oil comes from foreign sources. A higher trade deficit means more money is leaving the country than is coming into the country -- Can you say Goodbye to your hard-earned money!

The US dollar is weak and getting weaker. Since we have a trade deficit and is growing in large part to the rising cost of imported oil, the value of goods and services we import exceeds the value of goods we export. You know that foreign car you're thinking of buying or the computer you're using, or that trip abroad you've been thinking of taking....well, guess what? It is going to cost more, Ceteris Peribus, because the dollar is weak and getting weaker.

Lastly, how do you think the world views our country since the argument was made for war? The evidence was weak and circumstantial, yet we rushed into war with Iraq thanks to hillary’s authorization.

Remember, Hillary Voted FOR THE IRAQ WAR

If Obama would only give reasonably plausible answers to some questions of interest regarding his character and judgment, we wouldn't have to keep coming back to him. Why won't he? Obama was annoyed when asked whether he thought Wright was patriotic and thought it sufficed to note that Wright had been a marine some years ago---how is that relevant? He should have been asked whether he thinks Wright's ranting in his first sermon after 9/11 that Americans deserved to have 3000+ people die in the inferno of the World Trade Center was ANY EVIDENCE at all of anti-American attitude! I would further like to see him answer this: Can you justify, or are you horrified by, the fact that members of YOUR church were JOYOUSLY happy, clapping and rooting Wright on, when Wright was yelling that Americans had the nerve to be upset when 3000+ people were trapped, burned alive or jumped from the World Trade Center!!! Explain your answer.
Until Obama can confront the facts at this level---never mind telling us your find Wright's comments "objectionable" or that you denounced the comments but not the man, or long wordy statements that if he kept doing it and didn't agree the comments were nastyyou'd quit the church. THESE ARE FAR TOO WEAK! (Like calling the ravings of a Hitler that Jews should be iradicated merely offensive!)! It's the lack of a depth of moral outrage that forces people---even those who want badly to believe in Obama---to keep coming back to these issues, again and again. Why does he not get it?

The moderators failed to ask questions that matter to us, The People. instead, they chose to go on a tabloid style free-for-all.

Asking a candidate, ANY candidate from ANY party, questions such as were asked Sen. Obama is irresponsible and a disservice to very democratic process the debate was SUPPOSED to represent.

WE, The People, do not WANT any more PARTISAN BS! Many comments here are from followers of partisan politics. They only see X against Z - they are incapable of seeing anything else, or of any OBJECTIVITY. Which is what the Republican want: DIVIDE and CONQUER, a very old trick indeed.

The only thing worse than the debate are reading some of these comments by Americans who refuse to acknowledge this stuff. Will we be easily lied into another war, because of the outrage over a flag pin? I applaud ABC for revealing to the world where their allegiance lies. Selling the American people a load of crap, and packaging it as a 'Presidential Debate". Talk about Unpatriotic.

WHAT A DISGRACEFUL DEBATE! George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson should be kicked out.

And Hillary was no better - never missing an opportunity to gloat over Obama's "pastor problem" and "bitter-gate".

Sign the petition. visit www.MoveOn.org

This was the "Bottom of the Barrel" for me when I judge the moderators for their line of questioning. If this is what Gibson and Stephanopoulos truly feel the voters use to base their decisions at the ballot box, then it's no wonder this country is in the mess it is right now!
I can find that type of junk at the grocery checkout by picking up the tabloids. It is NOT what I expected of ABC news. The moderators exhibited a shameful performance. All the media outlets have beat the side stories to death for weeks. Enough already. STICK TO THE REAL ISSUES, BOYS!!!

Right on, Hatshepsut!

The questions you want answered are on lots of people's minds.

Gibson and Stephanopolous gave Mr. Obama an opening to get honest and direct about these troubling associations and he evaded and sidestepped. Then he got defensive. He really doesn't understand that his words, deeds and associations matter when you want to be President of the United States.

His statement about "having to apologize" for everything people he knows has said was disingenuous. I don't want apologies, I want to know why he has these particular associations, because it seems like he is close to people who range from speaking hatred to setting bombs. When it comes to Ayers, the relationship appears to be deeper than what came out at the debate. In fact, Ayers hosted, at his home, a "meet and greet" event for Obama before Obama started his run for the Illinois legislature. This is another topic that should be thoroughly discussed. Ayers is not an old hippie radical--he was a domestic terrorist who has never expressed regret for the bombings.

We don't need big speeches that amount to lectures. What we needed is what the debate offered: a priceless opportunity for Mr. Obama to display depth of character and trustworthiness by honestly answering tough questions.
He failed, and that speaks volumes.

Blatantly unprofessional. Nothing more or less than a long-time Clinton insider taking his best shot at bringing down Barack -- and using (nay, misusing) his "neutral" stage to try to do so. If those "issues" had not already been hashed over thousands of times already, they might have been worthwhile regurgitating.
All of that said, isn't this supposed to be a debate -- where candidates "debate" over their positions on issues? (Rather than some hack's private enterprise to push his own candidate even at the cost of his own professional integrity?)

I applaud ABC for getting it right.

To those who believe it was a waste of sponsor's money to discuss these "distractions" rather than real policy issues - If you can post a comment here, you can certainly go to their respective websites to find out what their positions are.

Better yet, you can google the past 20 debates that talked about these very issues. Good luck finding any differences between the two b/c copycat Obama doesn't have an original plan.

To those who believe this debate was completely biased against Obama - I think you're experiencing the very same disorder Clinton was afflicted of when she spoke of Bosnia: amnesia. Clinton was hammered too, but she handled it with much more grace.

To those who believe Stephanopolous had a conflict of interest - he actually did a service to the people of America by bringing these questions to the forefront. Afterall, if tax returns were so important (to acertain special interest) then certainly business associates (special interest) are just as important. Yes, Ayers and Rezko were much much more than friendly neighbors.

To those who believe that Obama transends this whole debate and acted like a gentleman throughout this race - his kind of politics is as dirty as they come.