What do you think was going through John McCain's head in this rather unfortunate shot from last night's debate? Write in with your captions.
Click here to read the story and watch video of the debate
16 October 200817 April 2008Who lost the Democratic debate? ABC, viewers say 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: "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." "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." "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." "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." 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. "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." 28 February 2008Obama and Louis Farrakhan
Obama had already been forced to decry Farrakhan's views once, after the Washington Post reported in January that a magazine published by the Trinity United Church of Christ - of which the Democratic candidate is a member - had named him in its annual awards. But after Farrakhan lauded Obama as the "hope for the entire world" on Sunday, the Illinois senator was cornered at Tuesday night's Ohio debate by Hillary Clinton, who demanded he again "denounce" the black leader's views. He did so, and, after Clinton continued to criticise him for not explicitly "rejecting" Farrakhan's support, said he both "denounced and rejected" him. (It is interesting to note that despite Clinton's apparent dedication to semantics she later chose to neither reject or denounce a Hispanic backer in Texas who said that “Obama’s problem is he happens to be black.") In fairness, Clinton should not have to reject the support of every individual whose views she does not espouse. Neither should any other presidential candidate. Amongst the millions of voters lining up behind each prospective president are bound to be some whose opinions are abhorrent to many. Many South Carolina Republican voters, for example, support the display of the Confederate flag - viewed by many as a symbol of racism and oppression - at the state's capitol building. To my knowledge, John McCain has not been asked to denounce this yet. And he shouldn't be. A better question might be why McCain has yet to comment on a statement from the Tennessee Republican Party released Monday entitled "Anti-semites for Obama." Prominently displaying the "dressed" photo and spelling out Obama's middle name Hussein, it claimed Obama would be a menace to Israel. “On the contrary, supporters of Israel should view a possible Obama administration with extreme caution, as America’s ally is being put in the cross-hairs by the anti-Jewish left,” Bill Hobbs, the party's communications director was quoted as saying. McCain did however on Tuesday castigate a right-wing radio presenter who, when introducing him at a Ohio rally, repeatedly used the "Hussein" moniker and insinuated that Obama had a secret past which would soon be exposed. After the "dressed" photo debacle, he is keenly aware that such attacks, smacking of xenophobia-fuelled paranoia, could well prove a devastating own goal. 27 February 2008Clinton's 'Dubya' moment
Here's how the stumble played out in the blogosphere: Top of the Ticket, LA Times: "Chances are you don't know his name. But then you're not running for president. We'll never know if the name was known by Obama, who is running for president, because Russert chose to put Clinton on the spot. And she blew it." "It's not really that hard a name, and it was a moment in which both candidates -- though particularly Hillary -- demonstrated a bit of thinness on a big international story. Clinton was unsure of it, and Obama didn't add his first name." Trail Mix, Congressional Quarterly: "That is not the sort of flub that will matter this week. But it sure could make a difference if something like that happened in the general election debates against Republican nominee-to-be John McCain, who has recently talked about Medvedev by name and at length. "But at least Obama or Clinton have plenty of time to memorize the names of foreign leaders before taking on McCain in a debate." 22 February 2008Emotional Clinton hints at defeat
Read the full story from our Tom Baldwin, our Washington bureau chief, here and watch the videos below: 25 January 2008Mama McCain and the recurring case of foot-in-mouth disease
Here's the relevant extract from the C-Span interview transcript: Steve Scully: This is a political question in terms of how he gets the nomination, but just from what you have seen, how much support do you think he has among the base of the Republican Party? Roberta McCain: I don’t think he has any. I don’t know what the base of the Repub– maybe I don’t know enough about it, but I’ve not seen any help whatsoever. Scully: So can he then go on and become the nominee of this party? McCain: Yes, I think holding their nose they’re going to have to take him. Scully: Can you explain? McCain: Well, everything they’ve done and said. … Now I’m really popping off, but he worked like a dog to get Bush re-elected. …He’s backed Bush in everything except Rumsfeld. Have you heard other senators and congressmen backing Bush over eight years? Find me it – give me a name. I’ve not seen any public recognition of the work that he’s done for the Republican party. Mama McCain is right of course. Despite having a highly respectable lifetime rating of 82.3 percent from the American Conservative Union, John McCain's deviations from the Republican orthodoxy have left him struggling amongst the party faithful, instead drawing his support from moderate Republicans and independents (a fact which, as Roberta implies, could make him the only candidate able to swing it for the GOP this year). And she's only trying to defend her boy. But this doesn't make the headlines any better for John McCain, who originally wheeled his elderly mother into the spotlight in order to dispel concerns about his own age. After being forced to defend her comments during the Florida debate, this might be one strategy he has come to regret. Watch his response here at 1 min 38. 11 January 2008The Republicans on Iran
In last night's debate, Republicans were asked about the incident last week when Iranian boats swarmed US navy ships in the Strait of Hormuz and whether the Navy commanders were right in not attacking the boats. Mike Huckabee: Any Iranian who dared attack a U.S. ship would end up seeing the "gates of hell"
Fred Thompson: "One more step, you know, and they would have been introduced to those virgins they've been looking forward to seeing." 06 January 2008Hillary Punches Back
As for the Democrats, I doubt Hillary moved many people in her direction tonight. The most telling moment, I think, was when it became clear that John Edwards has decided to side with Obama in the post-Iowa competition, and attack Hillary for not being serious about change. 15 November 2007Tonight's debate: what will we do on the other 355 days before polling day?
If you are reading this then you are probably one of those people who can barely contain their excitement about tonight's Democratic presidential debate in Vegas - a city which should at least be used to pumped-up hyperbole. Here are some of the storylines from what CNN is breathlessly billing as "Sin City Showdown". This is Hillary's biggest test/toughest challenge/highest hurdle (since the last one). She has to prove that she can undo the damage (done last time). This is the moment when Obama and Edwards CAN/MUST/WILL take the gloves off (the same was said before the previous two - or three? - preceding debates). Obama and Edwards HAVE to pull their punches because it's not nice to attack a fellow Democrat - and a woman at that. (Does this mean they can hit her with gloves on? Is this what they have already been doing?) The eyes of the nation/world are tonight upon Wolf Blitzer, the CNN moderator (Zzzzzzz). Will he cave in to pressure from the Clinton campaign not to "pull a Russert" and repeat the tough questioning in Philadelphia on October 30? (CNN says no such threats have been received). Here are a few observations. 1. Clinton's last performance was bad, but not disastrous. Sure, she wobbled all over the road on a question about whether to give New York's illegal immigrants access to drivers' licences, but the wheels are still firmly mounted. 2. What's the betting that Obama repeats this rather effective line from his spokesman this week about Clinton's prevarications on the licences? "When it takes two weeks and six different positions to answer one question on immigration, it’s easier to understand why the Clinton campaign would rather plant their questions than answer them." 3. The Clinton campaign has a point when it says that Edwards, her chief attacker on Oct 30, is the only top tier candidate whose position on the licences remains unclear. 4. Why are American TV political journalists so insufferably self-regarding? Blitzer is being quoted all over the place "defending" Russert against criticism from the Clinton campaign. “I think Russert was doing his job,” he said. “He was trying to follow up and be Tim Russert. He asks tough questions. That’s what people want. I admire him.” I had not realised, Wolf and Tim, that this great exercise in democracy is all about you. It makes John Humphrys's vanity in England look almost humble. 5. I'm probably too jaded this afternoon to realise that this is the make-or-break moment for 2008. Wolf Blitzer is about to make the world safe for men with beards. Hillary will break down in tears and then spray mace in Chris Dodd's face. 15 October 2007Presidential Debate Schedule
Democratic Candidates: Republican Candidates: Check back here for live-blogging events and Times' debate analysis
|  |
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.
seems an unintended blow may have landed more effectively. The Democratic frontrunner has struggled to repair the damage to his campaign not from an attack, but from an expression of support - from the controversial head of the Nation of Islam and oft-alleged anti-semite, Louis Farrakhan.
