Jeremiah Wright won.

disagree in part, I thought Obama's retaliation asking whether he should also apologize for knowing Coburn, and mentioning that Bill Clinton commuted the sentences of two WU members, while Hillary hypocritically attacked him on the matter, was brilliant. I'm sure any intelligent person watching this debate was disappointed and insulted by the poor quality of the questioning. but I can pretend to be even-handed in how I saw the responses. clearly Stephanopolous was working as a Clinton campaign surrogate here, and Hillary was right there saying "yeah yeah!!" every time they went after Obama. he was solid, she was shameful. so, pretty much par for the course on the whole.

I make it a practice not to score performance art.

That's what we saw, right? Stephanawfulus doing his impersonation of a living, breathing National Enquirer - while Gibson did his best Grover Norquist impression.

Ridiculous debate! The equivalent of "jumping the shark" on entertainment television. So disappointed that real issues were not discussed more. Where were the questions about terrorism, the environment, education, health care, government spending, torture & interrogation, Iran?? You know, the issues that actually MATTER! What a disgrace! Are we Americans so unimportant to big old ABC that they can't even host a real debate about real issues that really matter to real people. GOSH!! I am so frustrated!

i don't care whether ur an Obama or Clinton supporter. This debate was a DISGRACE, it was repugnant on all levels. ABC ought to be ashamed of its self. There was not one substantive question asked.

This whole debate was just fucking pathetic. The people at ABC are the biggest fucking scumbags in America right now, and need to learn the kind of questions you're supposed to ask at a god damned DEMOCRATIC debate shouldn't be based on Republican talking points.

I mean, jesus fucking christ, is there anything more unethical for a moderator to do than to take a specific stand on an issue like Charlie Gibson did on the capital gains tax?

Looks like an instant consensus in left blogistan that the bigger winner was nobody and the biggest loser was ABC.

The instant consensus is remarkable in and of itself. I have a feeling that that judgment is going to persist, and have some kind of consequences.

Stephanawfulus + Charlie Gibsons (illinformed) War + Jumping the shark = horrible.

Therre is one thing that is lcuky though. This "debate" just shows that there really is nothing left to talk about and just reinforces the truth that there is just no reason for this to continue any longer. We have all suffered enough!

And now it appears that this primary has left the reputations of Bill Clinton, Geraldine Ferraro, Samantha Power, Goolsbee, and now George Stephanopolous and Charlie Gibson in absolue tatters. Maybe this process just needs to continue to destroy everyone and everything in its wake. That would be brilliant.

The Clinton supporters finally got their ounce of flesh, so they should be happy. Now lets vote next week and declare this over.

Charlie's capital gains tax contention was not only a Republican talking point, it's been debunked. Tax cuts do not pay for themselves. They can PARTIALLY pay for themselves. Not the same thing at all.

See any serious economist on the Laffer curve (besides Laffer himself who's signed on to the McCain campaign).

Yes, but according to Sean Hannity via George Stephanopoulos, Barack Obama is about to go blow up buildings with the Weather Underground.

This is important, because Only Republicans Never Associate With Terrorists, except those death squad leaders and former dictators they do fund raisers with all across Southern Florida.

PENNSYLVANIA DEBATE

In the debate last night far too much time was spent attacking Obama on trivial issues such as wearing flag lapel pins, one bitter misstatement, and remote associations. The two moderators and Clinton put him on the defensive for much of the night.

He did OK and Clinton was her usual competent self. About the only news was the conviction of candidates that each would set the strategy and mission for Iraq and not be necessarily bound by opinions of the generals. Also, each conceded that the other was electable in the November election.

Mostly ho-hum. Where are Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich when we need them?

homer www.altara.blogspot.com

I agree that the questions asked weren't all that substantive, BUT, it is LONG OVERDUE that somebody ask these two about some of the ridiculous things they have said in the past months. This debate allowed us to here it straight from them. I liked the part on gun rights- both of them looked like deer in the headlights because they both know they are anti-gun, but they walked that fine political line about "balance" that only a politician could.

Also, anyone who says ABC should be ashamed is off the mark. Shouldn't we get to hear the explanations for some of the questionable comments that have came from Hillary and Obama??

Furthermore, do you think Obama, the master of hot air answers would have given a substantive answer to a substantive question?? NO!! If I was a moderator, I would avoid any question where Obama can invoke his meaningless change rhetoric.

"I mean, jesus fucking christ, is there anything more unethical for a moderator to do than to take a specific stand on an issue like Charlie Gibson did on the capital gains tax?"

I agree it's unethical, but the Dems should take it as forewarning and realize what a HUGE issue taxes, including capital gains taxes, are going to be in the general election. This is not simply because moderators and McBush will make it an issue-- it's because Republicans and swing voters *really want to know.* You notice Gibson states that 100 million people pay capital gains taxes. Dems like to portray it as exclusively a tax that hits the wealthiest. That's a huge distortion.

McBush, perhaps with the assistance of moderators (who are upper income, after all), will attempt to portray the Dem repeal of the Bush tax cuts on upper incomes as extending to everyone.

A lot of liberal pundits like to fixate on the more exotic distortions of Republican attack dogs-- "swift boating" and so forth. That's not what's going to lose them the election-- the idea that they'll raise taxes on the "middle class" is.

Middle class wages are not rising. The Democrats have no real way of addressing that directly. A lot of people are simply not going to vote themselves a cut in their annual income. If Dems are not crystal clear about where they stand and trumpeting it all over the place, McCain is going to kill them.

"You notice Gibson states that 100 million people pay capital gains taxes."

Um ... First, I'm pretty sure that that figure is complete bullshit. Second, how much do they actually pay? If the majority of them are paying only a few dollars in these taxes, as I suspect, it's a really misleading number. Show me the number of people who pay more than, say, $100 in capital gains taxes each year.

"Dems like to portray it as exclusively a tax that hits the wealthiest. That's a huge distortion."

No, actually it isn't. If you look at who actually pays and how much they pay, that tax is clearly a tax that hits the wealthiest, not the lower and middle class.

"Show me the number of people who pay more than, say, $100 in capital gains taxes each year."

I do. And my salary is like $38K. I killed myself saving money to supplement my paycheck, knowing damn well what the plutocrats are doing to our job security and salaries, and I see no reason to give it back to them now. Nor do countless babyboomers-- and thank goodness, what with their "early retirements" and downsizings into shit jobs formerly held by teenagers (all voluntary, I'm sure).

Don't let your outdated and ideologically hardened picture of how the "middle class" got that way (and what they're doing to eviscerate it now) knock you on your ass in November.

Do I have statistics? No, you go look for them if you want it. I don't need statistics-- I seem them everyday.