If you want to put a generous spin on the ABC debate, you might suggest that Stephanopoulos  and Gibson were "hopped up on testosterone" and itching to prove that they weren't in the tank for Sen. Obama. (I haven't heard the term 'hopped up' in a while and with the discussions of 60s radicals, I realized that I missed it).  The most likely explanation, given Stephanopoulos' past role in the Clinton administration, is that he IS in the tank for Clinton, and Gibson was just along for the ride.

Here's the problem for George, and Charlie, the MSM/TM, and ultimately, Hillary Clinton. 

They're right, 6 in 10 voters don't think Clinton is honest.  She did little to change that, last night.  While issue of her dishonesty was raised, and she was allowed to prattle out an answer that had nothing to do with the question of her (dis)honesty problem, there was no follow up.  She AGAIN commented that she wouldn't speak about Bosnia while she was tired and that she 'got it right' when "she" (or whoever) wrote about it in her book.  So how could she get it wrong FOUR TIMES?

So the problems for Clinton, thanks to Stephanopoulos, are:

1 - Clinton is now more of the 'Bush' candidate than ever before.  With respect to her proposed policies?  No.  But who the hell knows what she'd do if she got in the White House? Cluster bombs, Iraq vote, Iran vote... you get the picture.  It's hard to trust that the media, ESPECIALLY ABC would be professional in investigating or even questioning her on anything she did.

George and Charlie may not have thought we noticed, but we did.  Neither of them followed up and showed her the footage of the FOUR DIFFERENT times (twice on St. Patrick's Day) when she uttered those words... NONE  took place late in the evening or during a time when she seemed exceptionally tired.  As far as *I* know, she managed not to tell huge lies about anything else. 

Why was Bosnia so different?  How could she 'misspeak' or 'misremember' being shot at, or that her child was shot at?  How could George and Charlie not ask her that?  They were sure to ask Obama about a man whose crimes he had nothing to do with, crimes taking place when he was 8 years old.  Clinton was QUICK to jump on the Ayers issue, with the moderator's passive permission, as Obama had to remind Clinton that her partner-in-political-crime gave pardons to TWO members of that organization.  Obama's sin?  Working on the board of a charity organization with Ayers.

I trust Stephanopolous to be as vigorous in keeping Hillary honest as he was in keeping Bill honest.  You see where THAT got the party!  Speaking of the party:

2-  It was bad enough when CLINTON was kissing tail and doing the bidding of the right wing party and media in tearing the Democratic party apart.  Given the report that the Ayers question was Sean Hannity's brain(less) child, it's clear that Clinton and her cronies are willing to marshall their efforts and resources in joining the right wing in ripping the party to shreds.  She's already wasted party resources continuing a race she KNOWS she can't win.  Bowing before the right wing, doing their bidding?

They do so without shame, without regret, without so much as an acknowledgment that their actions have consequences for this party in the general election.  Stephanopoulos may have thought he was doing Hillary a favor, with the tabloid-esque questioning, but once the dust settles, and it's not just the party faithfuls who are upset, there are going to be some tough questions for Team Clinton - including the media.  There are those on the edge, the undecideds who were already cautious of Clinton,  will start to reflect on the debate and Clinton's inability to behave as  a leader in the face of the idiocy of the moderators.  That's when the blowback begins.

Will it happen in five days?  Maybe, maybe not, but it will certainly happen by June 3rd.  This debate left a bad taste in the mouths of all who believe in democracy, justice, and fairness.  It was an especially bitter pill to swallow for economically depressed voters who don't give a damn about 'capital gains taxes'.  Hillary and Clintonistas may whine that Hillary has had tough debates, but no matter how much she whined, NONE of those were personal attacks on her.  They were questions about her policies and the way she's handled her campaign.

Here's what 'right wing Dems', and the MSM/TM need to consider:  The 'Obama movement' isn't just about turning back politics as usual, it's also about refusing to tolerate the lazy, semi-skilled, thoughtless press coverage we're typically treated to.  The MSM/TM's days are numbered, and they don't even know it yet.  What will replace them?
Gibson and Stephanopoulos didn't have time for pesky issues oriented discussion. Informed voters had to log on to get the information ABC was unwilling or unable to give. 

As we become serious about 'wiring' this nation and making technology more affordable and readily accessible, the limited media outlets we have will become obsolete - Gibson may not have to worry about capital gains taxes, then.  The fact that I can NOW tune in to any news outlet and hear EXACTLY the same conversations, day aftter day means that it's time to take the power out of the hand of corporate media.  They, along with Hillary Clinton, have lost the trust of the people.  We can do better.