home

Post Debate Thread

(Update (TL): Our server got overwhelmed by the number of people trying to log on to the site. Even I'm having trouble logging on. Our webmaster is working on it.If you can't get in to comment, try back in a few minutes. Thanks.)

By Big Tent Democrat

My take? NBC stinks. Tim Russert stinks. Brian Williams stinks. Keith Olbermann stinks. Chris Matthews stinks. Who won the debate? No one. Who lost? Everyone.

NBC's coverage of its coverage? We are fair. We are great. How could anyone complain? What a joke.

< Hillary -Obama: Ohio Debate Live Thread I | The Ohio Debate's Farakhan Segment >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    10 minutes for Farrakhan, not two seconds (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:57:33 PM EST
    for global warming.

    Thank you, MSNBC.

    It was junk (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:58:44 PM EST
    and BTW, so was what Hillary did wrt that question.

    Parent
    You expect General Electric (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by standingup on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:02:18 PM EST
    to give time to global warming?  

    Parent
    not just that (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Nasarius on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:11:41 PM EST
    I swear 3/4 of the time was spent on the most trivial garbage they could dig up. Even on the substantive issues, they were clearly more interested in playing gotcha than discussing policy. Just an utter disaster all around (even the video streaming on their website was a mess). Which is sad, because other than health care, I think Obama was doing a decent job.

    Parent
    You gotta be worried about NBC (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:23:46 PM EST
    turning on Obama big time against McCain.I know I am.

    Parent
    More Than Even NBC . . . (none / 0) (#228)
    by Doc Rock on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:31:10 AM EST
    . . . I am worried by the increasing sloppiness and uneveness in NPR's reporting!  There will be nowhere left to go in US media.  If it weren't for BBC, . . .   .  We should all start paying in to them.

    Parent
    I expect it. (none / 0) (#236)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:44:56 AM EST
    Not incredibly worried about it--this crap sticks to some candidates and doesn't stick to others.  

    Parent
    Silver lining (none / 0) (#142)
    by KellyK on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:50:16 PM EST
    The Farrakhan/Wright questions are being played out now, they won't have legs in the general election.

    McCain and co. and bring it up, and get the "been there, done that" response and hopefully we can move along.

    Parent

    Sillyballs All (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Salt on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:59:07 PM EST
    No more NBC or MSNBC debates EVER they really are poor.  

    They don'tknow how to recover (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:24:38 PM EST
    and return to journalism, they've gone so far afield from it. Olbermann's psychoanalyzing was the low point when I thought it could get no lower. And Russert has really got to get some help, he's blowing gaskets, so red in the face. Brian Williams . . . meh. Best thing that can be said is that he is not the disgrace that the others are.

    Parent
    "They don'tknow how to recover (none / 0) (#76)
    by kangeroo on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:30:57 PM EST
    and return to journalism, they've gone so far afield from it."  bingo.

    Parent
    Russert did cut her off (none / 0) (#184)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:28:34 AM EST
    once....that I noticed.....He said he did not address the Putin question directly to either one, but that Hillary grabbed the question....Have to see the tape....

    Russert did grandstand on at least one question...

    Parent

    haven't watched it, but recorded it (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Turkana on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:01:16 PM EST
    sounds like hillary was right, all along- shouldn't have even participated in an msnbc debate. no better than faux news.

    Russert got the green light (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by hitchhiker on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:04:09 PM EST
    to go after her.  MSNBC apparently doesn't mind if the whole world sees that they think it's their right to influence elections--they seem to be doing some payback for the Matthews/Shuster screw-ups.

    I saw David Gregory speaking afterwards and the image of him dancing with Karl Rove at the correspondents dinner popped into my head.  We're fools to take these people seriously.

    It might have been kinda cute to see them (none / 0) (#42)
    by jawbone on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:23:16 PM EST
    all fluffing one another--if the fact they haven't provided decent coverage of issues wasn't so damn sad and bad for the country.

    Parent
    So we stop doing business with Parent GE (none / 0) (#150)
    by Salt on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:53:20 PM EST
    and Microsoft..I have.

    Parent
    It took 10 seconds (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Lil on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:16:01 PM EST
    after the debate to flip to CNN.  Matthews is unbelievable and Olberman has been a huge disappointment!  Can I say they suck?

    KO (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Athena on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:23:08 PM EST
    Keith has been vicious these last few weeks.  Lost all credibility in his zeal to join the Tweety club.

    Parent
    Not the Tweety club--he's joined at the (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by jawbone on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:25:34 PM EST
    very least the anti-Hillary club, if not the Obama Fan Club.

    Parent
    joined? (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Nasarius on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:32:11 PM EST
    He's the long-standing president of the Anti-Hillary Club.

    Parent
    Olberman has been a huge disappointment! (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by DemBillC on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:32:52 AM EST
    He was the only oneI coul stand. CNN from now on.

    Parent
    Horrible debate but I thought it was nice of (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by LatinoVoter on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:16:11 PM EST
    Barack to endorse Hillary so nicely in his closing remarks. I hope it helps her at the polls on Tuesday.

    God, you are so right (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by vigkat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:20:07 PM EST
    We all lost, in a major way.  The shapeshifting going on in the MSNBC aftertalk is grotesque.  What they wanted to do was to take her down, and they are now self-congratulating themselves on having done so.  The Inside the Beltway Bubble is amazing.

    They both had their good moments... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:20:39 PM EST
    ... and their not so good moments.

    Hillary struggled a little with the tax return question, fairly or not. Personally unless there's a line on there about income from drug trafficking, I'm not sure what the big deal is.

    Obama needed a crisper answer on public financing. Perhaps he was thrown off guard by the overly aggressive way Russert phrased it.

    He also was weak when asked about why he hasn't held any oversight hearings of his subcommittee. "I was too busy campaigning" is not a good answer. He's probably guessing that most people don't care.

    Over aggressive (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:23:14 PM EST
    Nice way of putting he was angry and nasty. Wish he had been this tough on the Bush Administration people when they would be on Meet the Press. He always tries to come across as laid back and nice easy going. Whew, that one went out the window tonight.

    And the thread is working well now.

    Parent

    Forget the Bush Administration (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:34:04 PM EST
    He should've been this tough of Bush the candidate in 2000.  

    Which, IMO, is part of what this is about.  They hate Hillary for many reasons, but partly because her election would be the closest thing to a rebuke of the media for the past 10 years - the American public telling them they were wrong about Bill and wrong about Bush.  Obama is less objectionable because his Unity schtick implies everyone is to blame and so no one is likely to be held accountable.  McCain is even better because his election would not just let them off the hook, it would confirm they were right all along.

    I've believed since the beginning that one of Hillary's strengths as a candidate is that a win by her has the potential to break the media once and for all.  Of course, the risk has always been that they would break her first.

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#45)
    by americanincanada on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:24:07 PM EST
    that his answer to the committee question may hurt him badly.

    Parent
    Do you think people will care? (none / 0) (#51)
    by MarkL on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:25:28 PM EST
    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by americanincanada on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:28:51 PM EST
    I do. It was lame to say it was because he was campaigning. Especially with the video making the rounds online and on tv of him saying he was NOT going to run this time because he was not experienced enough.

    Parent
    Guess what we may see in the next (none / 0) (#194)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:00:38 AM EST
    3 months or so?

    Parent
    Generally... (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:39:18 PM EST
    ... I think these won't hurt him in the primary, where 1) it's late in the calendar, and 2) Hillary Clinton will be somewhat restrained.

    In the general, though, all bets are off. There will be TV commercials featuring Rezko, Exelon, and anything else that comes up.

    The stuff about committees might be a little too dry--a lot of people probably think committees don't do anything useful anyway.

    But if McCain decides to take an experience and seriousness approach, he might say something like, "You know, running for president is often about big speeches and photo ops. But being president is different. You have to do a lot of hard work, and a lot of it is boring, but important. Senator Obama doesn't do that--he said he was too busy campaigning to do his job. Etc."

    Parent

    More Likely (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:47:48 PM EST
    McCain will use it to rebut any attack by Obama to challenge McCain's positions in the "War on Terror" - well, that's all well and good, but if you really believed that Iraq took our eyes off the ball in Afghanistan, you'd have held hearings on it.  

    Parent
    They both had their moments.. (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Lena on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:23:16 PM EST
    though I wish they had thrown the Russia question to Obama first. He doesn't really seem to know what he's talking about there, if his answer mimicking Clinton is any indication.

    Also, I think MSNBC is telegraphing their intentions to go rough on Obama later. (Just telegraphing, mind you, because it seems to me he was lobbed many softballs, as per usual).

    Hillary seemed to me to be very strong about (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by jawbone on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:30:59 PM EST
    healthcare--Obama seemed a bit defensive, bit off, especially trying to interrupt her so often in the beginning. I liked that Hillary was willing to say to Jack Welch's Boys that she would not take their next question, she was going to talk about healthcare bcz it was so important.

    Brian seemed amazed that 16 minutes had been spent on the topic!

    Dear boy, it should have been 16 minutes per item of the healthcare proposals!

    Parent

    Russia (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by PennProgressive on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:40:52 AM EST
    Obama had no clue and it was clear he copied fromher answer. I have been teaching for long time to know when students do that. Russert on purpose asked Hillary first and gave Obama the opportunity to think about the answer. Russert also tried to trip HRC up with the name. HRC did not get the pronounciation correct, but neither did Russert and  he had notes in front of him. SNL should do another skit.

    Parent
    Oh brother (none / 0) (#204)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:23:14 AM EST
    Yes, I am sure that Barack Obama had no clue what was going on in a backwater country like RUSSIA!

    If he didn't know full well what was going on in Russia, at the generic level being discussed at this debate, he should fire every single member of his debate prep team.

    Parent

    Russia (none / 0) (#191)
    by PennProgressive on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:41:30 AM EST
    Obama had no clue and it was clear he copied from her answer. I have been teaching for long time to know when students do that. Russert on purpose asked Hillary first and gave Obama the opportunity to think about the answer. Russert also tried to trip HRC up with the name. HRC did not get the pronounciation correct, but neither did Russert and  he had notes in front of him. SNL should do another skit.

    Parent
    travesty of network sponsorship of debates (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by noholib on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:26:12 PM EST
    Whatever happened to the League of Women Voters' sponsorship of debates?  They moderated debates out of a sense of civic duty.  Now we get debates that serve the corporate interests of the media conglomerates--yes as noted in another comment, there wouldn't ever be a question about global warming on the GE - MSNBC network! -- and the puffed-up egos of the so-called journalists, each one more biased and self-important than the next.
    In so many senses, this IS the time for a new League of Women Voters.


    Ah, for Amy Goodman... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Seneca on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:27:03 PM EST
    to have moderated this debate instead...

    Either Russert was fishing for 'gotcha' moments by rehashing the latest campaign controversy or he was cutting Hillary off in mid-sentence (though, granted, she does use that old high school debate tactic of talking FOREVER).

    Are we surprised? No. We must cease to expect anything from the infantilizing, celebrity-rotten institution that passes for journalism in this country.

    Ahem - Just to Point Out (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by cdalygo on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:29:09 PM EST
    They BOTH talked forever.

    Frankly, as I noted during debate, I warmed a tiny bit toward him tonight when he cut off Russert going after her. But that could have been the fear of what's coming next.

    If only this could have come at the 10th or 11th debate. Then both of them - along with the other democratic candidates - could have walked off the stage together in protest.

    Parent

    Any HRC supporters.... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Alec82 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:28:57 PM EST
    ...willing to explain this? Senator Clinton's non-issue "rejecting vs. denouncing" attempt to undermine Senator Obama.  Her "rejection" of the Independence Party was more than a little "nuanced" to say the least.  As background, Senator Clinton was waging a campaign and the Independence Party was considering selecting Buchanan.  Senator Clinton rejected the idea of running on the ticket if he was on it.  Fair enough.  But she was not "rejecting" the Independence Party that chose to put him on the ticket:

    At a news conference afterward, Mrs. Clinton did praise the Independence Party for its "important and constructive role in political dialogue," particularly with its support of campaign finance reform, but she said pointedly later that her criticism of anti-Semitism in the party was meant to include Ms. Fulani.

    "In recent months, internal battles have cast a troubling shadow over this party, raising questions about whether it will be hijacked and led in a wholly different and dangerous direction," Mrs. Clinton said.

    There had been disagreement among Mrs. Clinton's advisers about whether she should speak to the party at all, but they said she decided that she might appear aloof or politically timid if she avoided the gathering. She and her advisers also decided that an attack on the party could promote her as a principled candidate in contrast to the mayor.

    Hmmm...so she is principled in rejecting bigots and their enablers when it helps her win elections...to a point? Ridiculous and it appeared very petty.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:31:25 PM EST
    This is funny. HRC screwed up with her answer tonight but you screwed up with your comment.

    Parent
    Flogging a Non-Issue (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by cdalygo on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:31:39 PM EST
    This is the Obama campaign's big theme for tonight. She unfairly accused him of being anti-Semite. Wrong, that was Russert who used the smear.

    What Hillary gave him tonight - intentionally or not - was damn good advice. Obama needed to strongly reject, denounce, and scream when someone like Farrakan came near him. If he doesn't the MSM will eat him alive.

    Hopefully, he will learn from it.

    Parent

    What-huh? (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by muffie on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:45:55 PM EST
    she said his answer wasn't forceful enough -- don't you think that's a wee bit different from branding someone as an anti-Semite?  I happen to think she was right, but she opened the door for Obama to give a nice strong denunciation, leavened with a touch of humor.

    Parent
    Not the issue... (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Alec82 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:53:47 PM EST
    ...because it was clear that was an attack.  Senator Obama handled it very well, but it was meant to be an attack.  The context reveals good political manuvering on Senator Clinton's part, but that is all.  It does not reveal that she was especially emphatic in rejecting the support of the Independence Party.  In fact it reveals the opposite.  And I should have added that it comes from an April 2000 issue of the NY Times.  

     I do not read it as an attempt to mark Senator Obama as an anti-Semite, and that was not my point.  My point was that it was an attempt that failed when Senator Obama had the opportunity to respond.  He responded as he should have.  She could have said, I agree with Senator Obama that we should reject support from bigots, an issue I faced when dealing with the New York Independence Party.  Instead she attempted to suggest that he was somehow being wishy washy by denouncing instead of rejecting, when to denounce means to condemn openly or publicly, not merely "reject."  Or do you honestly believe Senator Obama, of all people, wants to be associated with the Nation of Islam and was, in fact, being wishy washy?

     There's a reason she's floundering with highly educated voters, including voters like myself, who apparently are only welcome in the Democratic Party when they are lining up with the Clintons, if the more rabid supporters are to be believed.  

     Look, I like Senator Clinton.  And to point to just one example, I think that Senator Obama was not as forthright as he should have been on public financing (although I also think he has a point about the problem of loopholes, given that conservatives might not be energized for Senator McCain but they might be energized to give money to groups against Senator Obama or Senator Clinton).  But when I read Senator Clinton's apologists (who seem to dominate this site) I think many are all too willing to ignore the harsh light of day.

    Parent

    Yes, he was being wishy washy (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Manuel on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:14:40 AM EST
    by saying he can't prevent someone from saying nice things about him.

    Parent
    i love how (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by kangeroo on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:48:18 AM EST
    you seem to suggest with your self-congratulatory analysis that clinton supporters here are not highly educated voters.  great first impression, pal.

    quibble with semantics if you like, but in my mind, there's a pretty big difference between failing to reject/denounce--take your pick, i don't care--(1) an entire political party because one of its reps made allegedly anti-semitic remarks by expressing sympathies for palestinians, and (2) a man universally known for his radical and undeniably intolerant (anti-semitic, racist, or homophobic--take your pick) remarks.  

    hint:  one's a lot worse than the other.

    Parent

    No... (none / 0) (#209)
    by Alec82 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:09:51 AM EST
    ...I was suggesting that the Mark Penns of this world blundered badly.  

     I am not suggesting that Senator Clinton is not supported by plenty of highly educated voters.  Clearly she is.  But exit polling is not on your side with the percentages.  

     My point was: why bring up the example as a need to somehow "fully reject" (and I presume denounce) anti-semitic figures when that was simply not what happened?  The non-response of the campaign to accusations those photos were released by it? But I'm supposed to believe the fliers are out of Karl Rove's playbook?  Really?  Because trade is just like...racial politics?  Or thinly-disguised cult of personality slurs?

     The problem is the tone of this campaign, and I hold the Clinton campaign largely responsible.  I did start out in her camp and needed to be convinced.  It sure wasn't the "Yes we can" video nonsense that did it; it was the campaign mismanagement and my lingering doubts over Iraq and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard resolution.  Senator Clinton's campaign has certainly failed to inspire me to want to campaign for her in the GE.  She'll get my vote, but unless she fires her staff forget my participation.  

    Parent

    Again with this? (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:44:59 PM EST
    But thanks for shortening to only half my screen this time. The server is having trouble enough.

    Parent
    Yeah, I'll take a crack (5.00 / 4) (#141)
    by goldberry on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:49:53 PM EST
    It's one thing to denounce and say you don't approve of what Farrakhan says but then, wink, wink, nudge, nudge expect him and his followers to vote for you.  It's another to say, "I'm not kidding.  You're remarks are reprehensible and I don't want an endorsement from you or your votes."

    See, one is much stronger than the other.  I'm guessing he thought he could get away with option a.  She made him change to option b.

    Parent

    Yeah, I had to say the Russia question (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by frankly0 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:29:26 PM EST
    immediately pissed me off because this idiot Russert started out with Hillary, of course, who had to demonstrate that she was keeping fully abreast of things. Obama was allowed to utter simply, "What Hillary said."

    I felt like he might as well just have said to Obama, "could I get you a pillow?"

    I mean, didn't the fact that she was asked that very question first as good evidence as you can get that her sarcastic remark at the beginning about always getting the first question and the SNL skit was 100% on the mark?

    I wish (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by americanincanada on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:33:51 PM EST
    Obama would have gotten that one first. I doubt he would have known the name and it would have been fun to see him flounder a it.

    She didn't flounder and I was proud of her answer. Russert seemed surprised and downright angry with her answer.

    Parent

    Protecting Obama (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by Athena on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:37:18 PM EST
    He didn't dare ask Obama - wouldn't be fair to actually put him on the spot, after all.

    Parent
    I didn't go back... (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:38:21 PM EST
    ... and watch it, but Russert claimed (in the "post-game" show) that he did not address that question to anyone, and left it open for whomever to answer it, and Hillary answered the question.

    Parent
    It was certainly my impression from the way (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by frankly0 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:28:18 AM EST
    I heard the question being asked that it was being directed toward Hillary. I definitely assumed that it was she who was going to be expected to answer it. I never had any doubt on this point in real time while I was watching it.

    Parent
    Andrea Mitchell (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:32:29 PM EST
    is perhaps the most disappointing, glomming onto that bus in the ditch metaphor (which she couldn't even get right even though she apparently wrote it down???)  I loved how she kind of gave this outraged shrug over the seemingly unbelievable fact that Ohioans seem to be most interested in healthcare, so maybe that's why so much time was spent on it.  Am I seeing that half-shrug she gave, like "wtf?  whatever."  Live out in the real world for a bit and you'll see why people are so interested in healthcare.  


    Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:36:15 PM EST
    I think she was chiding her colleagues.I think it was a good moment for Mitchell.

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:41:50 PM EST
    Man, I must be off tonight.  I didn't read it that way, but I was so sick of the one-sided crap by then I was well on my way to watching Jericho on my Tivo.

    It will be interesting to see how this spins out tomorrow.  Maybe Russert got annoyed when he couldn't pin down Obama on the campaign finance pledge.  Could be he is beginning to see that the big O is a politician.

    Parent

    Clinton's two missteps (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Chimster on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:32:45 PM EST
    1. Her complaining about always getting asked the first questions during debates and referring to SNL as a media bias reference. It seemed like she was waiting for the right moment to use that refernce. It just didn't ring true for me at that particular moment. It seemed awkward and uncomfortable, kind of like the xerox line in the last debate.

    2. The "me too" moment after Obama was asked abut Farrakhan. It seemed desperate and he made her look a little silly by contrasting denounce and reject. I see where she was going to go with it, I just don't think it worked.

    Other than that, she seemed pretty strong. The spin after the debate (if people who sit on the fence watch) was an Obama love-fest. I think I saw some slighht drooling and a twinkle in Olbermann's eye when he referenced Obama's performance tonight. None of that after spin will bode well for a Hillary comeback.

    On 1 (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:35:21 PM EST
    The rest of the debate made the comment work.

    On 2. Agreed.

    As for the spin, NBC spinning its own debate when RUSSERT and WILLIAMS and NBC and their awful performance are the story is not worth noting.

    Hard to tell who gains from this debate. I think no one.

    I think NBC loses.

    Parent

    On 2 (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by dmk47 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:40:23 PM EST
    That actually could have turned bad for Obama, if he hadn't laughed it off and said "reject and denounce."

    It could have gone very well for Clinton if she took the opportunity to dress down Russert for asking the question, as she seemed to be doing when she got going, but then decided she would take a swipe instead.

    Parent

    NBC won when (none / 0) (#217)
    by Ben Masel on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:59:08 AM EST
    Clinton plugged SNL as again important.

    Parent
    True... (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by americanincanada on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:35:23 PM EST
    Keith O seemed a little odd tonight.

    I must say though...Obama had far more "me too" moments to her one.

    Parent

    Me too (5.00 / 4) (#155)
    by wasabi on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:55:59 PM EST
    I only saw a portion of tonights debate, but I noticed in the last debate that when Clinton went first, Obama would often respond with a comment  saying there is not much difference between our positions, however I'm the better candidate because....
    When he was asked a question first, she responded with additional details on how their positions are different.
    Did anyone notice that happening tonight?

    Parent
    First Question (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by xjt on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:50:35 PM EST
    I thought it was good when she pointed out about always getting asked the first question in the debates. I hadn't noticed it before, and I realized how much he seems to copy her answers, or at least get off the hook about coming up with a lot of his own original ideas. I thought that was smart of her to point that out early.

    The SNL reference didn't bother me at all. Come on, these MSNBC guys are so terrible it was a good reminder of how silly they are.

    Parent

    The spin after the debate (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by andrys on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:42:25 AM EST
    I watched Matthews and Olbermann hyperventilating over what they and their guests (all unfriendly to Clinton) summarized as a clear 'win' by Obama -- with Olbermann salivating (with a creepy grin) at a future ad by Obama drawing attention to Clinton's regret over her Iraq vote

    I turned to FoxNews's focus group using Ohio Dems.  Four of the group were pro-Hillary at the start of the debate. There were maybe 30 or so of them.  Almost all of them (except for two) felt Hillary had won the debate to that point (first half) because she was so effective with detail while Obama seemed vague though agreeable.

     They also noticed his halting delivery (while MSNBC folks agreed among themselves of course that he looked more 'presidential' than ever).
    Most of the focus group agreed they'd like a Clinton-Obama ticket, with Hillary as Pres.

      The 2nd half of the debate review by that focus group will be seen on tomorrow's Hannity-Colmes show.  Watching that show is like taking a particularly bad-tasting pill but the results (of the focus group) last night were worth it.

    Parent

    Hillary probably helped Obama on Farrakhan (none / 0) (#163)
    by sonya on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:05:23 PM EST
    Although many, if not most, black people disagree with Farrakhan's views, they don't like to see him dissed in public.  Obama knows this.  Hillary forced him to say what a lot of his white supporters needed to hear.

    There is a difference between denouncing what someone says and rejecting the person altogether.

    Parent

    I guess they ran out of time (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by muffie on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:36:11 PM EST
    to ask Obama if he's actually a Muslim terrorist, and to ask Hillary to tell us more about her sex life.  That was the worst "debate" I've ever seen.

    Russert almost seemed to channel Darth Cheney (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by jawbone on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:37:05 PM EST
    while asking both of them if they would really get our troops out of Iraq, and what would happen if Al Q came back! OMG! The children, the fear!

    He almost seemed ready to cry, the horror of it all.

    Now, I was typing at the same time, so I may have missed something, but, good grief.

    Hysterical that they messed up one of their let's-go-to-the-videotape (gotcha) questions, the one meant for Obama but was of Hillary and her riff on seeing the light.

    MSNBC (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Athena on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:39:50 PM EST
    Why does Matthews keep inviting this woman - Bernard - from the anti-feminist group Independent Women's Forum - to be a commentator?  

    answer is in your question (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by white n az on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:40:44 PM EST
    even more depressing... (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by white n az on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:40:15 PM EST
    It's clear to me that main stream media wants Obama so he can get beat by old white McCain and then main stream media can feel good because we had a black candidate, even though he lost.

    This is just too depressing.

    Rachel Maddow had an interesting take...that this debate managed to kill all of the enthusiasm that Democrats had for their candidates.

    I think Rachel's incorrect about that-- (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by jawbone on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:47:58 PM EST
    They're two good candidates, and so much better than McCain (or Romney if he gets back in after more comes out about McCain's history with lobbyists).

    Parent
    Who's she blame for that? (none / 0) (#123)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:44:44 PM EST
    Did she have the ovaries to call out the culprits?

    Parent
    that's rather crude (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by white n az on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:55:41 PM EST
    but I would say that she was careful not to overly criticize Russert/Williams because she wants her own show on MSNBC and she's being teased with the possibility

    Parent
    that's rather crude (none / 0) (#159)
    by white n az on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:00:30 PM EST
    but I would say that she was careful not to overly criticize Russert/Williams because she wants her own show on MSNBC and she's being teased with the possibility

    Parent
    Turned it around? (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Lil on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:40:33 PM EST
    Maybe, but not enough.  I don't think she has enough time to turn this thing around, even though I think she is more experienced and would make a better president in the first 100 days, at least.  Obama doesn't know what he doesn't know yet.

    A stab at the Farrakhan follow-up (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by Oje on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:40:34 PM EST
    First, I want to say that I am an outsider to the communities with stakes in the debate over Farrakhan. I cannot speak to all of the nuances of the issues, so please educate me when necessary.

    I of course give Senator Clinton the benefit of the doubt because I see no reason to disparage her character as she loses this race to the extent to which TPM, MSNBC, and dKos would like. I suggest we consider the full exchange and her careful words without injecting Clinton Rules.

    First, with regards to Senator Obama, he was asked two questions about Farrakhan. First, did he denounce Farrakhan's antisemitism. Second, did he denounce Farrkhan's endorsement. On the first, Senator Obama made it clear that he denounced Farrakhan's toxic statements. On the second, Senator Obama hedged and mentioned that he could not stop somebody from supporting him.

    When Senator Clinton spoke, she did not make any direct charges against Obama. She used an analogy she experienced with the Independence Party (?) in New York. She specifically mentioned her New York senate race, perhaps thinking that Senator Obama was not as familiar with the stakes of at the debate in an election (coming from Illinois).

    I think she did so in order to point out to Senator Obama the seriousness of making a tacit and public rejection of Farrakhan's support. I would like to suggest that she helped Obama there to make a more explicit rejection of Farrakhan. Senator Obama seemed to get it to an extent and then both denounced and rejected (while maintaining his composure). But, I think she felt it was important for Senator Obama to reject Farrakhan on that stage.

    Senator McCain could easily exploit any opening Obama left on the issue of rejecting Farrakhan's endorsement as part of pro-Israel platform or message. As New York's senator, perhaps Clinton saw the need for Senator Obama to make an explicit statement of rejection on that stage (I know repetitive). But, note that her follow-up to Senator Obama was very senatorial (as in ginger and polite--many bloggers initially thought she was being gracious, or "classy" at TPM).

    Thus, I think it would be uncalled for to leap to conclusions about Senator Clinton's intentions here. In the past two days, and with the obvious divisiveness that MSNBC wanted to stoke, we should be careful not to provoke a war of words between our candidates. Let's not full for the high d[r]udgeon again.

    Nice (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:57:08 PM EST
    This is a very nice and insightful interpretation of this part of the debate. It is refreshing to hear someone interpret Clinton's statements without assuming the worst about her motivations.

    Parent
    Hillary definitely helped Obama with Farrakhan (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by sonya on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:24:56 PM EST
    Although many, if not most, black people disagree with Farrakhan's views, they don't like to see him disrespected.  Obama knows this.  Hillary forced him to say what a lot of his white supporters needed to hear.  

    There's a big difference between denouncing what someone says and rejecting the person altogether.  Tonight, Obama rejected Farrakhan.  This was major because Obama's political persona is based upon not offending anyone, which you simply cannot maintain if you have any kind of principled beliefs.  

    I don't think this will lose him any votes from black people in the remaining primaries, but it did offend more than a few.
     

    Parent

    moderators, please delete this comment (none / 0) (#166)
    by Oje on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:13:33 PM EST
    I wish to retract my inclusion of TPM and dKos and other blogs. I ask to stop a war of words between the campaigns, but then pick one with other blogs.

    Hypocritical. I do not want to make warrantless attacks on other blogs that are our allies as progressives.

    I will post a clean version that clearly places the onus on MSNBC. You can leave this as a record of my edits.

    Parent

    New Version of (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Oje on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:49:19 PM EST
    Stab at Clinton's Farrakhan Response

    First, I want to say that I am an outsider to the communities with stakes in the debate over Farrakhan. I cannot speak to all of the nuances of the issues, so please educate me when necessary.

    I of course give Senator Clinton the benefit of the doubt because I see no reason to disparage her character as she loses this race to the extent to which MSNBC would like. I suggest we consider the full exchange and her careful words.

    First, with regards to Senator Obama, he was asked two questions about Farrakhan. First, did he denounce Farrakhan's antisemitism. Second, did he denounce Farrkhan's endorsement. On the first, Senator Obama made it clear that he denounced Farrakhan's toxic statements. On the second, Senator Obama hedged and mentioned that he could not stop somebody from supporting him.

    When Senator Clinton spoke, she did not make any direct charges against Obama. She used an analogy she experienced with the Independence Party (?) in New York. She specifically mentioned her New York senate race, perhaps thinking that Senator Obama was not as familiar with the stakes of at the debate in an election (coming from Illinois). I think she did so in order to point out to Senator Obama the seriousness of making a tacit and public rejection of Farrakhan's support.

    I would like to suggest that she helped Obama there to make a more explicit rejection of Farrakhan. Senator Obama seemed to get it to an extent and then both denounced and rejected (while maintaining his composure). But, I think she felt it was important for Senator Obama to reject Farrakhan on that stage.

    Senator McCain could easily exploit any opening Obama left on the issue of rejecting Farrakhan's endorsement as part of pro-Israel platform or message. As New York's senator, perhaps Clinton saw the need for Senator Obama to make an explicit statement of rejection on that stage (I know repetitive). But, note that her follow-up to Senator Obama was very senatorial (as in ginger and polite--many bloggers initially thought she was being gracious, or "classy").

    Thus, I think it would be uncalled for to leap to conclusions about Senator Clinton's intentions here. In the past two days, and with the obvious divisiveness that MSNBC wanted to stoke, we should be careful not to provoke a war of words between our candidates. {Edit: Eliminated snark about Drudge].

    Parent

    bad debate (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:42:13 PM EST
    Yea... that was bad.

    As an Obama supporter, I fully admit that Russert was AWFUL going after Clinton early on.  Of course, I thought some of the later "attacks" from Russert against Obama were even worse.

    I think it is quite sad that Russert, et al, had to ruin tonight.

    I felt that both candidates were ready and fired up.  Clinton did what she could to show that she was a fighter, and Obama was quite strong.

    While I think, as BTD has said, that we all lost because of this sham of a debate, that we can still get a look at how the candidates looked.

    I thought that Hillary won the healthcare portion, and Obama won the rest.  Clinton's SNL comment was awful.  And her "attack" of Obama over Farrakhan was even worse.

    Obama's owes Hillary one (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Chimster on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:51:01 PM EST
    Obama was saved by Hillary tonight in reference to Putin's successor. Russert knew that Obama had no idea what the successor's name was or much about him at all. He gave a non-answer that dittoed Clinton's answer. Had he been asked the question first, we'd have seen a replay of what Tweety did to that Senator from Texas who was an Obama supporter.

    By the way, I think I know why Obama lost Massachusetts. He can't correctly pronounce it to save his life.  :^)

    Parent

    If Obama is the nominee (none / 0) (#198)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:07:57 AM EST
    they need to cloister him with a ten foot stack of of 3X5 index cards re foreign policy:  who, what, when and where....Name dropping will convince many....especially if they want Democratic economic policies....

    Obama knew about two NATO countries recognizing Kosovo, so he knows quite alot already...Most well-informed people have no clue about such trivia....

    Parent

    Why do people keep saying this? (none / 0) (#205)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:36:00 AM EST
    Russia is not some backwater nation.  They are having an election shortly.  If either staff didn't prep their candidate on this issue then they should be fired.  

    Knowing the President of Kyrgyzstan?  Not too important.  Knowing the general details about the upcoming RUSSIAN election?  Critical.  

    Hillary jumped on the question to show herself as all knowing about foreign affairs.  After she talked there wasn't much for Obama to say unless he said "the bombing will commence in 20 minutes"

    Parent

    Maybe MSNBC is trying to help Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by goldberry on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:43:40 PM EST
    They seem to go out of their way to make her look picked on.  

    Thanks to the moderators and commenters (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Paladin on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:48:06 PM EST
    for the great recaps.  I joined this late and missed the debate -- sounds like it was excrutiatingly painful.  I am soooo glad I missed it!

    BTD (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by facta non verba on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:55:33 PM EST
    you hit the nail on the head. Tim Russert trying to get Mrs Clinton to break NAFTA in six months we couldn't make changes, give me a break. To hogtie a candidate on the air like. He was petulant. It was painful to watch though I thought Mrs. Clinton handled it well. I liked how feisty she was in responding to Obama's mischaracterizations of her proposals.

    I hadn't realized how really (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:57:54 PM EST
    obnoxious Matthews's smirky smile is.  

    I noticed a neutral male pulled out HRC"s chair for her after one of those breaks.

    question for you (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by wasabi on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:04:27 PM EST
    I only saw a portion of the debate tonight.  Last week I noticed that when Clinton was asked a question first, often Obama's response was something to the effect that our positions are nearly identical, however I'd make a better nominee because...
    When Obama went first, Clinton's followups were more expanded policy arguments.
    Did anyone notice any of that tonight?

    I hadn't realized how really (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:05:34 PM EST
    obnoxious Matthews's smirky smile is.  

    I noticed a neutral male pulled out HRC"s chair for her after one of those breaks.

    I should have added (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by NJDem on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:17:56 PM EST
    that I would have much rather time be spent on the environment, education, etc. than Farrakan, but for those who are offended by him, it's a big issue.

    In any event, terrible job by msnbc, but then again, I didn't expect better.  

    let the self-examination begin (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Miss Devore on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:18:31 AM EST
    y'all sound like you are overwhelmed with pundit-envy.

    where were you all when I suggested that the debates go back to the Women's League of Voters origins?:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/4/1662/07633

    that said, I think the most discordant moment was when Hillary invoked an SNL  skit in her defense. (and since I called in sick to work today, I am attuned into how much her supporters were banking on it)

    so many bloggers endlessly engage with MSM pundits.then scream at the trivialization.

    I wonder how many Obama supporters regularly read David Brooks as opposed to Clinton supporters...

    hint--when the patient is in distress, take the pulse from the carotid arterey and not the wrist.

    A new thought (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by ghost2 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:28:30 AM EST
    You know why I think media is after Hillary's guts?  

    Well, they treated her unfairly until now, and you can bet your last dollar that if she is elected, she is going to end the media consolidation and bring legislation (or precedents) that seriously undermines these clowns and also their bosses.  

    I just wanted to say 2 things (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by Chisoxy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:49:52 AM EST
    Even though this thread might be dead.

    The SNL thing I didnt think was very effective at first, but then with the softball Obama questions and Russert coming short of grabbing and shaking Hillary, then it may have made people think.

    Secondly, i think their aggressive questioning of Hillary was a good thing, Obama was clearly just trying not to mess-up, coupled with the softball questions resulted in Hillary being the one with substantive answers leaving Obama to either just agree and make a joke. It may well have backfired on them.

    As far as Olberman, I am incredibly disappointed, it started(for me) when he tried to defend the Obama supporter who couldnt point something out and it has just gotten steadily worse. I dont know if I can go back to watching him, but Im definitely not watching while this election is still going on.

    Excruciatingly awful (3.66 / 3) (#19)
    by dmk47 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:17:26 PM EST
    As an Obama supporter, it was painfully clear to me that both moderators were deep, deep in the tank for Obama. And then Russert decided to make up for it by reading Louis Farrakhan's remarks into the record.

    A mediocre performance by Obama, a bad performance by Clinton (opening by referencing SNL and complaining about the format? to win votes? or what?), though she had a nice moment when she called BS on Russert.

    And as for Russert --- NBC just needs to fire him. I've never seen anything quite that disgraceful.

    I can't even evaluate the candidates (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:18:25 PM EST
    Who could?

    Parent
    Go Orange way (none / 0) (#46)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:24:24 PM EST
    lots of people have opinions.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:25:25 PM EST
    they had those opinions BEFORE the debate so . . .

    Parent
    As does Aaron here apparently. (none / 0) (#120)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:43:02 PM EST
    See ratings above.

    Parent
    Had a feeling this was a good evening (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Ben Masel on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:27:47 AM EST
    to spend with my grandaughter. Postr-mortems suggest I was right.

    Parent
    er, in a presidential debate, I mean (none / 0) (#26)
    by dmk47 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:18:52 PM EST
    I've seen things more disgraceful in other contexts.

    Parent
    The Key to the Farrakhan question... (none / 0) (#67)
    by dmk47 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:28:51 PM EST
    ...was Russert dragging Israel into it. There's been a Likudnik effort underway for a few weeks to paint Obama as an anti-Semite because Zbigniew Brzezinski advises him. There's been an effort at VDARE and similar environs to paint him as a militant black nationalist because his pastor is Jeremiah Wright. Congrats to Russert for uniting racist John Birchers and ultra right-wing Zionists.

    Parent
    The irony (none / 0) (#210)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:02:21 AM EST
    is that he threw the Palestinians under the bus to run for President.  When he started his career, Rezko got him big entree to Arab community to get money, but then, I guess Arabs were not convenient:  
    If disappointing, given his historically close relations to Palestinian-Americans, Obama's about-face is not surprising. He is merely doing what he thinks is necessary to get elected and he will continue doing it as long as it keeps him in power. Palestinian-Americans are in the same position as civil libertarians who watched with dismay as Obama voted to reauthorize the USA Patriot Act, or immigrant rights advocates who were horrified as he voted in favor of a Republican bill to authorize the construction of a 700-mile fence on the border with Mexico.

    Arabs the inconvenient friends

    The great progressive.  Give me Hillary any day, I at least know where she stands.  No bait and switch.  

    Parent

    Worst. Debate. Ever. (3.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Arbitrarity on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:59:09 PM EST
    Not only is 20 debates too many, but they found a way to make it infinitely worse.

    I didn't know presidential-nomination debates were run like gossip mag interviews.

    It takes MONTHS to prepare tax returns! (3.00 / 2) (#10)
    by dunsel on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:12:11 PM EST
    I think the worst part of the debate was Hillary claiming that she couldn't release her tax returns, because she's too busy and can't POSSIBLY get it done by next Tuesday.

    If she wants to make a principled argument that tax returns are private, do it. If she wants to release them, just release them. If she has some compelling argument on why she should wait until the general, let's hear it. But her pretending that she can't have her CPA release a copy of her 1040 and related documents is simply ludicrous. The last tax season ended months ago. Why the hell can't she get this done?

    If she's telling the truth, is a president who can't make a photocopy in a week really "ready on day one"?

    A Bit Lame, Yes (5.00 / 7) (#22)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:17:59 PM EST
    But not nearly as lame as Obama saying that he didn't have time to hold oversight hearings about NATO and Afghanistan.  I thought this was an issue Clinton should've hit earlier.  There's no excuse for this failure on his part and it could've even been great for his campaign early on, so that doesn't make much sense as an explanation. It's a surprising failure on his part.

    Parent
    He had no answer ready for that (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:20:32 PM EST
    obvious question than "I was busy campaigning"? C'mon, how is he supposed to multitask as President.

    Parent
    Obama's Abdication of Committee Role (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by Athena on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:21:53 PM EST
    Clinton rightly pointed out Obama's abdication of his role chairing the subcommittee on Europe - his defense? - he was running for President.

    I've also been wondering why this lapse of responsibility has not surfaced in any previous debates.  It sheds some real light on Obama's view of his duties in his short Senate term.

    The answer is - the very lazy, pro-Obama media would not cover this issue.  Put him in a bad light.

    Parent

    I agree. (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:27:59 PM EST
    No excuse.  This should be a big issue, really, considering that Afghanistan is a failing mess, given little attention by the White House and less by congressional oversight.  Here was a chance for Obama to shine.

    Why the Hell didn't he?

    Parent

    Two - or three - points (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:28:48 PM EST
    She's filed financial disclosure forms with the Ethics Committee every year.

    And, as someone who does tax work, I can tell you that some of the brokers have gotten extensions on issuing 1099s and have not even issued tax info for use in preparing 2007 returns.

    Partnerships often don't issue K-1s until April.

    She's said she will release them if she's the nominee - what's wrong with that?

    Parent

    Why not release them now? (none / 0) (#122)
    by sar75 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:44:18 PM EST
    ...and end this Obama talking point?  It doesn't make sense.  Call up the accountant and say, "Work overtime - put something together quick" and bill it to the campaign.  

    I don't think she's hiding anything, to be honest.  It seems to me that she just doesn't want to have to give in to this demand.

    Parent

    Would You Give Russert Your Tax Returns? (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:51:50 PM EST
    I suspect Clinton hasn't released them not because there is anything comment worthy, but because she doesn't want to go into debate after debate with Russert holding them up and asking some ridiculous questions.  Am I the only one who remembers the media going over the Clinton tax returns in the 1990s and noting how their accountants valued donated clothes (Bill's underwear was valued at $X)?  The Clinton Rules makes the most mundane event some sort of scandal.  They donated clothes to the Salvation Army and then deducted their value on their taxes like millions of other Americans.  The nerve!

    Parent
    2006 returns? (none / 0) (#186)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:32:17 AM EST
    Of course, the 2007 returns are not even due yet....

    I would like to see the K-1s from the partnership among Bill, the ruler of Dubai and Burkle....  

    Parent

    Why this sudden obsession with tax returns? (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by cymro on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:49:46 PM EST
    This is bizarre. I see this question popping up in every discussion thread today -- regardless of the thread's topic.

    What on earth is this about? Did someone send out an all points memo to every Obama supporter to start asking inane questions about tax returns today? It's almost funny, if it weren't such a pathetic and obvious attempt to avoid talking about the actual topic being discussed. Is this the officially annointed Obama Obfuscation Of The Day, or what?

    Parent

    Yep, it's today's Obamamemo (3.00 / 2) (#164)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:05:24 PM EST
    Or maybe it was yesterday's. I don't think we're getting the A-list recipients (see also the debut of a "Dunsel") here.

    Parent
    You didn't read my initial post.... (1.00 / 1) (#158)
    by sar75 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:00:22 PM EST
    I am not trying to obfuscate.  All I am doing is responding to what I believe is a false excuse (tax returns are too complex) for not releasing the data from previous years.

    I did NOT say Hillary should release them (although that might set aside this question once and for all).

    I explicitly said that I don't think she has anything to hide.

    I simply argued a technical point - that she has very competent accountants working for her so that she does not have to deal with such issues.  If she wanted to release this information, she could.

    So please, don't misconstrue what I said.  I wish I hadn't carried on like this, but I still find it hard to believe that people would argue that complexity/time issues are what is standing in the way of releasing tax information.

    For all I care, she doesn't have to release it. Frankly, by March 5 this will be a moot point anyway.

    Parent

    But you're still discussing tax returns, right? (none / 0) (#172)
    by cymro on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:47:00 PM EST
    Chattering about--yes. (none / 0) (#179)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:17:47 AM EST
    No, I'm defending myself... (none / 0) (#220)
    by sar75 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:37:22 AM EST
    ...from people who are accusing me of saying something I didn't because they failed to read my initial posts.  

    They still, apparently, think the poor Clintons haven't found time to sit down with the pencil and calculator and those awful IRS forms to do their taxes.  That is - in the word of BTD - ridiculous.

    So, enough with the snarky comments.  If you would like to argue that the Clintons are not using accountants, that's fine. But please, get my point and don't accuse me of "chattering".  

    Of course, all of this is moot.  This whole thing ends on March 4 anyway.

    Parent

    Tax returns (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:07:23 AM EST
    If you have income derived from dividends, distributions, K-1 taxes are very complicated.  It's not just an employers W2.  The idiotic companies send revisions from January 31st till about the middle of March and then some more.  She may not be doing it but whoever does them it takes months.  I know. They are a moving target.  Many of the companies throw out stuff to meet the deadlines but keep revising. It's not a slam dunk.  I bet they have their money in some kind of Trust that also adds complexity since the returns of the trust have to be prepared before the individual returns.  Even if she wanted, it would be impossible.  

    Parent
    Not Hillary and Bill's accountants... (none / 0) (#227)
    by sar75 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:00:47 AM EST
    ...do you really think that the Clintons are dealing with slow accountants who don't get the job done quickly?  They KNOW these issues come up in campaigns and probably (almost certainly) have accountants who cater to their specific needs.

    Also, we're talking about previous (2006 and earlier) tax returns, not 2007.  She could legitimately claim that she isn't finished with 2007 (I'm not), but it's hard to do that for earlier years.

    Look, I'm not calling for her to release anything nor do I think she's hiding anything.  I simply think that it's implausible that the complexity of previous years' tax returns is the reason why she's not.

    And notice:  people on this board are making that argument, not the Clinton campaign.  Because, well, they would be laughed at.  I can hear it now: "Huh?  Don't you have an accountant?  Are you taxes is some box in the basement?"  Please!

    Parent

    Accountants don't make up stuff (none / 0) (#231)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:50:07 AM EST
    they have to get the 1099s from the K-1's, etc.  Please,  the accountants have to get statements from the various investments, the quality of reporting these days is trash.  They issue correction after correction.  The corrections do not stabilize, it's not a shoe box it's the state of the corporate reporting.  Any accountant who does taxes for people who have various investments knows better than to file before March due to the quality of the 1099s.  People who have similar income sources as the Clinton's know why it's not a slam dunk and whatever you submit early will have to be corrected 5-6 times till April 15.  

    Parent
    how is saying she doesn't have time (4.50 / 8) (#12)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:14:21 PM EST
    to do her tax returns, which aren't even due for a month, a big issue when Obama saying HE WAS TOO BUSY CAMPAIGNING to convene meetings on his own senate committee that oversees NATO?

    I mean, come on.  He gets a pass on ignoring Europe and she gets nailed for not having her taxes done?

    Parent

    Taxes and committee hearings (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by PennProgressive on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:31:56 AM EST
    Obama supporters--do you really think Obama's not calling the meeting of the committee is justified because and HRC is not making the tax returns public? It is really sad! Obama is required to do the job for which he is elected. HRC will make their tax return public--even if she is not 'required" to do that. This underlies the basic problem with Obama--he does not want to learn the  job for  which he is elected. He talks about the  importance of Afghanistan, yet he fails to hold the sob-committee hearing. Now he talks about health care, making college affordable, ending Iraq war. I wonder how many of these he will even try to tackle--because finally this is hard work.
    I  am surprised how come Russert and  Co. did not know this?


    Parent
    Well honestly (none / 0) (#34)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:21:23 PM EST
    I think she probably does not do her own taxes...

    Parent
    Well, honestly, have you ever dealt (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:30:50 PM EST
    with an accountant on the complexities of royalties, speech fees, dual residences in New York and D.C., medical bills after a bypass, moving your mother from her state to your home, etc.? Ours aren't anywhere near that complex, and it takes us weeks to even get ready to get to the accountant . . . and then come the weeks of a question here, a question there, come back for this, we're missing that. . . .

    Parent
    Are you a mutli-millionaire former president? (none / 0) (#102)
    by sar75 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:38:12 PM EST
    Don't you think that Bill and Hillary have very high-paid, top-notch accountants with reputations to protect taking care of their finances?  People they've worked with for years? Are there not firms that cater particularly to such a clientele?  I wouldn't be surprised if they don't pay a single bill themselves or see a single bank statement.  They make and spend money and it's all taken care of by someone very good who gets paid to do it for them.  They put their signatures to some forms and that's it.

    Parent
    The one multi-millionaire I know. . . (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by trishb on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:45:55 PM EST
    Wouldn't dream of having his taxes submitted before taking a ton of time to review them with a fine tooth comb.  And since he works with a very prominent DC based global private equity investment firm, I'm pretty sure the laws are in his favor.  But I can't imagine he got where he is without checking that stuff.

    Parent
    You are wrong (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Manuel on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:00:51 AM EST
    I know several high net worth individuals and even though the accountants fill out the forms and track details, it still takes a lengthy meeting to review the return.  In this case, if I were Hillary, I would not want to release anything without reviewing it carefully for errors.

    Parent
    No!!! I didn't say there was! (none / 0) (#133)
    by sar75 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:47:41 PM EST
    No where in my post did I say that there was something wrong with having money.  I wish I were a multimillionaire!  And if I was, I'd have an accountant take care of my very complex taxes.

    Where did you get from my post that I have a problem with rich people?  All I said was that rich folks have accountants because their taxes are more complex.  And if you're busy running for president, being an ex-president, being a senator, and also very rich, you don't do your own taxes.


    Parent

    My husband has a small business and (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by hairspray on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:07:11 AM EST
    does some travel for it and we have several other sources of income.  It is small potatoes compared to someone like the Clintons, but it takes a lot of time to pull stuff together, even if someone else is adding and subtracting.  There are phone calls for clarification and meetings and then some new details come up and we have to dig around some more.  Why should they have to get it all together before it is necessary so someone can play games with it?

    Parent
    Your husband is not... (none / 0) (#221)
    by sar75 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:42:14 AM EST
    ...running for president.  Of course an accounting firm could and would prioritize the Clintons returns.  Yes, they would drop other things to take care of this.  And as rich and complex as the Clinton's taxes are, do you really think that it would take a team of accountants from a leading accounting firm to put something together for release?

    Come on, folks.  If the Clintons wanted to release their information from 2004/2005/2006 (already filed) tomorrow, they could.  And as far as I know, they are not making the entirely unplausible argument that it's complicated and takes a long time.  People here are.  They are simply saying they'll release when they choose.

    Good for them.  I don't care.  I am not calling for them to release their taxes and don't think they have anything to hide.  I've said that four times in this thread already.  I'm simply refuting the idea that complexity of their (already filed!) tax returns from previous years is the reason. That's nuts.

    Parent

    I'd prefer we talk about why Obama (none / 0) (#238)
    by hairspray on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:49:27 AM EST
    hasn't held one oversight meeting on his committee on Afghanistan.  Considering the differences in scope, I would think you could easily spend as much outrage as this on that topic.

    Parent
    I doubt the Clintons (none / 0) (#169)
    by reynwrap582 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:36:43 PM EST
    are their accountant's only client.  It's also unlikely the accountant does one filing all the way through and starts at the beginning of the next one.  It's more likely they work on a pile of them concurrently, and if that's the case, I don't think Hillary can call them up and say "Forget everyone else's taxes, do mine first and don't stop until it's finished."  And even if she can, how much is that going to cost, and who is going to pay for it?  Russert?  Obama?  I'd rather her spend the money on some more commercials in TX and OH.

    Parent
    The 2006 returns are already (none / 0) (#187)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:36:52 AM EST
    done, and I am assuming that is what everyone is talking about...Asking for the 2007 returns makes no sense--with the two allowable extensions, the 2007 returns would not be due until September 2008....

    It would take 30 seconds for Hillary to make the phone call to release her returns for the last few years.....That is what everyone is talking about...The deal with Ron Burkle and the ruler of Dubia was 2005, I think, and would be reflected in prior years' tax returns.....

    Parent

    Of course she doesn't do her own taxes... (none / 0) (#64)
    by sar75 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:28:46 PM EST
    ...she pays an accountant to do them for her. She might check over some details, but rich folks - particularly political elites - have good accountants take care of these things for them.  I'd imagine that there are accountants who cater particularly to their needs.

    Point is, she could release this information if she wanted to.  I don't claim she's hiding anything, or that she should do it right now.  But I think it's a little far-fetched to say that she doesn't have time or it's a complicated return.

    Parent

    Have you EVER files a complex tax return? (4.20 / 5) (#11)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:13:33 PM EST
    Are you serious? It can take a lot of time. And you think she will stop campaigning and do this, just to provide things people can nitpick?

    Parent
    She has an accountant... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by sar75 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:21:22 PM EST
    ...this would not be a problem.  She and Bill wouldn't be pouring over their receipts and trying to figure out TurboTax.  Please. Filing tax returns is difficult for the rest of us, not political elite millionaires.

    Parent
    I say again (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:23:00 PM EST
    I don't think you have ever done a complex tax return. If you ever turn stuff over to an accountant and just let them file you are RESPONSIBLE for errors. And trust me, they have HUNDREDS of questions. They usually send a 30-40 page questionnaire.

    It ain't as easy as you make it seem.

    Parent

    Senate Disclosures Exist (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by cdalygo on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:24:43 PM EST
    More to the point, she has filed extensive disclosures with the Senate. Go check it out.

    Parent
    Are you serious? (none / 0) (#53)
    by sar75 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:25:43 PM EST
    If they wanted to report their already filed returns, they could do that very easily. Their accountant isn't some hack sitting in the local Jackson Hewitt office, but gets paid a lot of money to deal with the taxes of important clients.

    There are lots of reasons why they won't make this information public now, and perhaps legimate.  But the complexity of the return (they're already filed!) is not one of them.

    Parent

    Just for fun here (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by Gabriele Droz on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:54:14 PM EST
    would you be willing to show me YOUR tax returns at this moment's notice?  Come on now.  If you're clean it should be no problem right.  I mean the rules are for all of us, and instant transparency/release of records, must apply to all of us, don't you think?

    So let's see your records, and I MEAN NOW!!!

    Snark.

    Parent

    what are you talking about? (none / 0) (#183)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:28:28 AM EST
    She has known since the day she declared that she would be asked to make public her returns. She has already committed to doing so before the general election. It is absurd to claim that she doesnt have time to release them before WE get to choose our nominee.

    If it is a problem for her 2007 return, release the 2006 while the new ones are being done.

    Parent

    I would hold a lengthy meeting with my (none / 0) (#197)
    by Manuel on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:07:10 AM EST
    accountant before releasing for the public record my past returns.  I would want to make sure there were no errors and a possible need to refile.

    Parent
    Do you not think? (none / 0) (#226)
    by sar75 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:55:41 AM EST
    ...that the Clinton campaign has not been in contact with their accountant about this matter?  I'm sure these meetings have been held already.  These are the Clintons - they're political pros, and have been through this before.  Do you think they don't have this base covered? They're not releasing previous returns (not 2007) for some reason - maybe a good one.  

    And if not - if they are just now trying to figure out what to do about this - then that speaks volumes about the preparedness of their campaign (like not knowing how the Texas primary/caucus system works).

    Again, I am not calling for her to release anything, nor do I think she has anything to hide.  I am simply saying that she COULD, and the complexity of her return (or the lack of complexity of mine, which is entirely irrelevant to this discussion, despite what some have said) is NOT the reason.

    Parent

    No, I don't think these meetings have been held (none / 0) (#240)
    by Manuel on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:56:56 PM EST
    This is a minor issue at best.  Since Iowa, she has had a lot of bigger fish to fry.  Prior to Iowa, I suspect she thought she would have the time.  Remember, her campaign believed the primaries would be over on Feb 4.

    Parent
    Ummm (none / 0) (#200)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:13:57 AM EST
    None of us are running for President of the United States.

    FTR, if there was a reason for me to disclose my tax returns I would have no problem doing it.  Then again I don't try and cheat the government.

    Parent

    Gabriele... (none / 0) (#225)
    by sar75 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:51:06 AM EST
    ...yes, I would be able to pull my very uncomplicated tax return from the manila folder in my filebox.

    BUT I am NOT running for president, so I have no reason to show you anything.

    If I were running for president, this is clearly something that I and my advisors and my TEAM OF HIGHPAID ACCOUNTANTS would have thought of.  They would indeed be able to pull my files from previous years and put together a package for release to the public.  If they couldn't, I would never have hired them.  

    BUT AGAIN - because you refuse to read my emails, I need to restate this - I AM NOT CALLING FOR HER TO RELEASE THEM.  I also NEVER said she or Bill have anything to hide.  NOT ONCE (read my posts). I'm simply making the point that the reason she is not doing so is NOT because they are somehow too complex, which is just silly. I

    Parent

    So you must be one of the ones (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:28:10 PM EST
    who can Tele-Tax. You don't know what you're talking about, clearly. The Clintons undoubtedly have to do the alternative minimum tax, and it's the seventh level of hell. Book royalties alone can help accountants buy second homes by the time they're done.

    Parent
    I have no doubt.... (none / 0) (#86)
    by sar75 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:32:45 PM EST
    ...that their return is complicated! But they have accountants who do nothing else but take care of important clients like this.

    So, this is not about my tax returns, which are indeed pretty straightforward (although a couple of small investments and rental properties do make a few hours with TurboTax necessary).  It's about rich folks who have accountants do this for them.  Please - do you think Hillary and Bill struggle with forms and receipts and calculators trying to figure out their AMT?

    Parent

    The real question (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by KellyK on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:41:38 PM EST
    is how is this at all relevant to anything? This is about as classy as an attack as calling Obama a plagarist. Give it up.

    Parent
    No, it's not... (none / 0) (#148)
    by sar75 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:51:50 PM EST
    ...and it's not an attack.

    I also did not say Hillary should release her taxes.  I just think it's disingenuous to claim that the reason is it's too complex or she hasn't had the time. I also said I don't think she has anything to hide.

    But if she says she'll release the taxes if she's the nominee (i.e. she has nothing to hide), and people are asking her why she won't release them now, why not just do it now and say "I have nothing to hide."  Totally transparent.

    It's something entirely different than the plagiarism charge, which can be argued on its own merits (or lack thereof).

    I don't see how people can misread what I've posted here.  Again, I simply don't buy that it's too complex/hard/time consuming for someone who clearly has accountants doing all this for her to release data from tax returns filed in previous years.  But if you want to see that as an attack, go ahead.

    Parent

    I am an accountant (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:29:54 PM EST
    I use Turbo Tax for my own taxes, but I never saw Intuit do a Super Duper Senator's version and if they did, I hope it comes with a rebate from Best Buy.

    Yes, she has accountants but she has to make sure every single item is perfect or else some people would be pointing out any little mistake at the local blogs.

    Parent

    But we're talking about already filed returns! (none / 0) (#91)
    by sar75 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:34:33 PM EST
    ...and I'm sure she has people who audit the accountants' work, too.

    Parent
    This is an utter myth (none / 0) (#203)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:20:03 AM EST
    If the Clinton tax return is as complex as most of us would agree it is, what exactly is Hillary Clinton going to correct that a TEAM of accountants wouldn't catch.

    FTR, yes Hillary is obligated to pay any unpaid taxes.  However, if her accountants screwed up she can force them to pay any fines, not that kind of accounts that the Clintons would hire would screw up anyway.

    Let's be honest here.  She isn't releasing her tax returns because she is scared that her PAST returns had some accountant reindeer games going on.  

    Parent

    That might be true... (none / 0) (#223)
    by sar75 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:46:56 AM EST
    ...that there's a problem with her tax returns that she would like to hide.

    I am not saying that though.  I'm simply saying that she could, if she wanted to, release her past returns tomorrow.  To say otherwise is silly.

    Parent

    Russert asked for the most recent (none / 0) (#229)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:44:19 AM EST
    return, the ones due April 15 -- at least, that's how she answered, and he didn't reply otherwise.

    Parent
    No-one's brought this up, so I will (none / 0) (#237)
    by Sima on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:24:40 AM EST
    for the sake of completeness.

    She doesn't HAVE to file by 15th April.  I NEVER file then, ever.  It's a waste of money.  The penalties for filing late are less than the money makes me in interest and my accountant has to wait for all the K-1's and so on to be delivered. So I usually file in about August.

    Anyway, if Russert wanted her current tax returns, I can sure understand why they aren't ready.  And legally, she doesn't have to file by 15th April.  Noone does.  People are just too afraid of the penalties (in some cases with good reason) to get extensions.

    Parent

    I am talking about pre-2007 tax returns (none / 0) (#239)
    by sar75 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:15:51 PM EST
    Good Grief, (none / 0) (#233)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:39:48 AM EST
    hasn't this subject been hammered to death? Enough with the taxes all ready.  

    Parent
    Not an auspicious debut here, Dunsel (4.20 / 5) (#18)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:17:25 PM EST
    I've seen this comment too many times here, there, and everywhere on the blogs -- today's Obamamemo?

    Parent
    Read my posts... (1.00 / 1) (#114)
    by sar75 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:41:18 PM EST
    ...that's not what I'm saying.

    The Clinton's taxes are probably more complex than any of us could every fathom.  That's why they have very good, expensive accountants who take care of these things for them.  Think of the Joe Walsh song:

    "I have a mansion forget the price
    Aint never been there they tell me its nice
    I live in hotels tear out the walls
    I have accountants pay for it all."

    Parent

    Let me get this straight-- (5.00 / 4) (#131)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:46:42 PM EST
    You are basing your grand knowledge about how multi-millionaire tax filings work on what you learned in a SONG?

    Good lord!  I've got a couple of houses and all kinds of foreign income and I pay my accountants to keep up with it, but they get the information from ME, and I double check then triple check everything, because the IRS doesn't accept "I didn't know any better" as an excuse.

    You need to turn off the radio and listen to people who actually know about this stuff.

    And, actually, answer this question, please: what, exactly, do you think will be "found" in their tax returns?  What smoking gun do you expect to uncover?

    Parent

    The song was a joke... (none / 0) (#218)
    by sar75 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:33:22 AM EST
    I NEVER said I thought anything would be found in their taxes.

    I also NEVER said she should release her taxes.

    Read my posts - I simply said it was implausible to think that the Clinton's are not releasing their taxes because they haven't had a chance to do them yet themselves.  That was my only point, and yet people are claiming something different.

    Good Lord - do you know how to read?

    If you think that Hillary and Bill are not releasing their taxes because they're just too busy or their tax return is too complex you are deluding yourself.  If they wanted to end these questions, they should release them now.

    I am neither advocating that they do or suggesting that they are hiding something.  If you can find that in one of my posts, please show it to me.  Otherwise, stop making assumptions and get real about how rich political elites do their taxes.

    THEY HAVE ACCOUNTANTS PAY FOR IT ALL - and they could have those accountants release any information that want.

    Sheesh.

    Parent

    Obama was off the charts in this debate. (2.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Aaron on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:16:28 PM EST
    Nobody can touch this guy, he's the best I've ever seen

    Obama 08, YES WE DID!

    PS Chris Matthews is such a moron, he and Tim Russert are dinosaurs who needs to be retired.

    Give us a break, PLEASE. (3.00 / 2) (#161)
    by cymro on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:03:41 PM EST
    These kinds of comments may be acceptable on Daily Kos, but they don't qualify as intelligent discourse.  Come back when you have something to say that's worth reading.

    Parent
    Shilling again, Aaron (1.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:18:43 PM EST
    and warned already. Moving along. . . .

    Parent
    Hello pot (3.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:27:52 PM EST
    this is kettle!

    Parent
    Show me. (nt) (none / 0) (#84)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:32:35 PM EST
    These kind of "debates" (1.00 / 1) (#24)
    by mg7505 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:18:29 PM EST
    tend to favor Obama, even though they prevent him from having another stadium rally. Seems MSNBC not only has it in for her, but knows exactly how to destroy her.

    I think Russert has one of those (5.00 / 6) (#32)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:21:12 PM EST
    "bro's before ho's" tee shirts with Obama and Clinton on them under his suit.  My God, could the man be any more partisan?  His hate for her seeped from every pore.  And that Farakkhan "thing" was not a question, it was an opportunity for Obama to clear things up.  Unbelievable.  And why didn't he quote Obama on NATO?  He quoted Clinton's remarks (though seemed to take them as a resounding NATO love fest when anyone with at least one working ear could tell that was not the case)

    What a disgrace.  Awful, awful, awful.

    Parent

    Barely restrained (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by vigkat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:47:15 PM EST
    disdain and something closely akin to hatred.  It was palpable and powerful.  I have  no doubt the agenda for tonight was to take Hillary down.  I can only speculate on all the reasons why.

    Parent
    Because Hillary could be effective (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by MarkL on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:49:28 PM EST
    as President; Obama could not.
    Hillary is the one who frightens these boys with the prospect of change.

    Parent
    Huh (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by KellyK on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:48:10 PM EST
    "My God, could the man be any more partisan?"

    Obama and Clinton are both Democrats.

    Parent

    BTW (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:16:37 PM EST
    NBC is going to KILL Obama.

    Against McCain I mean (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:17:34 PM EST
    Oh Yeah (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:26:13 PM EST
    I've suspected it all along and the last week or two it's become clear.  What with Chris Matthews getting on his knees for McCain after being lied to by McCain.  

    They're going to use Obama to beat the shrew (with the help of cross-over Republicans) and then they are going to turn on Obama to annoint their one true love, McCain.

    Part of me thinks Obama deserves what he has coming after using and feeding the misogyny and Hillary hatred, on some level there's karma in having him subjected to the kind of smears he and his campaign have been only too happy to parrot. But the other, larger, part of me thinks the rest of America does not deserve four years of having to listen to President McCain call us his "friends."  

    Parent

    Obama played the cards dealt him (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:28:35 PM EST
    I'll be screaming about NBC all they way through November.

    Keith is going to be interesting cuz his won network will be fighting him on Obama every step pf the way if Obama is the nominee.

    Parent

    They're not all for McCain (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by white n az on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:51:27 PM EST
    KO and Dan Abrams are for Obama but the rest...definitely McCain

    Parent
    Could (none / 0) (#234)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:48:35 AM EST
    the reason that KO decided that he's just Wild About Barry is that much of the Obama fan club is made up of the demographic that Keith brags about when citing his numbers against O'Reilly? I've heard him make snotty remarks about the Old Folks that watch Billo and we all know, us old folks, that networks don't care about us, demographically that is.

    So given that, either Keith will have to keep his love for Obama going or he may lose much of his of the demographic that made him popular. Course most of us old coots have all ready decided that he'd been just another gas bag pretending to be a man of integrity. Maybe it's those suddenly enormous paychecks? Just wondering cause honestly I dunno.

    Parent

    totally agree with you on this. (none / 0) (#125)
    by kangeroo on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:45:03 PM EST
    the media's done such a good job of trying to brainwash us that even i have to keep repeating to myself that it doesn't matter if he's a nice guy, scotus is on the line.

    Parent
    by "he's a nice guy" (none / 0) (#128)
    by kangeroo on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:45:54 PM EST
    i meant mccain.

    Parent
    Who kept insisting on more "debates?" (none / 0) (#215)
    by Ben Masel on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:49:16 AM EST
    The Campaigns should make their own arrangements, let anyone who wants to air pick up, rather than letting brosadcsters pick format and promote their onair personalities as "moderators."

    Lincoln and Douglas didn't need no moderators.

    Parent

    From day one didn't we all pretty (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:35:49 PM EST
    well know that was the way?  That's why I've always thought the "electability" argument for Obama based on media love was total BS.

    You're absolutely right about that stuff hurting him in the GE.  I've already seen a video where they're using his own words to make the point that he'll disarm the US in the face of our enemies.  Yuck!
     

    Parent

    not me. (none / 0) (#149)
    by kangeroo on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:53:19 PM EST
    honestly, i didn't know this was going to happen, and god knows i've been following this election and the egregious media bias pretty closely for a while now.  the media narrative as between obama and mccain is only recently becoming clear to me.

    Parent
    media antiObama onslaught still to come in GE (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by noholib on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:45:26 PM EST
    This has been predictable for some time.
    They'll throw in a bit of self-flagellation at the right moment too:  "Oh, we're so sorry, we just didn't find out about these bad things about Senator Obama early enough, we were bedazzled, but these  bad things are real, and all things considered, steady experienced Senator McCain will be safer for us in the White House. Yes, we didn't think experience counted in the primary season, but now that the general election campaign is upon us, we realize that it does matter after all.  Sorry, my bad for a while."

    Parent
    BTD-why do you say this? (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:17:53 PM EST
    and how does it jibe with your electability argument vis-a-vis Obama as media darling in the ge?

    Parent
    Did you see Russert at the end? (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:19:00 PM EST
    It hurts my electability argument a lot.

    Parent
    Not sure what you're talking about (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:23:02 PM EST
    but honestly, I was so over Russert by then that he could've called me thin and pretty and smart and I wouldn't have believed him.  What'd he say?

    Parent
    Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:24:55 PM EST
    and public financing.

    He was his own Swift Boat.

    Parent

    Speaking of boating metaphors (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:35:27 PM EST
    Was it Russert or KO who was chuckling afterwards about landing Clinton like a "floundering" fish in a boat? Grabbed the remote, switched to CNN. . . .

    Parent
    I missed that--left MSNBC at 11:00 (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by jawbone on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:42:59 PM EST
    When was this said? Do they do transcripts of these debate night things?

    That is enraging. I have this viscerally angry response. Whew.

    I have lost a lost of respect for KO recently, to put it mildly.

    Parent

    bye bye MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by noholib on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:00:43 PM EST
    I used to love Countdown.  Olbermann was courageous and outspoken on many important issues, e.g. questions about the Ohio voting mess and electronic voting generally in 2004; constitutional issues and  civil liberties.  But I stopped watching him, Tweety and the whole frat-boy bunch when Schuster came out with the "pimped out" line.  They have all become insufferable.  I expected withdrawal symptoms, but thankfully, have suffered none!

    While on the media, did anyone else listen to NPR Talk of the Nation on Monday when Neil Conan (?) hosted a discussion of the policy differences between Senators Clinton and Obama?  The three experts they had fielding the calls were so very uninformed.  To virtually every single question, they simply answered: Well, there's really no difference in their positions.  Even on social security ... nuclear energy ... If not for sites such as this one, talkleft.com, or www.theleftcoaster.org, or www.mydd.com, I'd never have learned anything about their differences.  "They're two liberal twins" is really not adequate analysis at all.

    Parent

    re bye bye MSNBC (none / 0) (#202)
    by andrys on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:17:25 AM EST
    Well, go back to watch Dan Abrams' show at least.  He tries really hard to be fair and usually succeeds.  Much more so than hosts on any of the other news-talk shows.

     On CNN last night, I saw John Roberts talking about the mailers situation.  Re Clinton complaining about the intentionally misleading, inaccurate flyers, Roberts wanted to know if poor Obama had answered her quickly because it had become important to counter attack as we saw from Kerry and the Swiftboaters!

     It took me awhile to get up off the floor!

    Parent

    yep (none / 0) (#188)
    by bigbay on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:37:17 AM EST
    all of the US will know J. Wright by October.

    Parent
    Desensitizing the issue (none / 0) (#192)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:55:33 AM EST
    This has been done well in other contexts.  Raise all the bad stuff that will come out, and raise it now in an environment you control...By November, calling Obama by his middle name will have no power....

    Raising the issue now, and allowing Obama to denounce, reject, etc. Farakhan  puts the issue to rest....I watched FOX, and even Gingrich did not want to go after Obama's pastor.....Obama if asked about his pastor could very easily say that he helped him find Christ....doesn't agree with everything his pastor says....end of story.... Obama gets along well with Rick Warren, who will be the new Billy Graham....Obama will connect with middle America on values due to his religion...

    If some Republican meatball, like Hannity, wants to get into the black separatist church stuff, all Obama has to do is explain historically why there are black churches--the whites threw them out of theirs....

    Parent

    Because they like McCain? (none / 0) (#31)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:20:44 PM EST
    Am I assuming right?

    Parent
    Oh yess (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:22:32 PM EST
    Russert killed Obama with Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright and public finance.

    That does not hurt him now but it will in the GE.

    Parent

    wow (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:27:27 PM EST
    I am an idiot because I missed that, but others have picked up on it.  Maybe my blind hatred prevented me from spotting it.  I did think that Obama's answers were more off than usual, and thought Clinton should've kept quiet, but then again Clinton could save a child from a burning building and they'd say she just said it to get elected.

    A tad off-topic, but does it seem that some of us, whenever we post anything, are starting to get one ratings no matter how innocuous the statement?  Conspiracy theories abound...

    Parent

    Ratings do not matter here (none / 0) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:29:52 PM EST
    Forget them.

    Parent
    I use them to agree (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:48:14 PM EST
    Saves space of writing that I am nodding in agreement. Heh. One thing I like here is that I get to read every comment rather than slipping down to #458. I like that you close them at 200.

    Parent
    BTD : Ratings DO affect comment ordering (none / 0) (#175)
    by cymro on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:02:06 AM EST
    Comments with the highest ratings are moved to the top. So assigning low low ratings to a comment pushes it down. This affects what a casual reader may see if they read a post then start looking at the comments. Especially when there are 100 to 200 comments.

    Parent
    Yeah, just putting the names Jeremiah Wright (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by frankly0 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:38:20 PM EST
    Farrakhan and Obama into the same sentence in the public discourse starts to create a major issue for Obama. That Wright and Farrakhan took a trip together to visit Khaddafi is something I wasn't aware of, but which has many, many disturbing overtones.

    I pretty much expect that before the election season is over, Obama is going to have to leave Wright's church. I don't think the American people are going to allow the symbolism of a President of the US attending as his regular church one whose pastor is an unabashed admirer of a rabid racist. It wouldn't be tolerated in a Republican President, and it won't be tolerated in a Democratic President.

    Parent

    It is too late, it is way too late (none / 0) (#174)
    by Foxx on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:55:19 PM EST
    He had to have done it a long time ago.

    Parent
    Without even a hint of nuance (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by vigkat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:39:19 PM EST
    That's what is so amazing to me.  This is how far skillful political discourse has degraded.  

    Parent
    If Hillary Loses Next Week in TX and OH (none / 0) (#68)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:28:53 PM EST
    Then I predict the following week all we'll hear about is Rezko.  If the press ever becomes sure she's out of it, they will start beating the crap out of Obama.  Everything we haven't heard about, we're going to hear about then.  

    Parent
    Rezko (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Athena on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:32:42 PM EST
    Tucker was beginning to do this tonight - the trial starts next week.  

    Parent
    Rezko (none / 0) (#208)
    by andrys on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:04:53 AM EST
    A recent article in the Chicago Tribune brought out that Obama initially lied to reporters about his personal home/land deal with Rezko after becoming a U.S. Senator.

    The key portion is near the end, and I'll quote that portion here.

    ==
    'It's not clear why Obama had not previously divulged Rezko's tour of the house with him.

      In 2006, he told the Tribune he recalled talking to Rezko and his wife "either at an event or some conversation we had where they mentioned to me that they either knew the property or knew the developer or something like that.

    "I remember asking Tony, 'What do you think of the property?' And he was  familiar with [the area]. He's been a longtime developer there.

    Obama also said: "He thought it was a good house. And I said, 'I'm looking at putting in a bid on it.' And from that point on I just worked through my real estate broker."

    After they bought the parcels, Obama and Rezko entered a series of personal financial arrangements to redivide and improve the lots. '
    =
    ===

     - A

    Parent

    This undecided Texan has decided. (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by lobary on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:41:19 AM EST
    I'm voting for Hillary.

    Obama's lost me with his bipartisan rhetoric that only undermines core Democratic principles. Hillary's blunder on the Farrakhan question really turned my stomach, but at least she's stated repeatedly her willingness to fight if she's elected. Obama had an opportunity to speak directly to the remaining undecided Edwards supporters and win their votes and he whiffed. When Williams asked him about that National Journal silly business, Obama's answer caused flashbacks of his interview with the Reno Gazette.  Ick. Obama rejects the notion that he's liberal. He repeats this poppycock about getting past the labels and bridging divides because it's all about him. Blah freakin blah. I am sick of Democratic presidential candidates affirming right-wing talking points.

    Parent

    I dunno (none / 0) (#83)
    by ajain on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:32:32 PM EST
    I doubt MSNBC will turn away from Obama. I mean Keith Olbermann is so far into obamamania that I dont think he will ever recover from it.

    Parent
    Punchline KO (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:37:49 PM EST
    will be lonely if it is McCain-Obama. Al the rest of Jack's boys are ready to turn on Obama.

    Parent
    That stuff was already (none / 0) (#193)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:58:54 AM EST
    on the radar screen....Now, Obama can say that it is an old issue he has already addressed.

    Obama will get huge points for being overtly Christian and some slack accordingly.

    Parent

    Feingold as VP (none / 0) (#216)
    by Ben Masel on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:51:34 AM EST
    neutralizes all 3.

    Parent
    Does this make you less than TEPID now? (none / 0) (#170)
    by diplomatic on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:45:03 PM EST
    Come on, let's use a new adjective!  :)

    Maybe a little lukewarm now?

    Reluctant?

    Regretful?

    Wistful?

    "Devil's Advocate-like" support for Obama?

    With this media environment, McCain will win in a landslide.  You heard it here first.

    Parent

    Narrative for '08 (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:12:24 AM EST
    I kind of agree with you about the GE.  This verbage is from a Bloomberg poll.  While the numbers in a national poll now are meaningless, sometimes a narrative jumps out at you.  This is something that we can expect to see over and over in the run-up to November.

    Jim Gallo, a 61-year-old business owner from Santa Clarita, California, says he was initially "entranced" by Obama's oratory on the stump.
    Now, says Gallo, an independent voter, "I question strongly his credentials, his experience."
    "The direction McCain wants to take this country will be far outlasting," he adds

    It's gonna be a mess.


    Parent

    yep (none / 0) (#190)
    by bigbay on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:41:21 AM EST
    parade of the old white women, going to Mc Cain. Obama's waffling on SS doesn't help. Also the youngsters will have lost interest by then.

    Parent
    This old white woman (none / 0) (#235)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:00:10 AM EST
    resents the hell out of anyone presuming that just because I don't support and will not vote for Obama that means that I would be so chuckleheaded as to vote for any damn republican let alone 100 Years In Iraq McCain.

    Although if so many on the left keep dissing old people, there may be enough outrage to enable some older voters to hold their nose and vote for McCain. I just ain't one. Ever.

    Parent

    That was a boring debate (none / 0) (#56)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:26:14 PM EST
    really boring!

    Practically (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:38:00 PM EST
    I agree!  And for once, we both agree with Jgarza.  Who would'a thunk it?!

    Parent
    Barack is good (none / 0) (#58)
    by magster on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:27:05 PM EST
    at defusing an uncomfortable argument. That whole Farakkhan reject or denounce thing, I thought Obama was not strong enough.  But when he reframed it, conceded the point, then it was done.

    The patriotism thing, he had a great response to the AP article. I think Obama will respond a lot better to the GOP attacks this summer than people assume.

    Obama slips a lot of punches (none / 0) (#196)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:02:31 AM EST
    because people like him.

    The key issue will be experience not personal issues....That is why he has got to select Clark as VP....

    Parent

    Get a grip. (none / 0) (#105)
    by Baal on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:39:15 PM EST


    Grip this (none / 0) (#126)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:45:11 PM EST
    Baal and I (none / 0) (#130)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:46:17 PM EST
    are both suspended for the rest of the night.

    Parent
    He should've responded to "Grip this..." (none / 0) (#178)
    by Dadler on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:16:02 AM EST
    ...with a line about not having his tweezers handy.  Then you could've at least tipped your hat on your way out the door for the night.

    Whatever happened to snappy comebacks anyway?

    Parent

    Lemme tell you about (none / 0) (#219)
    by kmblue on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:35:32 AM EST
    the day, long long ago, when I got turned off Brian William for good.

    He was interviewing Senator Barack Obama.

    Williams:  How do you intend to pay for your health care plan?
    Obama:     Do you mind if I tell you about my
    health care plan first?

    That was it for Brian Williams, for me.

    THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING MKS (none / 0) (#222)
    by sar75 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:45:11 AM EST
    I'm saying she COULD (not should) release the returns from earlier years in a second.  2007 taxes?  I haven't finished mine yet, and she could legitimately claim hers aren't finished either.

    Again, I don't care if she does or not.  But she COULD release previously filed tax returns with a phone call.  I imagine that the accounting firm she deals with would answer her call and maybe even give her request special consideration.  They'd also get paid for it.

    Agreed - this debate stunk (none / 0) (#230)
    by sar75 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:48:12 AM EST
    Russert made it more about himself and his Meet-the-Press style of questioning. It was embarrassing to watch. Brian Williams is just boring. Clinton clearly got the worst of it, even if I think that she blew several opportunities and did nothing to change the dynamics.

    Still, these guys can't hold a candle to Charlie Gibson, who held the finest debate (New Hampshire) this season. MSNC should be ashamed.

    Sorry, can't agree re: Gibson (none / 0) (#232)
    by kmblue on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:12:30 AM EST
    He asked a question that revealed he had no idea what teachers make.  The audience laughed at Gibson, and one of the candidates commented on it.

    That's what happens when you have "media stars" with fat salaries and no clue about ordinary life
    moderate debates.

    Parent