ABC and Hillary Clinton Double Team Obama With Slime

Theoretically having a debate on a major network as opposed to cable might mean having a better debate. It certainly did not turn out that way. Looking around the blogosphere there is disagreement as to who won but most agree that the questions were horrible. Tapped writes that the questions were a disgrace. Greg Mitchell calls it a shameful night for the U.S. media. It seemed like every ridiculous bit of slime being spread the last several weeks was discussed, ranging from flag pins to associations with 60’s radicals to Obama’s bitterness statement.

Deciding upon who wins depends largely upon how you see these questions. While Clinton was asked about her Bosnia gaffe, the bulk of the nonsense questions involved Obama. This could be seen as a negative for Obama with him being placed on the defensive. I saw the major difference between the two being that Hillary Clinton tried to use the slime to her benefit. In contrast, Obama clearly would have preferred that such nonsense be kept out of presidential debates, and even defended Clinton on Bosnia.

The debate contained far too little of substance, but it did reveal more about the character of the two candidates. Judging the debate in this manner Clinton failed badly. Once again this debate demonstrated that the choice is a continuation of the same old Bush/Rove/Clinton style dirty politics or a change to politics of substance.

What really matters after debates is the general reaction, not my opinion. On the one hand, public opinion is partially determined by the media, and I fear that the media lacks the ability to recognize how terrible the questions were. Coverage based upon showing Obama on the defensive would not look favorable.

I remain hopeful that the American people are smarter than this and are growing tired of choosing presidents based upon who can be discredited with the most negative slime. If the American voters see it this way, the next president will be either Barack Obama or John McCain. The debate once again made it clear that Hillary Clinton lacks the integrity and character necessary to be taken seriously as a president, and has far more in common with George Bush than any of the other candidates remaining in the race.

Update: If it seemed like the questions were coming from the lunatic right as opposed  to rational journalists, there’s a good reason for this. George Stephanopoulos got his advice regarding the types of questions to ask from Sean Hannity. Of course Hillary Clinton remains on the same page as the far right, as I’ve noted many times in previous posts.

Be Sociable, Share!


  1. 1
    Cory says:

    I wrote about the horrible debate as well.

    ABC News has certainly lost what little creditability it had left which that showing last night.

    It’s pretty bad when a question about gas prices, gets thrown in as a lightning round question with about 2 minutes left to go in the debate.

  2. 2
    Susan says:

    Pretty pathetic.

    Lots of people today defend the media and bash Obama’s performance. This isn’t a sporting event, this is our future.

    I can’t defend or excuse ABC or their moderators. It was easy for Hillary to look good when her opponent was destroyed for almost an hour before the substance questions started. Of course Obama looked defensive – what else could he do?

    Also, the continuous closeups of Chelsea, Rendell and Nutter were pretty strange. What was ABC trying to accomplish with that?

    I live in Pennsylvania and will vote for Obama next week. If anyone ever doubted we need change in politics, last night should have helped them KNOW we need a new direction.

  3. 3
    retta says:

    Yes, its race for the poor white dummies who don’t know how they’re losing their jobs. Alot of you support the Clintons who are such liars and you act like Obama has to be represented by what other people say or others actions.

    Clinton lied about Bosnia–nobody but Hillary. Her hospital lie–Hilliary’s lie. Hillary jumped on the Underground bandwagon in the debate last night and her husband pardoned 2 of the terrorist himself. Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton had Rev. Wright at the White House for prayer for Clinton’s infidelity with Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, and Jennifer Flowers–hypocritical as usual. They voted Nafta in—your jobs dummies–and they have now received over $800,000 from the Colombians and also millions from lobbyists. Mark Penn received $300,000 for his visit. He’s on the payroll too and still is apart of the campaign but not vocal because he got caught. The Clintons made 20 millions dollars in 2007, add that to the $109 million, with one job and one pension and no million dollar book deals. These are alot of favors to payback. Thats why she won’t leave the race. Somebody has to pay these favors. She also reminds me of the cheerleader mom who will kill for her daughter to be on the quad–meaning her and Bill in the Whitehouse. She reminds me of the babysitter in the movie “Hand That Rocks the Cradle” will stop at nothing.

    Alot of the poor white people say that if Clinton isn’t the nominee, they are going to vote for Mccain. Duhhh, Duhhh, that’s why you are feeling the way you do now, “bitter.” “Ooops I meant angry and frustrated.” You’ll be a believer one day that the R in Republican stands for Rich, Rightwing, and Racist but you guys are poor and are not getting the same treatment as the well-connected—dummies!!!! In your hearts you are racism but won’t admit it. Real CHANGE is coming.

    Sorry, I called you names but I am bitter.

    “Mrs. Clinton, now a senator from New York, has her own obligation to inform the public of what she knew. She has said she knew nothing of the case of Marc Rich, the fugitive financier pardoned by Mr. Clinton, and was not involved in the decision to commute the sentences of four members of a Hasidic sect in Rockland County. But the latest revelation can only hurt her standing and complicate her efforts to break free of the lax ethical standards of her husband’s White House.” (Maureen Dowd, New York Times)

  4. 4
    janet says:

    I was so angry last night. Seriously, elementary school children would ask more appropriate and insightful questions.

    What’s wrong with Gibson and Stephanopolis? They were disgusting.

  5. 5
    KMoney says:

    Last night’s debate just goes to show how divided the Democrats are! and that’s just what the Republican’s need for amo, Aas stated in an article ” Sen. McCain had to be laughin his *** off watching “Clinopoulos” and that other goofe
    attack Sen Obama, Ok this is the first time that I’ve heard about the guy from the 60’s and Obama’s flemsy aquantance, Everything else was just a rehash, Distasteful being that there were more pressing issues at hand, Like “Idono Um” the failing housing market, Our Troops that are being led to slaughter in Iraq because of a lie and the Economy, Come on is this ABC’s way of trying to get us to choose a candidate by using tabliod tactics to somehow arouse Americans to choose a nominee for President? Shameful, ABC has blown it for me.. they get’s no respect!

  6. 6
    Charters Of Dreams says:

    Well, Obama’s is blowing it (can’t you damn Liberals do anything right?!).

    Every so often, a politician commits the horrible mistake of saying what he really thinks. This happened at the Democratic debate. Barack Obama has a very punitive proposal to nearly double the capital gains rate. When asked by one of the moderators whether this makes sense, especially given the historical evidence of big “Laffer-Curve” effects, Senator Obama dismissed concerns about falling revenue, arguing that a high rate was justified by “fairness.”

    This is particularly damaging:

    MR. GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

    SENATOR OBAMA: Well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on what’s happening on Wall Street and how business is going.

    This exchange is particularly revealing since Senator Obama actually admitted that a tax rate increase might lose revenue, but he held firm to his position that the capital gains rate should be increased from 15 percent to 28 percent. Apparently Obama’s viewpoint that punishing success was more important to the statist ideology than increasing revenue for government — if those are “Liberal Values,” the hell with those “values.”

    As each day passes, I’m less and less inclined to vote for Obama if he gets the nomination.

  7. 7
    Ron Chusid says:

    That’s quite a distortion of what Obama said. Look at what he actually said–not the distortions being posted today in the right wing blogs.

    It is not his position “that the capital gains rate should be increased from 15 percent to 28 percent.” He left the issue of increasing the tax rate open, and only noted that the rate was 28% under Bill Clinton. He did not say he would increase it to 28%.

    Obama also said nothing about punishing success.

  8. 8
    Charters Of Dreams says:

    Come on!

    When someone says something as populist as “what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness” that should be taken serioulsy.

    Unless Obama only says populist things he doesn’t really mean only to get elected?

    GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.

    So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

    OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

    We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year — $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair.


    See the transcript the debate here:

  9. 9
    Ron Chusid says:

    Neither the quote in your second comment or the transcript support the claims you made in your first comment.

    You are cherry picking one comment from Obama to back up your preconceptions. On the other hand, Obama is often attacked by Clinton supporters as being the candidate of the wealthy who doesn’t care about the poor. They can also cherry pick statements to support the opposite view of Obama than you suggest. The truth, when you go beyond cherry picking and pay attention to what Obama is really saying, is somewhere between what each extreme is claiming.

  10. 10
    Charters Of Dreams says:

    Not exactly — it’s ignoring the ambiguity. What you’ll see is Clinton supporters not cherry picking but attacking Obama for not coming right out and saying he’ll raise cap. gain tax, so suggesting that he won’t if enough pressure is brought to bear.

    I’m right AND they’re right.

    The guy should take a clear stand. He wants it both ways so as to avoid taking too much fire. Leaving the issue of increasing the tax rate open is bulls**t.

  11. 11
    Charters Of Dreams says:

    Sorry, can’t type today. I meant to say:

    What you’ll see is Clinton supporters not cherry picking but attacking Obama for not coming right out and saying he’ll raise cap. gain tax — or they’ll suggest/fear/assme that he won’t if enough pressure is brought to bear.

    and they’re right to think that.

  12. 12
    Ron Chusid says:

    You’ve clearly become convinced of your preconceptions about Obama and he is guilty regardless of what he says. If he says he will raise capital gains taxes he is guilty, but if he doesn’t say he will then he is also guilty of something here. If he ultimately wins and does not raise capital gains taxes then he is still guilty because he gave into political pressure. There’s no way that Obama could be right by your logic.

    It makes perfect sense that he cannot say exactly where he would tax capital gains over the next 4-8 years at this point. This depends on so many factors such as the economic situation and what Congress wants to do.

    “I’m right AND they’re right.”

    No, as usual you are making very little sense, while the Clinton supporters are just playing politics. Once again you have made assertions which are contradicted by the facts. Regardless of how you now try to spin it, your claims as to what Obama has said are totally unsubstantiated.

  13. 13
    Charters Of Dreams says:

    uh huh, right Ron. Apparently a bunch of other people aren’t paying attention to what Obama “really” meant either and are just paying attention to what he did say:

    Obama-Clinton Debate in Philadelphia Spawns Weird Economics

    Obama: Huge Capital Gains Tax Increase Needed
    Obama’s Capital Gains Blunder
    Obama Wants to Hike the Capital Gains Tax
    Obama Pushes for Higher Investment Taxes

  14. 14
    Ron Chusid says:

    Just as I said above–you are basing your claims on the writings of conservative, anti-Obama writers who intentionally distort what Obama has said for political reasons, and not on what Obama has actually said. You are just providing further evidence that you are ignoring Obama’s actual statements.

    It is also a common tactic by the right to repeat the same false claims from multiple sources to give the illusion that what they are saying is true. They know that ideologues such as yourself will believe their claims which feed into your ideological beliefs and won’t bother to check the facts.

  15. 15
    Charters Of Dreams says:

    Hardly anti-Obama. The issue is tax increases. That’s what they’re against, whether or not their perceptions of Obama are correct or not — and perceptions are everything, in fact: the only thing.

    Obama is blowing it — and you’ve got your head in the sand about it.

    Remember John Kerry? How the hell he could lose against Bush is beyond me, but he managed it anyway. Obama will get the nominiation, but if you think he can win given the trend he’s on, think again. Liberal arrogance and overconfidence, yours and others like you, is your biggest fault. I hope you don’t represent the mean here of Obama supporters. If you do, Obama will lose, and guys like you will never ever see it coming until it happens.

    You want Obama to win? Start opening your eyes.

    See “How Obama fell to Earth:”

  16. 16
    Ron Chusid says:

    You only weaken your case further when you resort to quoting David Brooks.

    “Start opening your eyes.”

    I’m the one who spent a year reading everything Obama’s said or written before taking a position on him, based upon what he has really said. In contrast you continue to attack him based not upon what he has said but upon how right wingers have misquoted him.

    As usual, when the facts show you are wrong you are you are wrong you resort to a combination of right wing talking points and ad hominin attacks. None of this changes the fact.

    Using Kerry is a poor comparison. Kerry was running against an incumbent president during war time. He did far better than would be expected under such situations.

    “Liberal arrogance and overconfidence, yours and others like you, is your biggest fault.”

    Also typical of your responses when the facts have proven that you are wrong is to launch such straw man attacks based upon your distortions of what I and others have said. You ignore the fact that I have been warning for quite a while that those who think that the Democrats are going to have a slam dunk victory in November are in error.

  17. 17
    jo says:

    I’m disgusted. I can envision no scenario in which I would vote for Hillary at this point. For anything. Not even the PTA.

5 Trackbacks

Leave a comment