Who lost the Democratic debate? ABC, viewers say

                                                                                               All in all, it wasn't the best night for either Democrat. Barack Obama was forced to defend himself - with varying degrees of success - against a barrage of questions on his patriotism and personal associations. Hillary Clinton, while at times appearing commandingly presidential, struggled to explain her Bosnia "misspeak" and often seemed all too willing to dive into the fray with answers straight off John McCain's talking points. Plumbing the blogosphere today, the consensus appears to be that this was a fairly uneventful debate unlikely to drastically alter the contours of the race either way.

But there was one conclusion on which the overwhelming majority of commentators - and viewers - were united. That the biggest loser from last night's debate was the host - the news network ABC. At the time of posting, the ABC website had attracted over 10,000 comments, all but a few savaging the network for abandoning substantive policy discussions in favour of a relentless rehashing of the campaign's gotcha moments and smears. Some of which, such as why Barack Obama did not wear an American flag pin on his lapel, not only pandered to the lowest common denominator but exhumed squabbles long dead and buried.

The line of questioning appeared at times so shamelessly skewed against Obama that you began to wonder if the moderators were on Clinton's payroll. Not so far from the truth, actually, as one of the moderators was George Stephanopoulos, formerly a senior advisor in Bill Clinton's White House and a key architect of his 1992 election campaign. Some leading blogs were so incensed by the perceived bias that they posted contact numbers for ABC, urging readers to ring up and complain. And while the outrage was dismissed by some as the ramblings of Obamamaniacs, ungracious in defeat, the audience - who presumably included some Clinton supporters - were none too happy either. Click here to watch the moment that the hosts found themselves the target of the audience's ire. The same post also samples the comments on ABC's website.

A selection of comments from the press:

Washington Post:

"It was another step downward for network news -- in particular ABC News, which hosted the debate from Philadelphia and whose usually dependable anchors, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances.

"For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with."

Daily Kos:

"To anyone with a functioning brain, the performance by ABC's Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos at last night's Democratic debate was nothing less than an embarrassment.  Gibson and Stephanopoulos spent more than half of their time playing "gotcha" on subjects that only the idiot pundit class obsess over. But Gibson and Stephanopoulos weren't the only two participants playing the game, because Hillary Clinton was right down in the mud with them."

Talking Points Memo:

"On the questions that touched in some way on policy -- taxes for instance -- Obama looked weary and had what I can only think to compare to the look of a staggering boxer. The discussion of the capital gains tax was a painful example. Most of what Charlie Gibson said was complete nonsense and there were fairly clear, good responses. But Obama stumbled through them.

"On the policy questions, on the other hand, Hillary had what she almost always does in these settings which is a series of well prepared and clear answers which hit on the political points she's trying to make. In this sense I don't think there's much of any way to say that Clinton wasn't the winner on points."

Politico:

"The questions essentially constituted the Republican case against Obama in a general election. He appeared tense, and dispensed with the questions in way that was unlikely to inflict any more damage as he heads into next week's voting. But the tone of the questioning also reflected that Obama has yet to put the controversies that have dogged him over the past few weeks to rest.

"Clinton, who holds a modest lead in most Pennsylvania polls, did not seem to emerge with a game-changing performance, but the intensity of the questioning of Obama could aid her long-term goal of casting doubt among superdelegates about his candidacy."

Dave Weigel, Reason:

I don't think the 40-minute early Obama pile-on was bad for him. I think the following round, where he seemed rattled and reliant on his script, was bad for him. To believe it's worth junking the Clintons and giving him the nomination, a Democrat needs to think Obama is at least as resilient as Hillary. And he can take the attacks, but he can't get past them.

Clinton's game hasn't changed since February: It's to win enough delegates to close the gap before the convention, then convince superdelegates that Obama is unelectable. She utilized and validated a boatload of Republican attacks on Obama (Ben Smith noticed that she mentioned 9/11 three times while attacking him). She's watched with obvious surprise as Obama survived every attack, as Democrats cling tighter to him. So she's trying to convince them that Republicans will be more successful than her. It's all very meta and I'm unsure if it'll work.

The Daily Dish, Atlantic.com:

"A former Clinton staffer - someone who owes his entire career to the Clintons - asks her opponent questions devised by Sean Hannity: "Stephy said he was writing down all the info Sean gave him."
I think Fox News would have done a better job. But then I cannot imagine anyone doing a worse job."

Comments

[M.J.]

The "debate" showed just how pathetic our media is.....almost a shadow of our government. Loaded, rehashed irrelevant questions, designed only to give commentators more trash to talk about on their shows or the nightly news. Obama has tried to stay above it, trying to talk about the problems with the country, but the fools in the media just won't let it occur. And Clinton is more than happy to be suckered in to it.
I can see how we are viewed so differently by the outside world.

[Lars Giles]

I was totally outraged by the questioning by ABC news over various trivial matters compared to the problems this country faces. This only strengthend my sense that the media is controlled by various tychoons and others who are trying to brainwash and distract us with propoganda. If I was Obama, I would have lit into them ferociously and I would have cheered loudly had he done so. Enough is enough. I was somewhat angry at Clinton for going along with this line of questioning as well.

[Arthur Lemay, Paris/France]

After reading many comments on the debate I think the moderators did an excellent job in getting some elucidation of Obama's real positions on government and his intentions, should he be elected. It must be humiliating to him to see how obviously unsuited he really is to be President, or even to be in the Senate.

His answers showed he is a shameless charlatan who would destroy America's free enterprise system and install a vindictive, punitive regime of taxation against successful people and install judges who would ignore the constitution, and legislate from the bench.

The fact that thousands of people protested only indicates that their ox was gored, and in this case he royally deserved it.

Instead of being criticized, I think that this is the best example of main street media being competent for the first time in a long time.

[bluecollarbytes]

Of course many of us Americans would like the answers to largely unanswered questions having to do with a candidate's core politics, honesty, integrity, etc. Is it really just Americans who care about such things? Yes we have candidate-lovers who will not fall out of love regardless of what comes out.

[Rip Tide]

The Liberal-Left Media hasen't asked Obama any hard questions. He's basically had a free ride regarding tough questions. I feel as a US citizen if you are going to be President the Public needs to have as much info as possible to see if you pass a Litmus test.
If He has no skeltons in his closet then let Americans know it..Or let the skeltons out.
It's past time to stop selling "Sizzle" and let us know how the Steak really is....

[D. Shult]

Not only is the media shown to be sub-
standard in the Obama/Clinton debate, but it also is symbolic of the failure of the media to address and report on the most important issues of the world--the need to report on alternate energy sources, the starving and maltreatment of the people in the poorer regions of the world, the need to expand our media reports beyond the few issues that we hear repeated over and again each day.

[Richard Bassett]

There's not much difference between the Hilary and Obama on the war in Iraq, Health Care, Taxes or Education so why wouldn't Gibson and Stephanopoulos focus on the topics and issues that they did? Virtually all of this criticism of ABC is from Obama people who can't stand that their candidate has been revealed to be a politician and not a deity.

[Rose Sloan]

I believe the Moderators showed just how much they are out of touch with the American public. Hillary appeared very comfortable in slinging the mud and giving her prepared answers. It almost appeared that she had advance notice of the questions, she was so anxious to be the "first" to answer!

Although Obama was under attack and pressure, he handled the situation very well and maintained his "Presidential" image. When he had an opportunity to nail Clinton on the Bosina fire incident, he took the high road. He further refused to bring out all of the dirt that is in her luggage.

George and Charlie are a disgrace to the Media! Shame on them for such a poor display of "unbiased" journalism.

The super delegates and the American public are not that stupid that they cannot see through the attempts of the Media to distract from the real issues facing the American people!

Not this time will we be distracted and off course from the real deal!

[Greg Jones]

WHY IS THE MEDIA HIDING THE TRUTH ABOUT HILLARY'S SECRET RELIGION (CULT ?)

It was obvious as one would watch the 'coverage' of the war that all of the cable news networks were working for the Bush Regime. The ONLY place we as Americans could attempt to gather some truth was through C-Span, Huff, Democracy Now and a few other sites which would show all of the networks to be actually misleading America. Now, with as simple a tool as Google, Americans can find out information that the networks won't give. Hillary's secret religion (cult) known as 'The Family' is a D.C. based group of the richest folks in America who 'pray to Jesus for the elite to rule the world' . The fact that there has been absolutely no mention of her cult leads one to believe that the higher-ups at the networks (and other big corporations) are a part of 'The Family'.....and the plan to rule the world. I know.... it sounds far fetched. You can find a great list of links regarding 'The Family' at www.Blacks4Barack.org. Truthtellers like Huffington, The Nation, Mother Jones and others have all done recent stories about 'The Family'....but where's CNN, MSNBC, Fox or the gang. They all know that there's an internet rumbling going on right now about this cult. But....no mention. Do the research yourselves....Google 'Hillary The Family' or 'The Fellowship' or 'The Christian Mafia'....once you do....you'll see that it is not only scary....BUT IT MUST BE STOPPED !!!!!!!!!!!!!! LEARN/SHARE !!!!!

Visit: www.Blacks4Barack.org
(A Multi-Racial Organization Dedicated to Truth)