digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at thinkprogress.org

AUDIO: Hannity Feeds Stephanopoulos Debate Question

thinkprogress.org — Something just isn't right here.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • stormkrow, on 04/17/2008, -10/+246Stephanopoulos was in fact Bill Clintons Campaign manager, probably not the best choice for an unbiased commentator.
    • kanvas, on 04/17/2008, -8/+37He was a staffer on the Clinton 92 campaign, then served as press secretary for the first few months of the admin before being removed for doing a poor job.

      I doubt he was biased in Hillary's favor; he just sucked ass. Then again, maybe the two are synonymous.
      • meese, on 04/17/2008, -2/+12He may not have been biased (although it's impossible to know what's in his head), but he wasn't a low level staffer - he and James Carville were the two point men for Bill Clinton's campaign, and for his first term in the white house. (Stephanopolous was important enough that he was even fictionalized - he was depicted in "Primary Colors" and later, was used as a basis for characters in "The American President" and "The West Wing".)
      • Spudster, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1In case you're wondering, James Carville and George Stephanopoulous were the KEY guys behind Clinton's '92 run. In fact, they even made a successful documentary about it called "The War Room."
    • orangedude, on 04/17/2008, -6/+17Gibson ourtright lied in his question regarding the effect of capital gains tax rates on tax revenue. He stated as fact that lower capital gains tax rates were directly linked with increased government revenue. As any economist worth his salt will tell you, this link is dubious at best and any correlation is likely due to the fact that stock sales are often delayed when future cuts in capital gains tax rates are announced. This gives the appearance that revenues increase when capital gains tax rates are reduced when in actuality, they likely result in reduced revenue (as the planned stock sales would mostly take place in any case even at the higher tax rates). Even if you agree with Gibson's position (which many if not most economists would not), to present it as fact is unconscionable.
      • Spudster, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Of all the media coverage regarding this whole debacle, this is the FIRST time I have EVER read anything that dealt with the actual policies discussed. I give you major props sir.
    • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 04/17/2008, -19/+8I have a question for all you liberals.

      If Keith Olberman had asked President Bush a question, would you also say that is unfair?

      Since I am assuming the answer is no, why not? How can you say that it is unfair for a conservative to ask a Democrat a question, but it is fair for a Democrat to ask Republican a question without being a hypocrite?
      • didiman, on 04/17/2008, -16/+8It's hilarious how all of the obamabots' panties are twisted up today.
        • cwgannon, on 04/17/2008, -4/+9No, we're not digging you down for calling us, him, or that other guy "obamabots." No, we're doing it because that was a pretty weak attempt at humor. But please, do try again, maybe with something a bit less tired?
      • pintomp3, on 04/17/2008, -4/+5why do you assume the answer is no? if olberman was a former employee of the other candidate and he was taking cues from someone as hateful and bigotted as hannity, of course it would be unfair. your strawman fails on so many levels.
        • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 04/17/2008, -8/+2OK. So do you agree with non-liberals who say that because Steph was part of a Democrat administration that he is impartial and should not be hired by any self-respecting news outlet that claims to be objective?
      • Pillage, on 04/17/2008, -8/+1Yea, but Olberman isn't a journalist. Stephanopoulos is.
        • Pillage, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1ok ok Stephanopoulos is "supposedly" a journalist.
      • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 04/17/2008, -4/+2Looks like I asked a tough, unfair question.
        • consoneo, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1No, you asked a question with the wrong words. Impartial isn't the word you wanted.
      • gandhii, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2I find it insulting that you would call a neocon a conservative. Your use of the words "conservative" and "republican" interchangeably is misleading and incorrect.
    • joeanon, on 04/18/2008, -2/+2What kind of *****, in the wake of MASS MEDIA deception... has to blame Clinton or even bring him into the conversation.

      You're so sadly educated and pitifully oblivious to how much disregarding media corruption hurts your nation, your dollar, your job, and your children.

      The pond is getting bigger and the US is officially a smaller fish. Keep blaming Bill Clinton.. moron.
      • SpeedSteamBoat, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Uh, I don't think the OP was blaming the state of the union on Bill Clinton. Seemed to me they were pointing out the, uh, "media corruption" you're having fits about. It's sort of ironic actually.
  • hawkeye17, on 04/17/2008, -14/+184That debate illustrated everything that is wrong with the American media today. Disgraceful on so many levels.
    • Cagnazzo82, on 04/17/2008, -2/+28Probably one of the most outrageously biased debates I've ever seen on television.

      I thought including that analyst at the end who claimed Clinton won (before the debate was even over) was bad... but this is several times worse.
      • jabbar, on 04/17/2008, -2/+11Thank god i wasnt the only one that thought that. i had to keep changing the channel because it frustrated me so damn much. charlie gibson was retarded too.
      • sgtpppr, on 04/17/2008, -0/+12It's not even the bias that is the huge problem, but the fact that they simply turned the debate into an attempted cage match. They baited and baited with every single non-issue mudslinging tabloid item they could come up with. They were hoping to start a fight on live tv and when it didn't happen, they came off looking like jack asses. This was a disservice to American voters.
      • didiman, on 04/17/2008, -14/+3Go cry to your mommy, she will make you some fresh kool-aid.
        • theaceoffire, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2***** you, I actually like kool-aid.
          Damn cults making it uncool to have kool-aid.
    • sqwirl, on 04/17/2008, -2/+11I have a hard time imagining this debate having been any worse had it been moderated by Bill O'Reilly himself. Absolutely shameless.
      • cutlerchris, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2At least if it was moderated by Bill O, he would have been dishing out to both of them roughly equally. This was just "How much can we get the front runner screw up on non-issue questions to make our ratings soar."
    • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 04/17/2008, -13/+7Liberals been telling the rest of us for years that there is no bias in the media. Now that the bias is working against them in one case, suddenly it is a symbol of everything wrong in America.
      • pintomp3, on 04/17/2008, -6/+9wrong. the corporate media has always had a bias to the right. everyone seems to forget how everyone media outlet from msnbc and nytimes to fox news and washington post was beating the drums for the iraq war. a media company that is owned by company that profits from military contracts will be biased towards the right. if you compare the american corporate media with the rest of the world, they all look like right-wing chickenhawks.
        • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 04/17/2008, -10/+5One qucik look at Newsbusted.org will prove that wrong. There have been countess studies done showing that FNC is biased to the right, and that the rest of the media is biased to left.

          I have no problem with media bias (there can be no such thin as an unbiased, objective news outlet), I just wish they would stop pretending they are objective.
          • petrodollar, on 04/18/2008, -1/+2"I have no problem with media bias"

            Please kill self immediately.
        • TBobes, on 04/18/2008, -3/+1I don't know how you are getting dugg up, but you really need to look into your sources. The media along with teachers have been biased to the left since tv began. The only reason for this debate was to bash in the Republicans. Why else would they have a nation wide debate for one primary?

          Obama 08
      • crweaks23, on 04/17/2008, -3/+2Um.. I consider myself pretty far left of the religious right on social issues, but pretty conservative on old-school republican ideals like small government and fiscal responsibility, and trying not to mess with foreign countries... remember those days?

        Anyway... there is no such thing as a collective MSM anymore. Depending on the source of the news, it can be biased in either direction. You have a choice of what to read, and if you're putting all your confidence in one source then you can't possibly expect to know what's really going on in the world. There are different levels of slant depending on the source.. a channel like msnbc is pretty centric, with shows slanting in both directions, but fox news is extremely right, regardless of the program.

        Now, that being said, this is a presidential primary debate. Not a "special report" or a hosted news program. If you can't see the difference between a display of slanted journalism and a ridiculous attempt to try and make candidates in the running for the president of the united states look as horrible as possible, you are delusional. It's not just the substance of the questions, it's how they're asked. Some had 30 second introductions just to inform the people what the hell the question was even about, and by the time the question was asked it was so sensationalized that it really didn't matter how the candidate answered the question.

        Oh, and your link for bustednews.org is bad...
    • OrangeTide, on 04/17/2008, -0/+6American Politics + Television = for Entertainment Purposes Only.
    • theblt, on 04/18/2008, -1/+3If Hillary was being bashed the entire debate ever moron on here would think it was completely fair and balanced...

      Enough with the circle jerking.
    • Marijuana, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1In a nut shell it's basically what we the people want vs. MSM. 'Nuff said.
    • fool13, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Issues like these need to be brought to the American public's attention which is through MSM. Most people aren't well informed enough on their own. The debate was tougher on Obama yes but he didn't exactly answer every question flawlessly. The flag pin question is so f'ing stupid, why can't people just let the damned thing go. We know what happened with Wright, we know the Bosnia sniper fiasco stop bringing the past up. The issue on Obama's connection with the Weather Underground hasn't been brought up and needs to be. I don't understand why people don't want this stuff to be brought to the public. If McCain is buddies with someone who bombed the Pentagon I can state unequivocally right now I would not vote for him this fall, period. Bring the stories to attention through the MSM so people can make informed choices. If they reject the story and don't care about it fine.
    • Spudster, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Did you guys watch the intro? I thought I was watching reality television.
  • mCanada, on 04/17/2008, -15/+136Obama made one of the best rebuttals possible to this hit job. This is why you "stay in school"
    • Treoinmypocket, on 04/17/2008, -26/+3How does that Kool-Aid taste. Obama gave a stupid and stuttering answer to thisand so many other questions last nite.

      If Obama gets the nomination Democrats lose the General Election. Period
      • morrisonm, on 04/17/2008, -2/+21Treo, I'm assuming you voted for the current bumbling idiot, probably twice.
        • Treoinmypocket, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1So you agree that Obama is a bumbling idiot then?
      • mCanada, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2I can't vote in your election, but if I could I would have voted for Kucinich ( and I would say I'm futher to the "right" than he was). Anyways, to reply to your half literate comment, the reason why Obama made a great rebuttal was due to the fact that Hannity and friends tried to create what's called "false causation"; ie. Obama had some obtuse connection to some english prof years ago (who no doubt had a shady past) and therefore Obama is guilty of this guy's wrongs. WHAAAAAT? If this is the best dirt you can come up with on Obama, you have the cleanest candidate I've ever seen and I'm not even voting in this election. You have a president in the White House who had KEN LAY, ENRON CEO
        sleeping and dinning there, you have McCain member of the Keating 5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five and this is what ABC decides to talk about? Lapel pins? Maybe I should drink the cool aide, because this is some ***** UP ***** my friend. And the best part, the media is even telling you how they're censoring themselves http://digg.com/world_news/Jesse_Ventura_Talks_9_1 ...

    • crweaks23, on 04/17/2008, -1/+9I like kool-aide... if obama is really giving out kool-aid, i should vote for him to get me some. Better than Clinton's ***** in a can.
  • slutjammer, on 04/17/2008, -32/+10They should have Reverend Wright moderate the next debate, bring all the manufactured issues together in one Ballot Bowl
  • toddcat, on 04/17/2008, -12/+64We're all *****.
    • junkwheel, on 04/17/2008, -0/+7More or less.

      /taxi driver
    • mCanada, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3You sir have bested my previous comment. Simplicity has it's virtues. Ockham's razor!
      • toddcat, on 04/17/2008, -0/+4Absolutely-I think Occam's (isn't that how it's spelled?) Razor is a very accurate law.
  • suzywang3000, on 04/17/2008, -95/+17relevant question, you stupid hippies...

    and Sean is soooo sexy.
    • actorboy, on 04/17/2008, -9/+15Tokyo Rose, is that you?
      • geoffg, on 04/18/2008, -3/+1Nothing like a little leftist racism to get your motor running, oh wait I forgot leftist's can't be racist...sorry my mistake.
    • glasnostic, on 04/17/2008, -11/+13troll
      • suzywang3000, on 04/17/2008, -17/+11ah, another hippie who thinks the definition of "troll" is "someone who doesn't support Obama". Do us a favor...
        • glasnostic, on 04/17/2008, -3/+7people call everybody to the left of them hippies, and mean it, are trolls.

          i call people hippies as a joke.. the joke being, that i a parodying idiots like you.

          go ***** your self..
          • suzywang3000, on 04/17/2008, -7/+3"go ***** your self.."

            -go kill yourself
          • jmahnn, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2why can't you both love yourself
          • glasnostic, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1go kill myself?

            no i think i will leave the irrational self hate to ***** like you.
      • absurdist, on 04/17/2008, -1/+5Sorry, suzy (if indeed you are female), but in this case the "Sean is so sexy" comment that makes you a troll. No one could take that seriously.
    • p51d007, on 04/17/2008, -11/+4It is a great question. You can sure as hell bet that if Trent Lott were running for president, every other question would be about his statements when he was offering birthday wishes to Strom Thurmon, but, since this is a wacked out left wing liberal running for president, you can't ask such questions.
    • minorthreat, on 04/17/2008, -1/+13wacked out left wing running for president? Why dont you look at Europe if you want to see what being left truly means.
    • graddatadda, on 04/17/2008, -7/+6at least s(he) didn't play the martyr and said "no dig me down you hippies, you know you want to." She's probably having special time with her jesus christ dildo
    • boogie606, on 04/18/2008, -1/+2i think i love you suzywang...that is, if you're a chick...you are, aren't you?
  • BECoole, on 04/17/2008, -82/+29It was a great debate. We already know that Hillary is unelectable, but Barak showed some more of why he can't win in Nov either.
    And I thought the Democrat party hit a low with Spotted Al Gore... and then with John Freak'in Kerry. ROFL!
    • digjam, on 04/17/2008, -26/+10You Sir, are going to be dugg down 10,000 times!
      • BECoole, on 04/17/2008, -9/+7Thank you, sir. I always strive to do my best! :)
      • graddatadda, on 04/17/2008, -8/+3of course you have the balls to say it on a freaking website...I bet your little limp self would run screaming if you tried barking that off in real life.
        • oldhick, on 04/17/2008, -1/+6Are you kidding? Afraid to talk politics in real life? What kind of little douche bag is afraid to talk politics in real life? I hear people say that same ***** every day up and down the east coast... Walk outside more and try to spend some time with different groups of people. People believe and say all kinds of stupid *****. They have every right too. Who is dumb enough to threaten someone over a political opinion.
          • cwgannon, on 04/17/2008, -3/+2Are you kidding? Have you been to the rest of America, or just the east coast? Because I can speak for a good part of the Midwest in that things like politics, religion, etc. are not fair play for conversation among all but pretty damn close friends; else, you're really looking to offend some people. I mean, sure, it's within one's right to say such things and get everybody all riled up and *****, but there's a thing called common courtesy that the mature ones of us do our best to practice--especially in places and among people who can't do a ***** thing about any of it. Maybe you don't do it where you're from, who knows?

            Either way, you look like a jerk by thinking you know from a two-sentence comment the types of encounters this guy does and does not have in his everyday non-Internets life. So who's the douchebag again?
          • flashback99, on 04/17/2008, -5/+1this tirade was sponsored by ToughType. Enlarging your virtual penis with every rant.
          • oldhick, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3@cwgannon, thats a real shame that you have to with hold discussions in the midwest out of courtesy. Thankfully my frequent areas of travel tend to be in more progressive areas where people enjoy talking with each and freely sharing ideas through discussions. What is there to be offended by? So someone thinks your candidate is a lying bastard who's going to ruin the country and you think the same about someone elses... So? That's life and through discussions with folks we all learn a little something.

            And as for judging from a two sentence comment, if you're afraid to discuss politics and ideas with people then I re-iterate: You Need to Get Out More!
        • BECoole, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Hey granddadturd, you're a little weak on the digg-downs there.
    • KidDynamo0, on 04/17/2008, -10/+10A couple of things...
      -The whole debate was ridiculous. Fifty plus minutes without a single policy question, and you say it was a great debate? If you are register to vote, don't you are a moron.
      -The question to both of them were abysmal and completely framed from an attack perspective.
      -The whole "Democrat Party" nonsense is retarded, just stop it. You sound like a childish clown. Its Democratic Party...you didnt write it as a mistake...grow up.
      • BECoole, on 04/17/2008, -5/+3Well, the party isn't "democratic"; they have unaccountable Super Delegates.
        • sublingo, on 04/17/2008, -2/+2Republicans have unpledged delegates as well. They just don't have a fancy name like 'Super' Delegates.
    • provost, on 04/17/2008, -8/+11so apparently you are a mccain voter if you think the other two are unelectable. What do you like most about him.. the fact that he almost switched parties and became 'liberal' of the fact that he is a total flip flopper? Do you like more that he refuses to sign the veterans bill of rights or the fact that he endorses torture? Do you like more that he wants to be in iraq for 100 years or is actively pressing war against Iran?

      fill us in here.
      • Dewhead, on 04/17/2008, -10/+11provost,
        everything you just cited regarding McCain has been thoroughly disputed.
        Once again for clarity, here is Senator McCain's original comment: "Make it a hundred. We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world."
        Regarding switching parties: This is an old rumor from 2001 that apparently is now being recirculated by the Democrats. Is there any truth to it? McCain flatly denied it at the time; in June 2001 he said, "I have no intention of leaving the Republican Party, nor have I ever displayed any intention." Today, one of his spokesmen told us, "John McCain never considered leaving the Republican party. Any statement to the contrary is inaccurate and merely election year politics."
        Regarding "torture". Our country does not torture people. As you know, the definition of "torture" is a matter of interpretation. I think listening to Barry Manilow is torture....
        • ImCondescending, on 04/17/2008, -3/+1Saying that torture is a matter or interpretation is *****. Although waterboarding is not as extreme as the torture that's shown on stupid ass shows like 24 it still counts.
      • BECoole, on 04/17/2008, -3/+5Thomas Sowell said it best, so I will quote him:
        "Senator John McCain could never convince me to vote for him. Only Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama can cause me to vote for McCain."
      • pintomp3, on 04/17/2008, -7/+2anyone who votes for mccain should automatically be enlisted. if you want to keep the war going, you should be prepared to fight in it.
      • RomeyRome, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2I just like the fact that he's not telling me that I have to share and give up a little piece of my pie.
    • p51d007, on 04/17/2008, -3/+5Operation Chaos is working as planned....excellent!
  • BelatedHero, on 04/17/2008, -14/+21Why on earth would Stephanopoulos go on Hannity's radio show??
    • V3n0M, on 04/17/2008, -6/+27Because they're both shills.
      • Dumbledorito, on 04/17/2008, -2/+5But for different camps, yes? Wasn't that one of the rules? "Don't cross the shills?"
    • glasnostic, on 04/17/2008, -11/+14to get some advice on how to smear an honest democratic candidate.
    • joe122370, on 04/17/2008, -5/+7because it's the second highest rated radio show behind Rush
    • mCanada, on 04/17/2008, -3/+7the enemy of my enemy is my friend....
    • graddatadda, on 04/17/2008, -3/+3well duh, he did it for money of course. You could pay either off enough money and they'd be doing erectile dysfunction commercials. They have no loyalty to anything except the almighty dollar.
    • floorman56, on 04/17/2008, -8/+2Why on earth would Stephanopoulos go on Hannity's radio show??
      He is not scared of Fox like Obama?
    • nycmac247, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2two sides of the same coin ... or is that a "conspiracy"
    • waggdogg, on 04/17/2008, -8/+3Why did Obama go to a terrorist house and be friends with him. Do they have the same belief?
  • iSkylla, on 04/17/2008, -27/+23Obama was fantastic in this last debate. Yes, he took the high road, but he made sure to get through all the political ***** and talk about the real issues.
    • mntalkase, on 04/18/2008, -0/+3Nah, as much as I'm for Obama and all... he was hurting in this debate.
  • digjam, on 04/17/2008, -24/+18WAKE ME UP...WHEN NOVEMBER ENDS!
    • Steven8890, on 04/17/2008, -19/+5gay
      • dmark77, on 04/17/2008, -1/+5This is not a happy occasion sir.
      • graddatadda, on 04/17/2008, -7/+2don't mind him...conservatives have a hard time making complete sentences.
    • themanmachine, on 04/17/2008, -0/+15Scientist: [Scientist unfreezes Walt's body] Welcome Back,Mr. Disney
      Walt Disney: Are the Jews gone yet?
      Scientist: Uhh,no...
      Walt Disney: Put me back in!
      [Slams the crynogen chamber shut]
    • withears, on 04/17/2008, -0/+10WAKE ME UP...BEFORE YOU GO GO
      • 01001001, on 04/18/2008, -0/+0Don't leave me hanging on like a yo-yo
      • Lutremi, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Wake me up before you go-go
        I don't want to miss it when you hit that high
    • fazerfaze, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Seconded
  • jcharak58, on 04/17/2008, -27/+20why cares it was a valid question. I don't care where it came from. I like Obama over Hillary but the questions need to come out on all candidate pasts
    • Dewhead, on 04/17/2008, -0/+9You are correct. All candidates should be equally questioned and scrutinized. If something is incorrect then the truth will come out.
    • Pillage, on 04/17/2008, -5/+1Yea, but see it came from Evil Sean Hannity, so therefor wrong....
    • cyberprunes, on 04/17/2008, -0/+4Yes, but that's not the right content for DEBATE. So much time wasted on *****. THE FLAG PIN??? Screw the flag pin. Flag pins and flag waving are not valid measures of patriotism. Just like all those people with Support the Troops! ribbon stickers on their cars.
      • consoneo, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Agreed. Those are empty gestures. I joined the Armed Forces, and I don't have a bumper sticker or magnet one on my vehicle displaying it. I don't like those magnets. Especially when they're filthy because the people never even take the time to take care of their vehicles. It disgraces me.
  • 41k1d0k4, on 04/17/2008, -15/+22Get Charlie Rose to do a debate. Not some fluffy haired moron like Snufalufagus.
    • waggdogg, on 04/17/2008, -4/+2Debate is to ask the tough questions, not the fluffy queations by Charlie Rose.
    • RuSTeDs, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1That made me laugh out loud! dugg. And yeah, Charlie's hardcore.
  • usgovterrorists, on 04/17/2008, -68/+11Hannity is such a shill, liar, and stooge for the neocons.

    United States Government are terrorists, war criminals, and horrific liars.

    9-11 was an inside job! 9-11 official story was a lie! What happened to building 7?

    Depleted uranium is a weapon of mass destruction!

    Play Wall Street like a PONZI SCHEME!

    The elections are rigged, unsecure voting machines & ballots!
    • iSkylla, on 04/17/2008, -7/+21Please leave. God you truthers are so full of *****.
      • slutjammer, on 04/17/2008, -4/+7I believe he asked what happened to building 7
    • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 04/17/2008, -4/+13Off the meds still?
      • slutjammer, on 04/17/2008, -4/+1Thats a great way to think about it, Being off medication as an insult to someones legitamcy. I'm not on a medication, are you? are you better than me for that?
        • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2No medication here. But then again, I'm not the paranoid schizophrenic. "Usagovterrorists" is.
    • flashback99, on 04/17/2008, -2/+1Then there are some you don't want on your team.
      • slutjammer, on 04/17/2008, -3/+1Teams? Barack Obama speaks against bi-partisanship.
  • postalblowfish7, on 04/17/2008, -18/+27Hey Stephanopoulos, the 90's called. It wants it's lame ass haircut back.

    Oh, and this is an abortion of journalism etc...
    • chili555, on 04/17/2008, -14/+10All you can semi-intelligently comment on is his hair? Good one. Are you allowed to vote?
      • graddatadda, on 04/17/2008, -6/+7Fox news spent months talking about how Kerry looked "French." Don't even go there about "are you allowed to vote."
    • bgrah449, on 04/17/2008, -0/+9What are you talking about? The 90s had its share of lame-ass haircuts, but his haircut is how men have been doing their hair for like, 40 years. At best, you're in the wrong decade.
  • TripleAStacked, on 04/17/2008, -12/+22ABC lost big time
    • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 04/17/2008, -4/+3Lost is a big time show on ABC. Can't wait for new episodes.
  • designer, on 04/17/2008, -46/+31How dare the Messiah Obama have to answer a difficult question. He only wants to be the ***** President of the United States. That's all.
    • Dumbledorito, on 04/17/2008, -12/+13I'd put the questions Obama is answering up against the ones that Bush has been softballed for the past 7 years any day of the week.

      Press conferences are easy when you're the "special needs" president.
      • designer, on 04/17/2008, -7/+8Example?
        • analogkid01, on 04/17/2008, -6/+7"I just wanted to say I'm so happy you're our President..."
          • Mejari, on 04/17/2008, -7/+4"Is it discouraging that more people don't see why you're doing what you're doing?" -Bill O'Reilly to George Bush
          • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 04/17/2008, -3/+6That was asked of Bush in a debate by a news journalist?
    • vade79, on 04/17/2008, -11/+9It's not a difficult question, it's propaganda.
      • techweenie1, on 04/17/2008, -7/+7Bull-*****-*****...you people need to get your heads out of your asses also you guys have such a f-ing boner for the guy it's borderline gay.
        • vade79, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2No, it is propaganda. So far all that has been done is continuous insinuations based on people he knows, not himself. He is not accountable for people he knows...but for some reason it is acceptable. And yeah, i like the guy...for logical reasons, should i be arbitrarily down the middle like a mute about everything? probably how this country got so ***** up in the first place.
      • hilikus34, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1Yeah, like all these spam articles on Obama aren't propaganda?

        @techweenie1, it's not borderline...they really are ghey for him.
    • WasabiBomb, on 04/17/2008, -7/+39Yeah, it's a damn shame he didn't come prepared to answer questions on his pastor, his friends, and his ***** LAPEL PIN. Instead, he came ready to answer to such issues as the war and the economy?
      What the hell was he thinking?

      Oh, right. He was thinking about what it means to be the ***** President of the United States.
      • designer, on 04/17/2008, -11/+10So he shouldn't be asked questions about the people he's affiliated with? The guy says he's a uniter but attends a racist church for 20 years. The guy says he's a uniter but is friends with a REAL terrorist.
        • lord2800, on 04/17/2008, -9/+6What the everliving ***** does his religious affiliations have to do with his ability to be president? OH THAT'S RIGHT, NOT ONE ***** THING. God people, get the ***** over yourselves.
          • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 04/17/2008, -2/+4I don't think you really believe that.

            Would vote for someone who was a born-again Christian and who believes that Christ literally died for our sins, was resurrected from the dead, and unless you ask for salvation you will go to hell?
          • Monk22, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2a man is the sum of his parts. if one of those parts is super racist, that negatively reflects on his character. i love how the obamatrolls refuse to acknowledge how much of a red flag this is.
          • lord2800, on 04/18/2008, -2/+1@ DRINKxREDxBULL: You'd be wrong, then.
            @ Moink22: Just because his pastor is racist doesn't mean he is. Has he ever once given you the indication that he is? No? Then why the ***** does it matter that he associates with racists? I associate with both idiots and stoners, and under your logic that should make me an idiot stoner. Guess what? I'm a software developer who's never used drugs.
          • Monk22, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2Our character is reflected in our choice of friends.
        • WasabiBomb, on 04/17/2008, -5/+11So, designer, are you seriously wondering whether a presidential candidate is secretly a terrorist? Is that actually the question you're asking?

          If so, you're a moron.
          • techweenie1, on 04/17/2008, -4/+5Oh yeah Friends and associations have absolutely no effect on how people make decisions...none at all, I mean it's not like you decide on what company you keep they just stick to you like a magnet and you're stuck to whatever you got...poor Obama :'(
          • WasabiBomb, on 04/17/2008, -3/+4Once again- was this a subject that needed to be covered in the last debate? Is it more important than topics like healthcare and the war? It was a railroad job, and you know it.

            Bush's grandfather was involved in a coup to overthrow the United States, back in 1934. If Bush were in this debate, I'd think that questioning him on his grandfather, instead of focusing on the issues, would be a waste of time as well.
          • techweenie1, on 04/17/2008, -2/+2He hasn't given an answer that is satisfactory to the rest of the people who don't have a boner for him....so nope for everyone else the topic wasn't covered, it's still wide open...and the PA blunder is new so he didn't cover that in his last debate...and the lapel is new...

            No the media not asking tougher questions is a rail road job...and you know it or perhaps you are unable to in your current condition.

            1934 versus the here and now and the past 20 years are alot more relevant and contiguous than what Bush's Grandfather did...also FYI I really don't like Bush that much, you don't have to Love Bush to hate Obama....so yeah in that case that would be a waste of time, but that's really a piss poor example and not even equivalent.
          • WasabiBomb, on 04/17/2008, -2/+2Maybe you and I have different opinions on what constitutes "tough questions". See, I think a good tough question is "What are your plans for healthcare?", or "What do you propose to do about the war in Iraq?"

            "Is Reverend White a patriot?" is NOT a tough question. That's just partisan ambushing.

            You're right. What Bush's grandfather did was MUCH worse than what a pastor said in a cherry-picked sermon.
          • techweenie1, on 04/17/2008, -2/+2We all know what his plans are for healthcare and the war, he's said it over and over and over again.. those of us who have not fallen for the whole "he's another JFK" already know he's a marxist/socialist nothing new there, so no that's not a tough question....drilling him on who he keeps company with may help expose him to the rest of you lot...but I suspect there's no hope for you.
          • WasabiBomb, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2Implying that anyone who wants to vote for him, thinks he's a messiah? Check.
            Stating that he's a marxist/socialist? Check
            If voters don't agree with you, then they're obviously stupid? Check.

            Is there some sort of McCain/Hillary-supported checklist you guys work from? I'm surprised you didn't use the word "sheeple" somewhere in there.
          • techweenie1, on 04/18/2008, -2/+1See some people don't need a checklist to see something that is so blatantly obvious...you really shouldn't be ashamed of what you support...lets see open borders / socialized health care (used masked term Universal Health Care...yeah that's the ticket) ... taxing the so called rich to death...hanging out with far radicial left wing terrorists...Marxism Check, Socialism Check, Insanity Check....yep I might as well be speaking Japanese to you, there is no hope for anything meaningful except a war between two ideologies.
        • bgrah449, on 04/17/2008, -2/+2Yeah, because every President we've ever had just did whatever their pastors said ...
          ... oh that's right, most of them completely ignored all the cooky stuff their pastors said.
          • Monk22, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2wow, theres no way you could even possibly know if that statement was true.
        • designer, on 04/17/2008, -4/+6I'm questioning his judgment. Am I not allowed to question the judgment of someone who wishes to be the President of the United States?
          • WasabiBomb, on 04/17/2008, -4/+5EVERYBODY'S been questioning his judgment. He's explained his situation, over and over. THIS was the opportunity for the American voters to find out how the two candidates feel on important issues such as the war, torture, the economy, healthcare... This was NOT the time to ask him why he didn't wear a lapel pin. If you don't realize that, please- don't vote. Odds are, you'll hurt yourself trying to use the pencil.
          • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 04/17/2008, -3/+2No he didn't explain his situation. He said that Americans are "typical white people who are bred to hate blacks" and then threw his grandmother under the bus.

            The lapel pin is total *****, and I have way less respect for anyone who brings it up.
    • pojut, on 04/17/2008, -4/+8I don't think people have a problem with Obama having to answer hard questions...people are pissed because he would answer a hard question and then be drilled on the SAME question by both moderators multiple times...when it was Hillary's turn to be beat on, she got asked once. People aren't angry Obama had to answer hard questions, they are angry because it was quite obvious that the debate was focused on trying to push him into a corner.

      Considering the purpose of a debate, ESPECIALLY since this is a debate less than a week from a big primary, people certainly should be pissed off. Either lean into both of them, or leave them both alone.
      • Dewhead, on 04/17/2008, -3/+5Hillary hasn't been given a pass at all. She has been around for a long time. Obama has not and he needs to be questioned about Ayers, Wright and Rezno. This man wants to be president and the public has an absolute right to know why he is friends with these people and why he has repeatly lied about the level of his association with them.
        • laserdog, on 04/17/2008, -5/+3I thought his response was pitch perfect.

          How many republicans associate with the crazy "bomb the abortion clinic people?" How many have had to explain those casual relations?

          The answer of course, helps explain a lot about the whole political process, there are a lot of crazy people in America.
          • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 04/17/2008, -1/+4Obama gave $22,000 last year to Wright. Find a pro-lifer who gave $22,000 to an abortion clinic bomber.

            Receiving support from a nut case is not the same as supporting a nut case.
        • pojut, on 04/17/2008, -3/+1Oh please. You know damn well that Ayers, Wright, and Rezno have NOTHING to do with him as president. Politicians are people, just like you and me. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM has people in their past that they shouldn't have associated with...just like you and me. Every one of them has said things that they regret...just like you and me. Every one of them has screwed up at some point...just like you and me.

          I don't care how racist his pastor is, nor do I care how corrupt his old friends are. I don't care if Hillary got shot at. I care about what they plan on doing to get my country out of the trouble it is in. I care about what they plan to do to save my nation.

          ***** their past. As long as they weren't mingling with someone with a plot to make a sequel to 9/11 or sell our secrets to foreign countries, I couldn't care less what they have DONE. I care about what they are going to DO.
          • sifuchar, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3I would agree with you in the sense that I don't care for gotcha politics and a person is not only the sum total of past associations ... however, presidents do make appointments to important offices in both the executive and judicial branches. So it does matter what their associations are and what their ability is to judge character. Would he nominate wright to the supreme court? Maybe the head of the CIA?
          • pojut, on 04/17/2008, -3/+1I really hope you are kidding. There is no possible way that you could honestly think that would happen.

            Besides what difference does it make? We live in a world where a man trying to keep his wife from finding out he had an affair gets impeached, yet an administration that ignores half our laws, spits on the constitution, and just generally destroyes everything he touches gets reelected.
          • Monk22, on 04/17/2008, -1/+3"I care about what they are going to DO."

            and to find out what they will do you look at what they have already DONE. which makes this extremely relevant.
          • pojut, on 04/18/2008, -2/+1Normally I would agree with you. But if you were to apply that to every person that has ever run for office, we wouldn't elect anyone.

            Politicians are people, just like us. They make mistakes. They have questionable parts of their past. They say things they shouldn't say. I can understand trying to hold a politician to a higher standard because they are going to represent you, but they are indeed human. Every last one of them have bad spots in their past.
    • sodade, on 04/17/2008, -3/+3***** - that wasn't a "difficult" question at all. It is just pandering to idiot america. The real difficult question was about our support of Israel and Obama indicated that he has already been "convinced." Sucks that I am forced to vote for a man who will continue on with the pre-W ME foreign policy, which, while not as purely insane as invading Iraq, is just loony enough to keep the MIC profits rolling...
  • chanop, on 04/17/2008, -26/+19Holy *****, enough with 50 different stories on the front page about the same ***** thing. Get over it!
  • mngop, on 04/17/2008, -31/+48I didn't watch the debate, did they determain who'd kill more babies, surrender faster, and raise taxes higher?
    • iSkylla, on 04/17/2008, -16/+5Can I kill you for stupidity?
      • techweenie1, on 04/17/2008, -1/+4I'm all for another civil war.
        • Pstall, on 04/17/2008, -0/+7Hahaha... The Gun control group in a civil war vs the Anti-gun control group... wow that would be smarttttttt
        • RomeyRome, on 04/18/2008, -0/+3The anti-gun group would quickly change their mind just this once.
          • techweenie1, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2only after a bunch of died from stupidity first.
    • V3n0M, on 04/17/2008, -12/+1Aren't you that Huckabee supporter? Did you forget he is responsible for the deaths of 16 individuals? There's a big difference between signing a bill that passively allows abortions and signing the death papers yourself, no? On one hand you can sign it and hope no one ever gets an abortion, and at least there's hope that they won't.. on the other hand, you may as well be injecting the victim yourself.

      Besides, neither Obama nor Hillary have any plans (regardless of what they say) of leaving Iraq, if that's what you refer to as "surrender".

      But I won't argue with you on the raising taxes bit! No doubt about that!
      • Cerebron, on 04/17/2008, -4/+6I guess you don't know the difference between 'found guilty of a crime' and 'innocent baby', but it's pretty simple, you'll get it one day.
        • Blankcheque, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1Find me a spot in the bible that says life begins at conception and I'll concede.
        • V3n0M, on 04/17/2008, -2/+2Everybody is somebody's baby. Show me in the Bible where Jesus ever preached anything other than "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" and I'll concede.
    • sodade, on 04/17/2008, -8/+10I am surprised that someone as stupid as you makes more than $200k.
      You don't? Then SHUT THE ***** UP ABOUT DEMS RAISING TAXES.
      • ender7074, on 04/17/2008, -4/+5If you think that a tax hike will only effect people making over 200k you need to give me some of what you're smoking.
        • sodade, on 04/17/2008, -2/+2So, you think that both of them were flat out lying? I thought it was only Republicans who pulled that crap. (if you don't know what I am talking about, google "Read my Lips." )
      • prometheanspark, on 04/17/2008, -3/+7Uh, yeah, they said they wouldn't tax 'people' earning under $200k, but they're quick to tax capital gains, imports, carbon (in all it's forms), alcohol, tobacco.... Of course none of those things are 'people' earning under $200k. They're just things made by rich people. ;)

        If you can't see through that, I guess you should join the bitter bandwagon and strive for the day when all Americans can be equally bitter.
        • Rendonsmug, on 04/17/2008, -5/+3"carbon (in all it's forms)"

          I don't see any national taxes on pencils.

          Moron.
          • Monk22, on 04/17/2008, -3/+2sales tax jackass
          • Rendonsmug, on 04/17/2008, -1/+4Sales taxes are not national taxes.

            You fail. You want to try again?
        • sodade, on 04/17/2008, -3/+2Is this really "boo hoo, I don't wanna pay taxes?" or is it "boo hoo, I'm sick of how our government is spending my tax dollars?" If it's the first, then STFU. If it is the latter, then Obama is the clear choice because he is less likely to be owned by special interests.
        • prometheanspark, on 04/17/2008, -1/+3No, it's "boo hoo, they're effin' lying". Obama backs the democrat party line 100%, which shows he's 100% in the pocket of the special interests behind the democrat party. If Obama were really something different his record would reflect that - it doesn't. Instead he simply promises that when he's president he'll suddenly be everything to everyone, rather than the lapdog of George Soros.
        • sodade, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1Prome, you may be right, but at least he isn't owned by neo-con traitors.
      • Spudster, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2If I'm not mistaken the original poster was being sarcastic. If he wasn't... well then wow what a giant douche.
    • heyblue, on 04/17/2008, -3/+4I support Obama, but I thought this was an appropriate comment only because it did seem like those were the things that those morons at ABC were trying to determine.
    • laserdog, on 04/17/2008, -5/+4"kill more babies, surrender faster, and raise taxes higher"

      yeah, if only there was a guy who would smile, stand in front of a reassuring 3 word slogan, ignore any sort of nuance while discussing those issues, and then never do anything about them.
      • ShagratOfMordor, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2Ahh nuance. It will indeed be required to explain why, while those close too you are paranoid, racist, intolerant, anti-American, and in one case a terrorist, you find no need to dis-associate yourself from them. If most Americans are too simple to digest this type of nuance, simplicity is an underrated virtue.
    • fuzzmeister, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1I can't tell if you're joking or not, considering how rare conservatives are on Digg.
      • Spudster, on 04/18/2008, -1/+2Conservatives rare on Digg? Has the name ''Ron Paul'' ever sounded familiar to you?
  • slapded, on 04/17/2008, -13/+7snuffaluffagus pwned.
    • Pstall, on 04/17/2008, -4/+1I see you enjoy listening to Rush Limbaugh.
  • pedo, on 04/17/2008, -18/+11wow, i knew george was clinton's bitch, but i didn't know he was hannity's bitch too. "i'm taking notes right now"

    fyi: hillary clinton used to be a republican. look it up.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinto ...
    • MDKAOD, on 04/17/2008, -3/+1Dugg down just because you call yourself "pedo". Freak.
    • JSager, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Wait wait, you're talking about when she was a TEENAGER?!?!?

      Dude, I support Obama, but give me a break. She campaigned for McCarthy as a young adult, I think by then she'd long shed her conservative upbringing.
  • Steven8890, on 04/17/2008, -21/+8Snapalapapuss is a douche. And so is most of everyone in the mainstream news media. Kieth Olbermann is the exception.
    • BetterOffEd, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Holy *****.... I'm still laughing at myself saying "Snap-a-lap-a-puss" to myself in my head. Well played sir.

      (Yes--I'm easily amused.)


      .
  • chrissku, on 04/17/2008, -22/+77ABC NEW YORK NEWSROOM:
    Newsroom Phone : (212) 456-5100
    Newsroom Fax : (212) 456.5150
    Newsroom Email : newsradio@abc.com

    Cristi Landes
    Manager, Programming
    Phone: (212) 456.5107
    Email: cristi.d.landes@abc.com

    Wayne Fisk
    Director, Programming
    Phone : (212) 456.5327
    Email : wayne.fisk@abc.com

    Jeff Fitzgerald
    Executive Director, Operations
    Phone : (212) 456.5554
    Email : jeffrey.t.fitzgerald@abc.com

    Heidi Oringer
    Executive Director, Entertainment
    Phone : (212) 456.5541
    Email : heidi.b.oringer@abc.com

    Jon Newman
    News Coverage
    Phone : (212) 456.5100
    Email : jonathan.m.newman@abc.com

    Joyce Alcantara
    Assignment Manager
    Phone : (212) 456.5106
    Email : joyce.a.alcantara@abc.com

    Jim Kane
    Deputy D.C. Bureau Chief
    Phone : (212) 222. 6604
    Email : james.f.kane@abc.com

    Andrew Kalb
    Executive Director, Programming
    Phone : (305) 567.2269
    Email : andrew.l.kalb@abc.com

    Robert Garcia
    Executive Director, News & Sports
    Phone : (212) 456.5103
    Email : robert.garcia@abc.com

    Peter Salinger (THE MAN IN CHARGE OF ELECTION COVERAGE)
    Director, Special Events & Sports
    Phone : (212) 456.5105
    Email : peter.salinger@abc.com

    Steve Jones
    Vice President ABC NEWS RADIO
    Phone : (212) 456-5101
    Email : steve.jones@abc.com

    Natalie Raabe
    ABC News Media Relations
    Phone : 212.456.2418
    Email : Natalie.J.Raabe@abc.com

    Ashley Berke
    National Constitution Center (the debate's location) Public Relations Manager
    Phone : 215.409.6693
    Email : aberke@constitutioncenter.org

    ABC Comment Line : (818) 560-1000 (Enter option 2, 6 and 639)
    Email ABC News: feedback@abcnews.go.com

    ABC Feedback Forum - http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/DemocraticDebate/co ...

    Other ABC Phone numbers :
    (212) 456-7777
    (818) 460-7477

    ABC's Children stations:

    ESPN - (860) 560-2000
    Disney channel - (818) 569-7500

    Send a complaint to the local ABC Affiliate (WPVI-Phil) who helped to host the debate :
    http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/feature?section=resour ...

    To send a carpet bomb to everyone at once cut and paste (Tested with outlook; should work in other email clients):

    newsradio@abc.com; cristi.d.landes@abc.com; wayne.fisk@abc.com; jeffrey.t.fitzgerald@abc.com; heidi.b.oringer@abc.com; jonathan.m.newman@abc.com; joyce.a.alcantara@abc.com; james.f.kane@abc.com; andrew.l.kalb@abc.com; robert.garcia@abc.com; peter.salinger@abc.com; steve.jones@abc.com; Natalie.J.Raabe@abc.com; aberke@constitutioncenter.org; feedback@abcnews.go.com
    • bingobongony, on 04/17/2008, -27/+7you sound like a fool bitching about this. There was nothing wrong with it.

      And you will accomplish nothing with that except proving to the world what a bitch your mommy raised.
    • pilot3033, on 04/17/2008, -3/+17e-mails sent
    • BECoole, on 04/17/2008, -13/+5You guys are really desperate, aren't you? No matter how many emails you send or calls you make, both of your candidates sucked.
      You realize how lame your candidates are. You are dreading November too.
    • ralphie81, on 04/17/2008, -3/+8New motto for Diggers: "We can't vote, but we can carpet bomb!"
      • DeskFlyer, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2We're like a fleet of E-52s.
      • Marijuana, on 04/18/2008, -1/+2Somebody's got to do the dirty work. The world would be so much more ***** than it already is if it wasn't for us...Am I giving us too much credit?
      • Tyrghast, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2it's not like a vote matters anyway...
    • logiktrip, on 04/17/2008, -3/+0Oh, here's this guy.
  • mbraynard, on 04/17/2008, -34/+39So what? It's a good question on the candidate's background.

    McCain had a NYT story on his alleged relations with a female lobbyist. Many Republicans (and Democrats) had to explain relations to people with ties to Jack Abramhoff (whose actual crimes no one here can explain without spending 30 minutes googling).

    See, here's the problem with all of this kvetching regarding the debate. See, it's the candidates that make the debate. You can ask the hardest, meanest, most bias questions and the candidate candidate - if he handles them agressively, can come out an even bigger winner.

    But without his teleprompter, Barack was out of his element here.

    And no one wants to touch the question where Barack said he would like to have less government revenues in exchange for soaking the rich through the capital gains tax. Even after it was explained to Senator Dunce that higher cap gains taxes mean LESS tax revenue, he still played the class warfare card.

    PS - If you really disagree strongly and want to reply, you need to dig me up, not down. It's good for the debate.
    • meese, on 04/17/2008, -6/+22I'm just going to dispute your very snide comment: "But without his teleprompter, Barack was out of his element here."

      Maybe you should watch his town hall meetings (most of which are broadcast online), in which folks ask him all sorts of questions (mostly policy related, because that's what folks really care about), and he answers them with amazing depth.

      I'm sure you won't though, since you seem less interested in actually finding out what he thinks than attacking him.

      Now, if you do sit down and watch some of his town hall meetings carefully, listen to what he says, and still don't like him, I'm fine with that.
      • ender7074, on 04/17/2008, -12/+6Truth hurts. As soon as hes off script Obama loses most of his ability to speak well.
      • Pstall, on 04/17/2008, -8/+9I listen to what Obama says and I still do not like him. I would rather vote for a moderate conservative then the most liberal democrat in the US senate. At least McCain has a chance to bring both sides together (which he has done in the past).
        • sodade, on 04/17/2008, -5/+4If you have to resort to labels to justify your choices you fail.
          • Pstall, on 04/17/2008, -2/+3You clearly do not understand what your talking about. The "Labels" define the basic beliefs and opinions of each candidate. The "labels" make it easier to describe what each candidate believes in without going into great detail. Unless you want a 100 page list of each candidates beliefs then "liberal" and "conservative" shall do for now.
          • mbraynard, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2Yeah. And you're right. Though I'd go the other way around with McCain - a Conservative Moderate.
        • SzaszMan, on 04/17/2008, -2/+1McCain isn't a "moderate conservative," he's a warmed over neoconservative ( I actually think labels are helpful here). There's a big difference. Anyone who votes for McCain thinking he's anything more than a continuation of the current Pennsylvania Avenue resident's last eight years of rule is deluding themselves.
          • Pstall, on 04/17/2008, -1/+3There is a reason McCain lost to Bush in 2000, its because he was not conservative enough. Every major "conservative" talk show host are not 100% for McCain because he is such a moderate. An example of this is the Kyoto treaty, something McCain is for and Bush voted against.
          • SzaszMan, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1@Pstall

            ... and you think Bush is any more "conservative" (i.e., is for limited government and respect for the Constitution) than McCain? I'm not going to argue with the political observation you're making, but now that we've had eight years of Bush, it's clear McCain and Bush are nearly identical on virtually every issue - particularly foreign policy. Kyoto? Pfft. McCain said he was against torture, he flip-flopped on that, he said he was against tax cuts for the wealthy, he flip-flopped on that. He's revealed who he is, and I stand by what I said - it's self-evident at this point.
      • mbraynard, on 04/17/2008, -1/+3I've seen him at Town Meetings. I actually agree with you - he is much smoother in front of a friendly crowd even when he doesn't have a script. But for some reason, when the kleeg lights are up and it's the journalists asking really hard questions - questions the journalists ask to try to make news with, he stumbles with so many 'uhms' he sounds like the quotes of George W Bush that the Daily Show pulls.

        I've seen it before with other politicos - great with a teleprompter, relaxed and smooth in the crowds, but on those hard light moments, kind of a freeze up and looking petty uncomfortable.
        • Soihavenoidea, on 04/18/2008, -1/+0heh, with these kind of questions, you have to be a bit cautious in how you answer the question, guess he thought more about it while he was answering.
    • lhbaker, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2In addition to Meese's point, you're also completely off base on capital gains tax. If higher capital gains means less tax revenues, does that mean zero capital tax gains means infinte tax revenue?
      • Dibou, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1You fail at logic. No one suggested any sort of mathematical relationship between tax rates and revenue that would result in infinite revenue.
        I would guarantee though that if the capital gains tax was 100+% that you would get close to zero revenue.
    • Spektr4, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Prove a cause and effect relationship between lowering the capital gains tax and an increase in revenue. The two instances of tax cuts referenced in the debate coincide with a) the dot com bubble (increased revenue!...temporarily), and b) the post-dot com bubble recovery. I don't see a causal relationship there.
    • caketank, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1McCain had a very close, possibly romantic, relationship with a lobbyist and intervened inappropriately in a regulatory process on her behalf.

      Jack Abramoff isn't complicated. He took ridiculous amounts of money from native tribes in exchange for representing them, and then worked against their interests; he bribed legislators and their aides. He also committed various other (huge) frauds and ran with the mafia.

      The question about Ayers would have been legitimate, if there were any indication that Obama actually had a relationship of some kind with Ayers. He served on a charity's board with the guy for a while and attended a political meeting at his house once. That's a tangential connection, an acquaintance at best. The only reason it hasn't been dropped is because some people want to smear Obama with it.
  • sodade, on 04/17/2008, -5/+63What cracked me up was Obama turning it around by bringing up her husband's pardon of 3 of the Weathermen.
    • Mejari, on 04/17/2008, -0/+18That was the only applause break in the entire debate because people were so happy that Hillary got smacked they couldn't hold back any more.
    • prometheanspark, on 04/17/2008, -0/+16Yeah, that's probably why Clinton hasn't latched onto that 'scandal', it'll come up in the general election though.
    • JointVenture, on 04/17/2008, -10/+3He pardoned lots of criminals, but he didnt hang out with them afterwards.

      They were two women who had served a sentance, it wasnt like he let them out 2weeks after the crime.

      Nice try!
      • Mejari, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2So you're saying that people shouldn't be judged solely by the people they vaguely associate with? I agree!
        • JointVenture, on 04/17/2008, -3/+1Show me where he associated with them.

          He pardoned them, happens all the time.

          Nice try.


          Its so obvious you guys are ***** bricks about the debate.

          Ive been laughing my ass all day.
          • Mejari, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1So if you were president you would go around pardoning people you'd never met? Thank god you're not on the ballot, unless... Hillary, is that you?
          • JointVenture, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1Id wager 90% of presidential pardons happen for people who have never met said president.

            Do a little research OK?
          • Mejari, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Why don't you do research to back up your wildly unlikely claims before i bother refuting them? Smooth move making a not-backed-up claim and then telling me not to make not-backed-up claims.
        • JointVenture, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Umm have you been reading the front page recently? the one where CLINTON went through THOUSANDS of people who had APPLIED for a pardon.

          You are one dumb *****.
      • Rodman930, on 04/17/2008, -0/+4What!? He pardoned lots of criminals? I don't know where you learned how to debate but you fail.
        • JointVenture, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1Every President pardons criminals, do a little research Sparky.

          Im debating anything, Im laughing my ass off at all the Obama angst.
    • Treoinmypocket, on 04/17/2008, -9/+3What cracked ME up was the revelation that Obama kicked off his Presidential Election Campaign at the house of this unapologetic murderer.

      oh wait, that didn't crack me up. It makes me sick.
      • Mejari, on 04/17/2008, -0/+10Actually that's wrong. He didn't kick off his presidential election campaign at that guy's house. the only so-far confirmed connection between the two is that they were both on an anti-poverty board together and he donated $200 to Obama's senate re-election fund.
        Source: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/0 ...
        • PussySnatcher, on 04/18/2008, -0/+4Shhh!!!! Don't be bringing no facts around here! You'll ***** up their reality!

          "Facts are stupid things" -Ronald Reagan
        • Treoinmypocket, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2You know what? Thanks.

          When that came up I was stunned. I am glad to know it isn't true.
    • ralphie81, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Either way, it's bad for Democrats.
    • finethug, on 04/17/2008, -0/+4Great response from Obama
  • chrissku, on 04/17/2008, -6/+27For those who don't know this about Stephanopolous:

    "Prior to joining ABC News, he was a senior political adviser to the 1992 U.S. presidential campaign of Bill Clinton and later became Clinton's communications director."

    Yeah...
    • ulsterwrod, on 04/17/2008, -9/+3so what? that was 16 years ago!!!! And most of those guys work for anyone that pays them well.
      • laserdog, on 04/17/2008, -2/+7So what? Maybe ABC could have tried a little harder and found a moderator that didn't used to work for one of the candidates.

        I know, I know, it sounds like so much work. Man, being a respected news organization sounds hard.
      • Julik, on 04/17/2008, -6/+2Who says that only neutral people can ask questions? Every American should have the right to ask questions before voting for people, regardless of who they may be associated with.
    • JointVenture, on 04/17/2008, -8/+3So? Many clinton employees are now working for Obama. Whats your point?
  • brion182, on 04/17/2008, -27/+22ABC has no right, as a news organization, to ask a someone running for president if he or she can confirm news reports that he or she has an association with a former domestic terrorist. Just who do they think they are. Obama is great speaker and because of that he is entitled to the presidency, now that's only fair and we cannot question that.
    • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 04/17/2008, -2/+8You're being sarcastic right?
    • Dewhead, on 04/17/2008, -5/+6Not only that. He is part of the protected class in America so we all just need to shut up with the questions already.
    • laserdog, on 04/17/2008, -4/+5Obama's answer was awesome though. Invoking the abortion bombers that none of the repubs have had to apologize for.

      And he didn't even try to turn it into a "the repubs do it!" cop-out, but rather a "yeah, there are a lot of crazy people in the world, it's kinda hard to avoid them"
      • brion182, on 04/17/2008, -4/+2huh?
      • Pstall, on 04/17/2008, -3/+3Hm... he turned it around by saying that he was also friends with someone against abortion clinics who has himself never gone out and bombed one? I do not see how being friends with someone against something is the same as being friends with someone who bombs things they are against.
    • florin, on 04/17/2008, -2/+1Right, the technically correct answer that nevertheless shows the author is totally out of touch with reality.
    • Pilot85, on 04/17/2008, -3/+2He answered the question. The association is pointed out even though it is, at best, marginal. Like saying hello to your neighbor in the morning. Asked and answered, again, and again, and again. That is the problem.
  • skertso, on 04/17/2008, -2/+23I hardly think that George could or would be a impartial moderator in any debate and it proved true last night. What exactly was ABC thinking? Oh wait, they obviously WEREN'T thinking. I thought George was a bright enough guy to come up with questions that the American people were interested in hearing the answer to but he and Charlie Gibson wasted nearly half the debate time on nonsense questions that we have heard the answers to MANY MANY times before. Lapel pins, Reverend Wright, Bosnia, etc. WHO CARES? We heard the answers to these questions too many times already. Why did they waste debate time when more important questions about the economy, education, health care, Iraq War and the environment took a back seat. Now here we find that George in particular was spoon fed nonsense questions by a guy like Hannity? What a shameful and sorry excuse for a debate by ABC/Disney.
    • ender7074, on 04/17/2008, -6/+1I care. I pray we dont elect a racist, America hating, Stalinist hellbent on taxing us to death while preaching hope.
      • cdpaulis, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3I don't care about questions being repeated over and over with the same answers coming over and over. That's a waste of what is a small amount of time to be devoted to the serious concerns of the country. From your words you don't seem to have the same concerns as most of the rest of us. 'racist, America hating, Stalinist' I pity you actually. You must live and view things in America different than I do because I don't see any candidate running that fits that description.
        • Pstall, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1"I don't see any candidate running that fits that description."
          Obama

          Best friends and accepting money from a domestic terrorist who has bombed and killed people before. Attended a racist pastors church for 20 years, was married by the racist pastor, got his children baptized by the racist pastor. For affirmative action (which is racist), because it means he would rather have race play into you getting a job or into college rather then actual qualifications.

          For national health care which is a socialist ideology.
          "distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government"

          Socialism:
          "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government"
      • Rodman930, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1I pray you don't vote.
      • BedPost, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1So you don't want a republican eh?
  • Logisti, on 04/17/2008, -1/+12While I agree that "these questions" are going to come up in the general election, so it's a good idea to see how he holds up now -- the bigger problem I have is that they hammered Obama on each of these nonsensical issues (Bitter, Wright, Flag Pin, Ayers) and then pointed out that poor Hillary was behind on overall time. The subtext seemed to be that greedy, greedy Barack Obama hogging it all.


    ...and don't even get me started on Hillary's tax plan vs. Barack's and how impartial ABC was on THAT issue.
  • Number23, on 04/17/2008, -19/+14So you digg-tards want to elect this guy without asking him a single difficult question? He’s had some (though tangential) associations with a know terrorist. What can’t he be questioned about this?
    • WasabiBomb, on 04/17/2008, -3/+13Are you seriously alleging that a candidate for the seat of President of the United States has ties to political terrorists? He shouldn't even have had to answer it. That's a stupid, time-wasting question, and you know it.
      A "difficult question" would've been something like "What do you propose to do about the looming recession?". You know, something that might matter if he gets elected. Asking him why he doesn't wear a lapel pin is just wasting EVERYONE'S time.
      • Number23, on 04/17/2008, -5/+2Ok, can I know why he went to a Church for 20 years with a preacher who screamed crazy, racist, hateful *****?
        • WasabiBomb, on 04/17/2008, -1/+4Sure. That issue was covered WEEKS AGO.
          • Number23, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1It was the 1st debate since the Rev Wright stuff and not a single question about him was asked. Can you name another pol that has gotton more favorable press coverage?
      • ender7074, on 04/17/2008, -3/+1You better goddamn believe I'm going to question the douchebag about his ties to radical terrorist orginizations. You should be too or are you too busy kissing his feet. Open your eyes.
        • WasabiBomb, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2Okay, so you think that a candidate for the office of President, one of the most highly researched people in the entire world, is secretly a terrorist. How's that tinfoil hat workin' out for ya?

          A debate is NOT the time to bring up ambush questions like that. A debate is when the voters get to find out where you stand on the issues. ABC wasted that opportunity by playing buttpuppet for the RNC.
        • geoffg, on 04/18/2008, -0/+0There's a big difference between being a terrorist and a terrorist sympathizer.
      • Number23, on 04/17/2008, -3/+1BTW we know what he wants to do about the recession; he wants to raise taxes, including nearly doubling the cap gains tax. Brilliant!

        • WasabiBomb, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2Oh, really? I must've missed that in the debate last night. I was too busy finding out why he didn't wear a lapel pin.
    • dinot, on 04/17/2008, -0/+5He has tangental associations with George Bush, and Dick Cheney is his cousin. Why wasn't he questioned about that? Oh yeah, because it's ***** stupid.
    • laserdog, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3It's true, a lot of these posts haven't been very specific with what exactly we're angry about. Allow me to take a stab at it.

      We're fine with difficult questions. He handles them really well.

      I think most of us are more angry that he was asked difficult questions with no substance, rather than substantive questions.

      ABC has made billions off the public air waves, and it's their job to use those once every 4 years to inform the public, not entertain them.
    • graddatadda, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1digg-tards. Good one and I thought it was just "libtards"

      Here's an easy (but you'll think it's hard) question for you...why do you post here on Digg, Number23? Not a community that can put together a decent site for Neocons? Or is Tedd Haggard's site down right now? Maybe you could try Fox News...I bet your boyfriend Coulter will be on soon.
      • geoffg, on 04/18/2008, -0/+0To piss off people like you, let you know we exist, and remind you that your efforts to proscelytize are not working.
      • Number23, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1What? Only Obamy group think is allowed here? Is that in a FAQ somewhere? I must have missed it.
  • gyronic, on 04/17/2008, -2/+10They should have asked Obama about his endorsement from Bat Boy from Weekly World News!
  • iamthearm, on 04/17/2008, -7/+7I hate Hannity! He is one of the very very few people I hate. However, I am sometimes glad he, and others, are around to bring these types of connections and other issues to the surface that is otherwise ignored by the main stream media. If the main stream media where alone in reporting the news, the people that pull their own weight in this country would be taking care of everyone that doesn't want to work or take care of their family.
    • Niallgriff, on 04/17/2008, -0/+4Hannity IS a member of the main stream media.....
      • iamthearm, on 04/18/2008, -0/+0I agree. But he is a very small part of the main stream media.
    • Rodman930, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2What "issue"? That Barrack Obama knows a bad guy? Good thing Hanity caught that! We might have elected a guy who has been around other people!
  • kalvinb, on 04/17/2008, -13/+7Let's see, one guy wants the death penalty for people whom some people would consider murderers. If an unborn child is human then killing it would be murder. And in many states, murder can get you the death penalty. And in fact, if you kill a mother and her unborn child in many states you get hit with 2 homicides.

    It's simply a disagreement on whether or not you have a right to kill your own unborn child. If you have no right then it's murder.

    The other guy you're friends with tried to kill a bunch of innocent people and still thinks there was nothing wrong with that.

    Yeah, that's virtually the same thing.
    • proliance, on 04/17/2008, -4/+1Republicans want to punish the guilty and the Democrats want to punish the most innocent of all. It will never change.
      • emotecontrol, on 04/18/2008, -1/+2Republicans want to punish, as hard as possible, and without trial if possible. Democrats want to reduce public harm. It will never change.
  • gossipninja, on 04/17/2008, -8/+6I do not see what the big deal was, If i was talking to a debate moderator and wanted to know the answer to question X, I would ask the moderator to ask the question for me. Now if stephanopolis was forced or pressured into asking this question, that would be lame, but the moderators could ask any questions they wanted, so who cares where he got the question.
    If some young single mother on welfare had asked the moderator to ask the candidates about the economic plans in regards to young single mothers on welfare, would we care? I don't think we would, but because it was Hannity, and it questions obama's character, it is a big outrage.
  • mercy666, on 04/17/2008, -3/+9If there is one Conservative commentator I cannot stand its Sean Hannity. He is such a Republican panderer as opposed to being a principled conservative. He would rather vote Republican than let the Dems Team win the Oval office. I respect Glenn Beck for saying he is going to vote on principle on not on team affiliation. Hannity sounds like such a whiny 5 year old brat here. I think Hannity and Colmes is by far the most bias show in all of TV. Colmes is a Liberal, but with a small "l". Hannity seems to get his way with the content each and every time showcasing extreme liberals and trying to paint the Dems as supporting these radicals. Where are Colmes topics that show the extreme Right Wing Radicals? Ok, enough ranting.
    • JointVenture, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1He is an *****, but that doesnt mean the question shouldnt have been asked.

    • florin, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2Dude, Colmes is the comic relief sidekick.
  • chili555, on 04/17/2008, -3/+9Come on now. Do you really think any media outlet is unbiased? Wise up. Grow up.
    • Ihatepolitics, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2looks like Obama is being Ron Pauled.

      good luck with trying to tell everyone otherwise. i suggest you start reading up on the C FR. the media wanted a mcwar vs hillary since day 1. both will continue the same foreign policy Obama is a member but i guess they dont trust him enough to continue the same policy.(yeah he voted against the war but he still wants to keep a presence in bum ***** land)
    • mzx639, on 04/17/2008, -3/+2You are right, most 'media outlets', are not unbiased, but the majority, 99% are extremely liberal.
      • Rodman930, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2Reality is liberal. If you don't like evolution or that people are born gay, tough *****.
        • mzx639, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1Maybe your reality is liberal and gay, not mine, *****-for-brains.
  • Ihatepolitics, on 04/17/2008, -5/+4after watching the debate all i have to say is man it dont look good for either of them in the general election. the dems better hope the media shifts focus to mcwar otherwise they will lose.
  • democrats, on 04/17/2008, -7/+2If you hate stuff like this - go here and digg this and sign the petition: http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/PETITION_TO_ABC_ ...

  • jdenzer, on 04/17/2008, -7/+5Hannity said:
    That if Obama didn't know about Bill Ayers and his statements, then why didn't he just disassociate himself w/ him when he found out.
    Then it wouldn't be an issue.

    Funny I don't see Hannity saying that about McCain and Pastor Hagee.
    Those on the right explain that one. Oh right you can't
    • Julik, on 04/17/2008, -3/+0Welcome to Politics. There are 2 sides to the media, go look at how many media outlets are biased the other way.

      In Hannity's defense, his show on Fox News he has the opposite point of view sitting next to him every show.
    • graddatadda, on 04/17/2008, -2/+1You know I brought that up to a Neocon (about Pastor Hagee) and he was like "Pastor Hagee is a good christian man, he's founded many christian things"

      pshaw, if it's on the left...it's evil. If it's on the right, it's obviously godly. I'm sure people still think Hagee was getting a "message" from that guy hooker...not a massage.
    • fool13, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Uh actually he has brought that up. McCain disassociated him with Hagee and his comments, Obama for whatever reason still has ties to some nut that bombed the Pentagon. There is a difference there.
      • userc304, on 06/10/2008, -0/+0Now, now don't throw those ROCKS. What about that relative you just love to death, but he or she is a little seedy. Yet, you can't dislike him or her because that's family. You don't just discard family.
  • theskyman, on 04/17/2008, -2/+14Stephanopoulos has always been a tool for the media and ABC lost the little respect I had for it last night. What a complete joke! Questions about lapel pins...come on, get real ABC.
  • PacketScan, on 04/17/2008, -6/+6ABCNEWS.. Just got the grand distinction of being a FOXNEWS scum bag.
    Congratulations.
    • ender7074, on 04/17/2008, -5/+0So any media that isn't blatently liberal is wrong? Stupid... just stupid.
  • democrats, on 04/17/2008, -5/+5I just signed a petition to ABC and other media that says: "Debate moderators abuse the public trust every time they ask trivial questions about gaffes and 'gotchas' that only political insiders care about. Enough with the distractions--ABC and other networks must focus on issues that affect people's daily lives."

    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/PETITION_TO_ABC_ ...
  • chrissku, on 04/17/2008, -8/+3ABC


    Always. Bill .Clinton network
    • graddatadda, on 04/17/2008, -2/+1right. And fox news is? oh that's right, they lean to the RIGHT on everything.
  • tuxerware, on 04/17/2008, -1/+3Is so baffling why there can't be unbiased debates on US television. I mean the questions are there, "What would you do about the economy?", "How will you cut the US dependence on oil?", "How do we get out of Iraq?", "What will you do about global warming?", "How would you improve the health care situation?" These are all questions that a voter should need to know about the candidates. A debate isn't about personal questions about the candidate, that's better left for regular interviews..... in the end i think, thank the maker i live in Sweden.
    • Julik, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1They asked all these questions before. Politicians are really good at giving you a little but not the whole picture.. making it difficult to remember the answers.
      • mzx639, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1And Obama is an expert at empty answers, but I'm not having it. I want REAL answers, and just because he a politician is no excuse. I want whomever to keep asking those hard questions until he answers, and when he does, he will be revealed as the hack he really is.
    • mzx639, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1Yeah, and stay in Sweden. We have too many socialist, libs in the U.S. already.
  • ralph12c41, on 04/17/2008, -14/+17What's wrong with the question? And who cares where it came from, other than Obama supporters who can't stand any question that makes their candidate uncomfortable. The thin resume, the lack of experience, the questionable associations, are all starting to show on the newcomer. If he thinks this is tough wait until the campaign really starts.
    • aussiejan, on 04/17/2008, -2/+7Thin resume? I guess you get all your information from talk-back radio which also doesn't bother doing any research. Obama was a civil rights lawyer then an Illinois state senator for 8 years then 3 years as a US senator. Another man who became president had a similar resume - Abraham Lincoln - and most people think he did a pretty good job.
      • Slitchy, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1The people who supported Ron Paul would probably say otherwise.... (Referring to Ron Paul's criticism of how Abraham Lincoln)
        see: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/23/ ...
      • 140Suffolk, on 04/18/2008, -2/+1Yeah. A "civil rights lawyer" who NEVER was attorney-of-record on ANY case. The fact is, as a lawyer he was "arm candy". He introduced clients to the real lawyers. Then stepped back.
        Abraham Lincoln was a genuine trial attorney. There are still transcripts of his cross examinations. Not a phony empty suit like Barack.
    • Pilot85, on 04/17/2008, -0/+5? The flag pin question or the weather underground question. The flag pin question is retarded. I think even you can admit that. The weathermen question is almost as retarded - like, "did you know your neighbor 3 houses down was making meth in his basement? How can anyone ever trust you again, why didn't you report it?" The problem with the question is that they took a tangential relationship, one with almost no substance (they couldn't even get a soundbite for this scandal! Oh noes!) and turned it into "OBAMA BOSOM BUDDIES WITH EVIL TERRORIST". It distracts from real, substantive questions that should have been asked. Does that answer YOUR question?
    • warispeace21, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Because it's a primary? How many Democrats do you know are clamoring to find out how many lapel pins he's wearing?
  • cdpaulis, on 04/17/2008, -2/+4I understand the need to ask these 'hard' questions but why waste an hour on questions that have already been answered numerous times before. I tuned in to hopefully get some deeper questions answered and spent the first hour asking myself...What are they going to do about the things that concern ME? A better job of moderating could have been done than ABC's George and Charlie did, in my opinion anyway.
    • JointVenture, on 04/17/2008, -2/+4They were never answered in a debate, a debate is a place to get answers not aimed at to please the specific group being talked to at the time.

      Besides they did ask about the war, gas , taxes, social security, iran, etc
      You guys just didnt see it because you were too busy crying.
      • cdpaulis, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2I actually stated that there was time wasted that could have been devoted to more important issues to the watching audience than what was asked in the first hour of the debate. Apparently there are some folks like yourself that must be living in a cave that haven't heard those answers previously answered. I apologize to all of you. I personally think that good time was wasted on lapel pins, Bosnia and Reverend Wright for instance that had been previously answered many times before. That left much less time for issues that are of interest to those undecided voters that the candidates are trying to reach.
        • JointVenture, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1The lapel pin question was ridiculous, I actually laughed.

          That being said every debate had a few WTF's?
    • mzx639, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2The questions have NOT been answered, unless you are calling bold-face lies answers.
  • JointVenture, on 04/17/2008, -9/+5Obama has former Clinton employees on his campaign....hmm wonder if they are plants.

    If it had been a Rep debate would you have brought up the fact that he was a Clinton employee?

    He asked the questions everyone has been asking but had not been brought up in a debate. You're just pissed off because he ***** up the answers.
    Before you say he didn't ask yourself why you're so upset? If he had done well you would be singing from the rooftops about how well he answered instead of boo hoo hooing.

    Get over it, he lost the debate and stuttered like a frightened child.

  • BECoole, on 04/17/2008, -11/+11The great intellect, Thomas Sowell said it best:

    "Senator John McCain could never convince me to vote for him. Only Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama can cause me to vote for McCain."

    And believe me, that debate presented great reasons to vote for McCain.
    • texnofobix, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Or in my case, I'll vote for none of them and vote for Ron Paul.
  • AWBoy666, on 04/17/2008, -12/+11I don't understand how this is news......so he got the idea for the question from someone else. So what?

    Buried.
  • fani, on 04/17/2008, -7/+15The debate last night was *****. I really wanted Obama to stop this nonsense and say "you called me here to debate this - flag lapels, where someone was in bosnia 10 years ago, what some pastor said ?
    Why aren't you asking questions that are real issues - Economy, Healthcare, Guns, Education, Iraq war etc. Oh ! And George and Gibson - where are your flag lapels ? Aren't you unpatriotic in your own words ? "

    If only...
    • brightshadow525, on 04/17/2008, -13/+2Shut the hell up. It was a freaking question. It was no one's fault but Obama's that he couldn't answer the freaking question.
  • chrissku, on 04/17/2008, -9/+4It is incredibly depressing to see how ABC's debate was so controlled by pro-Clinton and her Republican conservative friends. Both groups want Senator Obama out of the race. Hillary only knows how to slice and dice. She is the meat cleaver of US politics and she is cannabalizing both the Democratic Party and the American people. Her entire personailty is monstrous. No wonder Bill looked for satisfaction from loose bimbos. None of the questions in the debate took on Hillary's outright lies, the hidden off-shore shady