Last night's debacle was as devious a *hit* as the Mayhill Fowler tabloid slime.

I completely agree. And that would bring up an important point -- one that Hillary was only able to respond to with laughter when it was raised by a reporter. See it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exsmFDYyK4U&eurl=http://www.jedreport.com/

On the Columbia trade issue she should be toast. The fact that her income, co-mingled with Bills Columbia money, is now going to support her campaign via the $5M she loaned herself, is just indefensible and ought to be exposed.

Just as a point of clarification - and from an Obama supporter who first researched the Ayers thing when the freepers started raising it months ago:

the "connection" was not held when Obama was eight years old. Ayers and Obama connected when Obama was an adult. They live in the same neighborhood, and met through associations with the same University and membership on the board of a private school. Both were very involved in community organizing, progressive politics, etc. I would describe it as "people who travelled in the same circles." I have a lot of those kind of associations myself, as I imagine most people do.

The "eight years old" part refers to the fact that Obama was eight when Ayers was involved in the Weather Underground, a radical anti-Viet Nam War group whose actions involved violent protest. Obama didn't meet him until years later, when Ayers had been exonerated of all criminal charges and had gone on to become an esteemed member of the community.

While still committed to social action, and still a vocal critic of American foreign policy (esp. the Iraq war), the Bill Ayers that Obama met is not the student radical from 40 years ago. He has since renounced that form of violent protest, although he does not "apologize" for what he did. He still feels strongly that the Viet Nam war was wrong, and that he and his fellow radicals had an obligation to object. He now feels that their tactics were the wrong ones, but he does not regret having tried to do something to stop the war. His statements - which obviously contain some nuance - often get conflated to read "I'm not sorry that we set bombs, and I wish we'd set more," rather than "I'm not sorry that I did what I did at the time, because I wanted to stop the war. It wasn't the right way to go about it, as I've learned. But I don't apologize for having tried to stop the war. I wish I had done more." Those are clearly not the same thing. The man is now an anti-violence peace activist, and a respected professor of education. So, no, not a terrorist. And not someone that Obama should have to apologize for knowing. It's a stupid game, to begin with, but this is another person who the press is trying to paint with broad strokes rather than attempting to see a whole person there.

It really is McCarthy like. We should not accept this kind of guilt-by-association, especially when we're not sure what the "guilt" is. Free thought? Criticism of America? WTF? Haven't the people currently holding office done far, far worse than some of the people Obama kinda knows?

I once thought of buying Stephanopoulos' book All Too Human but was put off by the one review I read. The book was recommended to libraries though. Here is an interesting snippet of that review from the Amazon website:

A Rhodes scholar with a healthy ego, the young idealist George Stephanopoulos thought he was ready for the obscure governor of Arkansas. But soon after he signed on as his presidential-campaign manager, the odds of Clinton's triumph soared, and so did the chance for calamity via Gennifer Flowers and other scandals. Stephanopoulos scrambled behind the scenes, squelching rumors, spinning major news organizations, artfully knifing Clinton rivals, and second-guessing public opinion--lessons that would serve him well when Clinton won.

Sounds to me that last night Stephanopoulos was well within character.

Did anybody also notice that Hillary did not wear a flag pin or has not been consistently wearing one? Why wasn't her patriotism questioned because of it. Ooooh wait, one of the guys asking the questions owes is career to her husband.

Really shoddy tactics by ABC last night:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/nash-mcnabe-why-do-you-hate-th.php

It is mind-boggling that Stephofuckulous somehow omitted Mark Penn and the whole Columbia scandal. Perhaps that's because it involves a matter of actual substance rather bullshit trivia? Perhaps because it doesn't fit in with Republican talking points? Perhaps because he's trying to get back in the good graces of his former bosses who considered his book after leaving the Clinton administration a betrayal?

He is a poster child for what's wrong with Washington, D.C. And Gibson, with his utterly clueless notions that middle class Americans make six-figure incomes and need to pay low capital gains tax rates, is a poster child for what's wrong with the mainstream media. Both are utterly disgusting.

At least ABC and Stephanopoulos are consistent on this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-g-brant/abc-news-continues-to-get_b_90499.html

I really wonder what answer George and Charlie were expecting when they decided to ask Obama about the Rev. Wright and patriotism issue that they haven't heard already. What, that Rev. Wright DOESN'T love America? That Obama actually HATES the American flag? I mean seriously, he has answered those questions ad infinitum and that debate was basically infinity + 1. How many times do you have to ask the same question before the person is "fully vetted"? 100 times? 1000 times?

You only have 2 hours to conduct one of the most politically important and widely watched debates in the history of modern U.S. politics and THIS is what you waste your time with?

Turns out that Tom Rooney is the uncle of Thomas Rooney a Republican Candidate for the 16th congressional district in Florida, and cousin of Pittsburgh Steeler's owner Dan Rooney.

First. I had a premonition that this was going to happen. I had my doubts about Stepahnopolous. So I took action. I tried to email Cokie Roberts, asking her to moderate, but it turned out I had the wrong email address. So when I found out she was on a book tour, I went to Politics and Prose in DC last Monday night and personally asked her to moderate. She gratiuosly declined. In my email, I mentioned I'd rather have her or Ted Koppel or Margaret Warner (of PBS) or a few others (I forget) do the moderation. Unfortunately I could not make a change happen.

Second, it is important to ask how questions and people are picked. How many people did ABC interview with debate questions? Of those, how many picked out the "Flag Pin" question on Obama, or the "Trust" question on Clinton? Can ABC show me some actual stats on this? Maybe a few people asked these, but were these questions truly representative of Pennsylvania voter concerns? I know the networks love stats and polls, so please, ABC, provide me with the stats on this one.

*not

I don't recall any photos of HRC wearing a flag pin. I'm sure it would clash with her $8,000 (or more!) Tahitian pearl necklaces and other expensive jewelry...jewelry pieces that each cost more than the yearly food budget of a working class family. Check back into her senate photos from before this campaign...she owns some honkin' big pearls, and they've gone into hiding while she tosses back beers and shots with the little folks.

Let me preface by saying that I am big fan of Barack, occasionally frustrated by his centrist positions. That said, I was a little surprised that his answers were not as crisp and sharp as they could have been. And, really, the issue of Rev. Wright and Ayers plays directly into his central argument: We need to focus on that which unites us, not that which divides us. With Ayers, I met with him a dozen times on the board of a foundation that provided services to the poor and empowered communities, etc., etc. With Rev. Wright, he needs to come to a more full-throated defense of the man, a la Daniel Schorr. Barack is going to make a great president because he recognizes that all Americans will have to work together to overcome the challenges we confront. After the debate, I felt Hillary's selling points were pretty clear: Vote for Hillary because 1. She'll knowingly lie to enhance my credentials, 2. She's intolerant and unforgiving of people who go over the line, 3. She's more militarist than the Republicans and will provide a deterrent umbrella to any country in the Middle East that asks for it, and 4. She can outsleaze the Republicans. I'll take a pass on her. Obama may not be everything I would want in a president but he's the closest anyone's gotten in my 41 years in this country we love.

Am I the only person in the country -- democrat or republican -- who thinks hillary put a bullet in her campaign with her debate performance.

i might be. obama is going to be the nominee. he knows that. some of his supporters have doubts because we're so used to the party finding a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. but if you still have doubts following that debate, don't.

get cocky. toast obama's victory tonight.

think about it: her one slim chance at the nomination has been based not only on duping enough super-delegates into believing that she can beat mccain and obama can't. her much higher hurdle has been that she can attract enough of these guys who are so out of touch with the rest of the party that they don't realize what would happen if they should "correct" the mistaken judgment of the unwashed masses who have voted obama as our nominee.

i thought the chances of that happening were about one in 1,000 prior to the debate. now i'd put it at none in 10,000. zero.

so, if you support obama, be happy. and enjoy the irony of hillary self-defining herself as unelectable to even the most politically obtuse super-delegate. the reason is simple: she's lost the support of half her own party.

i kmow about the polls that show defections could cut both ways. but they won't if obama is the nominee, if...

hillary supporters will vote for obama if she gets out there and implores them to -- which she will, because that serves her best. large numbers of obama supporters will not support hillary under any circumstances short of her winning the real vote. and she won't.

the super-delegates now have a choice that has never been more clear: support hillary, lose the election and tear apart the party; or support obama and, win or lose, avoid losing hundreds (maybe thousands) of the foot-soldiers who help get democrats elected judges, city council members, state legislators...

So, perk up, Obama supporters. He's more of a certainty than ever. And from one small-towner to all of you other bitter small-towners who have been "hurt" and "insulted," lighten up, yokels. and quit falling for the nonsense.

Our long, Democratic nightmare is over.

Getting back on topic, I'm still curious about the lack of vetting there's been regarding the Clintons and the Colombia Free trade conflicts.

Has anyone asked or seen George S. comment on this?

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who isn't "a vocal critic of American foreign policy" hasn't been paying attention. This whole thing about Ayers is a non-issue.

The terrible thing about the 'debates' is that they're not debates at all - they've degenerated into sling-fests for sound bites, bogus attacks on non-issues like flag pins, and canned exerpts from stump speeches.