Liveblogging the Pennsylvania Debate

Conclusions

If you want to know who lost most from this debate you need only look at the ranting reaction of Obama supporters everywhere. Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Andrew Sullivan, all absolutely furious with the debate's moderators for asking supposedly cheap questions, largely directed at Obama.  Keith Olbermann of MSNBC, whose cable channel is increasingly a sort of church choir for the Obama campaign, angrily derided the questioning as the most "tabloid" of the campaign so far.

So you can rest assured that Obama had a tough night. Almost all the questions in the first hour were directed at him: The "bitter-clinging" controversy; Jeremiah Wright; his relations with the man from the Weather Underground, a left wing terrorist organisation of the 1960s; why he doesn't wear a flag lapel pin.  All this designed to test the proposition that Obama is big trouble for the Democrats in the general election. easily skewered by the Republicans as unpatriotic, elitist and way too left-wing for most Americans.

Pace the denunciations of the Obamaniacs, I think this sort of testing is exactly what Obama needs. The Obama supporters are furious that there weren't more questions on policy. But we know why there weren't. The two candidates don't fundamentally disagree on any of the big issues. And ask yourself this. Has Obama become the Democratic frontrunner because he has persuaded Democrats his policies would be better than Hillary's? No, I don't think so. He has persuaded them that he is the more electable and the better equipped to put the Democratic case in November. As he becomes the presumptive nominee it seems reasonable to me that he should be ruthlessly examined on all these questions. Tonight he was, and as it happens, though he looked defensive at times, he handled most of the pressure well.    He will get a lot more of this from the Republicans in the next six months.

***

Don't think the tax questions elicited anything memorable from either candidate. Or the energy question. Or the guns question.

The lefty blogosphere is furious with what it regards as the endless "process" questions in this debate and is wondering where the substantive policy questions are.

But once we get onto the heavy subjects - Iraq, Iran, the economy, we immediately see how exiguous the differences are between the two candidates. We know by now where the Demncrats stand on these issues. Why simply let them use a debate to reissue predictable Democratic party talking points which reveal not a cigarette paper's distinction between them?

A little bit of tension arises over the issue of Obama's patriotism. He gives a good answer defending his decision not to wear a flag lapel pin.   But he's not so strong and looks a bit shifty on the subject of his relationship with William Ayers, the former Weather Underground terrorist. Hillary correctly says he will be attacked for this by Republicans in the general election.

We're 40 minutes into this and I have to say both candidates have clearly decided to pull their punches - Hillary's only gently pushing the Elitist Obama line and Obama's only gently pushing pack.

One other observation: the fact that this is the first debate for more than a month is making it significantly more absorbing.  So many issues that haven't had a proper hearing in the last six weeks are getting discussed tonight.  It was absurd that they were having one debate a week earlier in the campaign. Also, full marks to Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos for the best questions of any debate so far.

Now Hillary on the defensive over her Bosnia gaffe (astonishing isn;t it, how this Democratic primary nomination is down to duelling gaffes). Another straight admission: "I'm very sorry that I said it."  That honesty is somewhat dulled by her later claim that she got her Tuzla story wrong because she was tired. Since she repeated it again and again on the campaign trail until it was finally exposed as false suggests that's a little hard to believe.

Onto Obama's other recent Achilles' Heel - Rev Jeremiah Wright.  Obama repeats his barely credible claim that he never heard Wright make the infamous inflammatory remarks in his sermons.  Otherwise, he insists, also somewhat implausibly, that Wright is proud to be an American, despite his observations that the US somehow deserved 9/11. 

Crucial soundbite from Hillary. Can Obama win in November: "Yes. Yes. Yes." Not apparently what she said to Bill Richardson, but who's to know the truth?

Straight into "Bitter-Cling-gate". Obama tries to neutralise it. First by rephrasing his remarks to say he meant people were "frustrated" by economic hardship. Then by making kind-of-nice with Hillary by reminding her gently of her infamous "stay home and bake cookies" remark in the 1992 campaign and defending her, saying she had been misrepresented in the same way he has been in the last week.

Clever. Remind people that Hillary has said unpalatable "elitist" things in the past as well and then forgiv her for it in the way he expects to be forgiven.

Comments

[fred keeling]

Were John McCain to become President of the United States would he not become an elitist?

A member of a very select elite that allows you to retain the title of President even after retirement.

What exactly does McCain mean when he suggests that to aspire to be an elitist is somehow wrong?

McCain is a likeable candidate but hypocrisy harms him.

[Gary]

I am amazed that this superpower is incapable of delivering candidates and nominees fit to be the leader of the free world. The Clintons are a disgrace, and after Bill Clinton's shameful sexual exercises, they have the temerity to run for a public office again. No one there ever suggested to Hillary Clinton that if she is elected it will be a further 2 year term for the disgraced Bill Clinton. George Stephanopolous, is a Clinton man, his spin doctor before and how he can become a moderator and ask Obama questions that would help his former boss's wife is beyond me.

Listening to these two presidential contenders, it was clear that how vividly their hollowness and inexperience shine through their answers. Both of them were stressing Americans right to bear arms which was in an era of wild west and did nothing to say what they will do in cases such as campus crimes. Students in certain universities in America are allowed to carry hidden fire arms hidden, and as an acdemic would be scared to death to take classes in those universities. Hillary's healthcare policies never
got off the ground in Bill Clinton's time, and she is peddling them again. America would never accept socialised medicine, and healthcare is a big business for private companies and they never like any change to the status quo. Finally about Obama. It is years too soon for him to aspire to become a president. He has baggages which he cannot shed. The focus on these baggages is not surprising.

[Simon]

Between Hillary and Obama. It will come down to this. Do Americans want 2 more terms of Bill Clinton? Are Americans comfortable if Obama if elected takes an oath which begins, ' I, Barak Hussein Obama....'?

[Brett]

You think Stephanopoulos actually did a good job on the questioning? The guy seriously asked - and I quote - "Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?"

It's quite possibly the most inane question I've ever heard in any of the debates outside of CNN's awful Youtube Debate for the Republicans. What was he seriously expecting Obama to answer - "no, I don't think he really loves it as much as I do."?

In any case, I'm glad that Obama WAS asked about Wright (again), and about the Weatherman thing. The fact that Cheney revived the story just recently is proof that it is probably going to be part of the campaign against him in the general election, assuming he gets there. His "weatherman" answer doesn't really fly, as well - it would be easier for him just to have said "I didn't really know about so-and-so's distant past, and I don't spend every waking minute digging into it and their statements."

[Will]

"Obama needs more tests like this". Where were you in 2000 and 2004? Nobody in the media ever addressed Bush's 152 death warrants(pro-life?), his lack of intellect or his support for the Vietnam war against his refusal to fight. Hyprocrisy.

[John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada]

Gerard Baker should be called Britain's Lord Haw Haw in America.

Honest to God, what a propagandist.

As usual Baker misses the real story, and that is simply that the ABC-mounted effort was embarrassingly badly done.

Please, the relevance of a question about flag pins?

There is none except to patriotic idiots and their defenders.

And it was the same with several other pathetic questions.

Rupert Murdoch himself seems to have edited the question list.

[Laura]

Mr Baker it's not really just the left wing blogosphere that think ABC's questions were inane, I don't know if you've checked the internet today but it goes a lot further than that. You surely noticed the heckling of the hosts after the debate? Not sure all those jeers were from Obama supporters.

Another point - Obama's pastor did not say that the US deserved 9/11 (that was just the Fox News talking point). He said (if you've watched the whole sermon, which I guess from your superficial understanding of the matter that you haven't) that the US could not expect to aggressively interfere in the affairs of other countries for the past two centuries without experiencing some blowback. He wasn't saying they deserved it, just that actions have consequences, and that there are reasons why many people in the world feel anger towards America for placing so little value on their lives as opposed to those of Americans. Essentially, he was expressing Christian values of equality and humanity above nationalism.

You might want to be a little more accurate in your portrayal of such issues if you want to make your support of Hillary Clinton and reactionary conservative tendencies a little less transparent.

[Laura]

I expected a little deeper analysis than "ooh look, all the deluded liberals are angry, Obama must have lost then." Perhaps you could try a little harder to disguise your obvious disdain for Obama supporters.

[Daphne Kenward]

Now, quite frankly speaking, Obama is too Polite. Because I would answer the question about Rev Wright, simply saying, any one who is so interested in what Mr Rev Wright opinions are, it is time to let him answer those questions him self. Frankly Mr Wright did not ask Obama what, he thinks his sermons should to be about. When I go to Church, I do not always know what the topcis will be about in advance. If that is all Hillary can use to try and win an election it is a weak, poor, show. Was Hillary responsible for Bill 's Sexual indiscretions, and it was happening in her own house hold under her nose, did Obama ask her about it? what if Obama was as nasty and malicious as Hillary. Its Time to play the whole Vedio for the public and bring the thing into contex. I know what Rev Right was speaking about, and I understand what he was saying, and the point he was making. Hillary is weak and she drags up stupid arguments, which are pointless in this economical Meltdown America is facing. & people losing their homes, I like issues, and it is time some one Demand that some respectability be brought back into Politics, Give me a reason why I should bother to VOTE, Hillary is living up to what people know her for, her DEVICIVENESS. She is not uniting the Party at all. people in America are going hungry. Let Rev Wright speak for himself, he is not running for election. People want to vote for Change I even hear Mr Bush speaking my language facing facts on the Famine issue, and I am surprised and Global warming too.

[George edward thompson]

from this side of the water i cannot see how anyone could consider voting for h c, or the old geezer? the chip guy!!,.the first one its m
ore of bill ,the second one is a war war sort
of old timer.It is time for total change America,a time to try to get some respect based on truth,not fear,

[George edward thompson]

spending 6 trillion on an illegal war!!!!!!,how many houses could that have bought? for people who were conned into b uying what they could not afford ,now everyone loses,here in uk most folk dislike Bush &his bunch of thugs none of whom did their national service so havent a clue about real war,they are killing your sons America,dont have more of the same go for total change.

[Daphne Kenward]

Wearing a pin, is not going to solve Americas problems. And further more people should be allowed to wear what they want to wear. Freedom liberty Justice, allow people to think for them selves. Why not discuss the amounts of Americans living on food stamps and what is the percentage of the increase since last year?. That is a topic. Global poverty is another one the Famine facing the world, the UN has had to ask for more funds due the the increase of oil and food prices. Obama is showing you all that a pin is not the issue, its what is happening inside America and else where that is the issue.

[Grace]

Sexism is alive and well in the UK I see! I cannot believe that someone has the "audicity" to say that Hillary's Presidency would be Bill's. That is like saying Hillary was also President because she was First Lady! Clearly, you know little of the American political structure or this current Primary election process.

American Obama-ites are spoil sports. He DESERVED to be confronted because it was HIS statements that caused such enormous concern. They were not Presidential and lacked any hint of empathy. Isn't that the type of President we already have? I'm sorry but I'm looking for a leader of the free world to FIX the corruption and destructive policies of the current President, not create new ones.

Can we all agree on this?!

[Chester]

What an idiotic post! I guess if the voters want to hear about matters of substance, then too bad for them.No wonder fewer people read newspapers or watch TV news.

[Daphne Kenward]

Hillary is in the process of creating the CLINTONS DYNASTY, she has made 109 MILLION off the back of Bill Clintons term in the WHITE HOUSE, so I am not surprised she is desperately trying to make another 109 MILLION during this RECESSION, like she said during the Clintons Presidency she said in one argument F...! them what are they doing for us. Does that sound like some one who really give a Dam about the poor people of America, or does some one who has worked with the under privileged, and worked with them to get them out of poverty, and get them back to work, that is some one who will make a difference, to the lives of the American people, what was Hillary doing on the Board of Wall Mart, a Company who has been SUED for low pay to its workers, discrimination against women. That is a part of the Hillary History.