At Debate, Obama Gets the Hillary Treatment
ABC News devoted the first 30 minutes or so of the roughly two-hour Democratic debate on April 17 to trivial and petty gotcha questions, which pretty much set the tone for the evening.
“Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?” George Stephanopoulos actually asked Barack Obama—twice.
Obama was also quizzed, via one of two video questions from voters that ABC saw fit to include, about his seeming reluctance to wear an American flag lapel pin. Of course, the kindly woman asking the question prefaced it by insisting that she wasn’t questioning Obama’s patriotism, even though her questions served no other possible purpose.
“I revere the American flag,” Obama assured the woman, thereby staking out the same position that every single person who has ever sought the presidency has had.
A moderator question allowed Hillary Clinton to talk about William Ayers, a violent Vietnam-era radical-turned-college professor who now serves on the board of the same Chicago-based philanthropic trust that Obama does.
In theory, this all should have made for the half-hour from hell for Obama, the convergence—on national television in prime time—of the various flare-ups that form the basis of his enemies’ efforts to portray him as a vaguely un- or anti-American character. Instead, though, it probably strengthened his already firm grip on the Democratic nomination.
For one thing, he will probably win sympathy from those who believe that the deck was stacked against him in the first segment of the debate. How many Democratic activists recoiled at ABC’s decision to utilize a line of questioning—epitomized by the “Who loves America more?” question—that Democrats ordinarily have to appear on the Fox News Channel to face?
It’s not that Obama was particularly smooth or nimble in his responses—he wasn’t and, on the whole, his performance seemed shakier tonight than in the most recent debates—but he did succeed, several times, at calmly making note of the absurdly petty level at which the debate was being conducted.
“You take one person’s statement if it’s not properly phrased,” he said after Clinton took ABC’s bait and hit him over the head with his much-discussed “bitter” comment from last week, “and you just beat it to death, and that’s what Senator Clinton has been doing for the past four days.”
And when Clinton brought up Ayers, Obama coolly dismissed her attack as “the kind of manufactured issue that our politics has become obsessed with.”
“This kind of game in which anybody that I know, regardless of how flimsy the relationship is, that somehow their ideas could be attributed to me—I think the American people are smarter than that,” he said.
When the Wright issue was introduced, Clinton tried to stick the knife into Obama without it looking like she was doing so, reminding viewers of some of the most inflammatory rhetoric associated with the minister but also saying that she had only spoken out on the subject because she’d been asked “a direct question” about it.
Later, when she raised Ayers’ name, she did so under the pretense that she was merely previewing what Republicans will say about Obama in the fall—part of her campaign’s strategy of convincing Democrats that only those with the surname Clinton are capable of defeating Republicans in elections.
Obama was able to throw this back at her by saying that “by Senator Clinton’s own vetting standard, I don’t think she would make it.” He was referring to pardons that Bill Clinton issued to members of the same Weather Underground movement to which Ayers belonged.
Like much else she says and does, Clinton’s attack tonight will work with a certain audience: Those who are, have been and always will be devoted to her. This is not an insignificant group. But just as many people have a very different opinion of her—like the 6 in 10 voters who don’t believe she’s honest, something she was asked about at the debate. As Clinton piled on with one cheap shot after another, her reputation with this latter group was only reinforced. Basically, she probably didn’t lose any supporters with her debate performance. But she didn’t gain any new ones either.
“What I think I’ve displayed during the course of this primary is that I can take a punch,” Obama said at one point. “I’ve taken some pretty good ones from Senator Clinton.”
What he didn’t say was that while Hillary Clinton throws all these punches at Obama, she’s hurting herself just as much as she hurts him.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
If he got the Hilary treatment he actually would have been fine. I have never seen Hilary treated that way at any of the debates. Hilary was asked about issues like Nafta yes its uncomfortable for her but at least its about the ISSUES. What Obama got was a personal attack against his integrity his values and just who he is as a person.
What's ironic is that Obama's strenghts is unfortunately also his weaknesses. Obama is they type of person who surrounds himself with diversity. Some of it is controversial some of it is ugly and some of it is middle of the road. To use the fact that he has a flimsy relationship with someone who bombed buildings when Obama was eight years old is a bit much. I love how Obama answered that question he brought up his republican friend. What that shows is that he has friends from all areas of the political spectrum. Thats why he can give Ronald Reagan credit and also complement George H Bush on his foreign policy. These are strengths as far as the kind of person he is. He doesnt surround himself only with people that see the world like him that agrees with him but rather he comes in contact with plethora of people. Too often in this country we tend to villainize certain ideas while we elevate others. Here is a man saying wait a minute Nothing is all good or all bad. We can learn from people on both sides of the political spectrum. But instead they pick out his left association so they can label him a communist a Marxist, Elitist heck even a terrorist as they did last night with this Ayers guy. But they ignore the other side of the spectrum unless it stirs up controversy particularly from Hilary like the Ronald Reagan comments did then they use it as a wedge to divide democrats. Its his world view its how he sees people and rather than appreciate such a view because if you can see some specle of good in the worse person its a BENEFIT for when you sit down with dictators because then you can see what makes them tick and you can find common ground. This is someone who has a very strong self concept. Obama doesnt even pander he tells people the truth. He sticks to his values these are the qualities you want in someone who is bringing diplomacy back to our Foreign Policy. He knows where he stands he knows his own mind. For the first time in a Long time we have the possiblity of having a Strong Minded Liberal president. Someone who knows where he stands because he doesnt follow an ideological blueprint that we should only associate with like minded people. He has evolved the question is have we and our political process evolved. If last night is any indication we know the answer to that.
Carol
Well, at least you didn't call her "the bitch" or "Billary", but your comments, though straining for the appearance of fair and unbiased, are thinly veiled and reflect the wave of public hysteria around Obama. I liked the guy...at first. But why the hands-off mentality when it comes to talking about his negatives? Are we afraid that somebody's going to call us the "R" word? We can't afford to be timid about making sure we get the right person in the White House, and after what I saw in last night's debate, I don't think he can handle it.
We are excusing his stumbling and bumbling because "she was attacking him" and "the moderators were unfair." Hello? Does he really think the Republicans will pull punches as Hillary has done? They have nothing to lose by beating up on him. NOTHING.
But aside from that, does anybody out there see that Hillary has a better command of the issues? That she has convictions that she can articulate and is willing to fight for? I keep listening for those elements of her delivery that critics call "shrill" or "dishonest" and frankly don't see it.
In last night's debate, I do believe she invoked her husband's name and accomplishments way too frequently, giving the impression that we need to go back to the way it was. I fully expect the Obama camp to seize that issue and contrast his own movement to take us forward...to hope...to change. And sure, whether or not you wear a flag pin is stupid to bring up in a national debate, but at least he had the opportunity to dispel the whispers that he is some sort of alien who has been planted to destroy the country. That stuff is stupid, but I have faith that we Americans can look beyond, parse out the unimportant and focus on the real issues, whether or not our media can.
I have been undecided, leaning toward Hillary. She has her faults, but Obama is the great unknown. His behind the door comments are too disparate from his public image, and knowing that public images can be manufactured (a'la George Bush), I'm betting on Hillary and hoping she can convince the super delegates to see the bigger picture. After all, I thought that was their reason for being.
This was the Faux news treatment.
It almost seems whatever favors Hillary still had with George S. she cashed in. As the previous commenter said, this was not the 'Hillary' treatment -- tough questions on policy. This was rehashed issues, gaffes and about as biased tee-off as you could make it.
Obama withstood the onslaught and scored points on the silliness without whining or going after HRC explicitly.
I will leave it to Tom Shales of The Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/17/AR200804...
In Pa. Debate, The Clear Loser Is ABC
By Tom Shales
Thursday, April 17, 2008; C01
When Barack Obama met Hillary Clinton for another televised Democratic candidates' debate last night, it was more than a step forward in the 2008 presidential election. 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.
The fact is, cable networks CNN and MSNBC both did better jobs with earlier candidate debates. Also, neither of those cable networks, if memory serves, rushed to a commercial break just five minutes into the proceedings, after giving each candidate a tiny, token moment to make an opening statement. Cable news is indeed taking over from network news, and merely by being competent.
Gibson sat there peering down at the candidates over glasses perched on the end of his nose, looking prosecutorial and at times portraying himself as a spokesman for the working class. Blunderingly he addressed an early question, about whether each would be willing to serve as the other's running mate, "to both of you," which is simple ineptitude or bad manners. It was his job to indicate which candidate should answer first. When, understandably, both waited politely for the other to talk, Gibson said snidely, "Don't all speak at once."
For that matter, the running-mate question that Gibson made such a big deal over was decidedly not a big deal -- especially since Wolf Blitzer asked it during a previous debate televised and produced by CNN.
The boyish Stephanopoulos, who has done wonders with the network's Sunday morning hour, "This Week" (as, indeed, has Gibson with the nightly "World News"), looked like an overly ambitious intern helping out at a subcommittee hearing, digging through notes for something smart-alecky and slimy. He came up with such tired tripe as a charge that Obama once associated with a nutty bomb-throwing anarchist. That was "40 years ago, when I was 8 years old," Obama said with exasperation.
Obama was right on the money when he complained about the campaign being bogged down in media-driven inanities and obsessiveness over any misstatement a candidate might make along the way, whether in a speech or while being eavesdropped upon by the opposition. The tactic has been to "take one statement and beat it to death," he said.
No sooner was that said than Gibson brought up, yet again, the controversial ravings of the pastor at a church attended by Obama. "Charlie, I've discussed this," he said, and indeed he has, ad infinitum. If he tried to avoid repeating himself when clarifying his position, the networks would accuse him of changing his story, or changing his tune, or some other baloney.
This is precisely what has happened with widely reported comments that Obama made about working-class people "clinging" to religion and guns during these times of cynicism about their federal government.
"It's not the first time I made a misstatement that was mangled up, and it won't be the last," said Obama, with refreshing candor. But candor is dangerous in a national campaign, what with network newsniks waiting for mistakes or foul-ups like dogs panting for treats after performing a trick. The networks' trick is covering an election with as little emphasis on issues as possible, then blaming everyone else for failing to focus on "the issues."
Some news may have come out of the debate (ABC News will pretend it did a great job on today's edition of its soppy, soap-operatic "Good Morning America"). Asked point-blank if she thought Obama could defeat presumptive Republican contender John McCain in the general election, Clinton said, "Yes, yes, yes," in apparent contrast to previous remarks in which she reportedly told other Democrats that Obama could never win. And in turn, Obama said that Clinton could "absolutely" win against McCain.
To this observer, ABC's coverage seemed slanted against Obama. The director cut several times to reaction shots of such Clinton supporters as her daughter, Chelsea, who sat in the audience at the Kimmel Theater in Philly's National Constitution Center. Obama supporters did not get equal screen time, giving the impression that there weren't any in the hall. The director also clumsily chose to pan the audience at the very start of the debate, when the candidates made their opening statements, so Obama and Clinton were barely seen before the first commercial break.
At the end, Gibson pompously thanked the candidates -- or was he really patting himself on the back? -- for "what I think has been a fascinating debate." He's entitled to his opinion, but the most fascinating aspect was waiting to see how low he and Stephanopoulos would go, and then being appalled at the answer.
The Clinton PARDONS of Weather and FALN terrorists where completely forgotten by the entire PRESS...Fox-Hannity-style. Nice.
It's amazing how bias works. If your candidate is asked to explain certain negative occurrences that had dominated the news in recent weeks, then the moderators are biased against your candidate. If the same thing happens to the candidate you don't like, then the moderators are "finally being fair." The last comment defined "Hillary treatment" as "tough questions on policy." Sorry, but nobody, not even Obama supporters can say that she has a problem with tough policy questions. On the contrary, she welcomes them and seems to thrive on them. The "Hillary Treatment" that I see in the media is no so much the questions she is asked outright, but the commentary after the fact, the third-party characterizations of her as desperate, shrill, dishonest...all conjecture and opinion...some of which sticks and serves to "explain" a certain look, turn of phrase, or behavior in the most negative way. With all the urging for her to quit, I'm surprised she's still standing. Some may call that desperate. I call it gutsy, committed, and strong. But then, I'm biased.
.
OBAMA WON"T GO ON 'SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE' AND WHINE ABOUT HIS TREATMENT IN THE DEBATE --- AS HILLARY DID.
.
.
So, I just want to be clear. The NYO has now fully ceased to be objective journalism, correct? Because your political coverage is now simply an Obama blog. Which is fine, just don't pretend to be anything but.
Fallout from Clinton pardons for FALN prompts reform measure, renewed debate
By Terry Frieden
CNN
February 8, 2000
Web posted at: 6:08 p.m. EST (2308 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Fallout from President Clinton's controversial pardons of 16 members of a Puerto Rican nationalist group last summer prompted Republicans Tuesday to introduce a measure to reform the pardon process and require input from victims and their families.
At a Capitol Hill news conference, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Rep. Vito Fossella (R-New York) announced the introduction of a measure requiring the Office of Pardon Attorney in the Justice Department to notify victims or their families of key events in the clemency process and allowing them to voice their views. It would also require law enforcement agencies to provide information on the potential impact from a grant of clemency.
President Clinton was widely criticized after he granted clemency to the FALN members over the objections of law enforcement officials, and after the Justice Department consulted representatives of the FALN prisoners, but not the victims.
Hatch and Fossella were flanked by the widow of one victim and the son of a second victim killed in the 1975 FALN bombing of a New York restaurant.
Justice Department officials say the proposed measure is unconstitutional because it would restrict powers granted exclusively to the president.
The sponsors insist the changes would not interfere with the chief executive's decision making.
"The president will still be able to disregard the Pardon Attorney's reports, use another agency, ask anyone in the world for advice, or exercise the 'pardon power' without anyone's counsel, Hatch said.
Hatch said he expects the Justice Department to oppose the measure, but hopes to gain support from Democratic lawmakers.
Fossella rejected the notion the legislation is being introduced to embarrass Hillary Clinton's bid for a Senate seat from New York.
"As far as Mrs. Clinton is concerned, this has nothing to do in my opinion with her candidacy for the Senate. This has everything to do with the privilege and power vested with the president of the United States that will long survive this campaign for the Senate," Fossella said.
Joseph Connor, son of Frank Connor who died in the New York bombing, said he hopes something good finally comes from his father's death.
"We're hoping that we have made a difference here, and I believe we have through this bill. And maybe it can be a part of his legacy," Connor said.
Diana Berger Ettenson whose husband was killed in the blast said she too hoped the measure would gain bipartisan support.
"I would urge people on both sides of the aisle to come together to do the right thing, and I would also urge future candidates for the office of president to think very carefully regarding this awesome power that is placed in their hands. This power of clemency is like no other power," she said.
RELATED STORIES
Report: Freed Puerto Rican nationalists linked to Cuba (11-07-99)
FALN members pose threat, FBI says (9-22-99)
White House in showdown with Congress in clemency case (9-15-99)
RELATED SITES
Puerto Rican Prisoners of War Web site
Political Prisoner Profile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardons_controversy
FALN Commutation of 1999
On August 11, 1999, Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican nationalist group that set off 120 bombs in the United States mostly in New York City and Chicago, convicted for conspiracies to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition, as well as for firearms and explosives violations.[3] None of the 16 were convicted of bombings or any crime which injured another person, though they were sentenced with terms ranging from 35 to 105 years in prison for the conviction of conspiracy and sedition. Congress, however, recognizes that the FALN is responsible for "6 deaths and the permanent maiming of dozens of others, including law enforcement officials." All of the 16 had served 19 years or longer in prison, which was a longer sentence than such crimes typically received, according to the White House.[4] Clinton offered clemency, on condition that the prisoners renounce violence, at the appeal of 10 Nobel Peace Prize laureates, President Jimmy Carter, the cardinal of New York, and the archbishop of Puerto Rico. The commutation was opposed by U.S. Attorney's Office, the FBI, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons and criticized by many including former victims of FALN terrorist activities, the Fraternal Order of Police,[5] members of Congress. Hillary Clinton, then campaigning for her first term in the Senate, initially supported the commutation,[6] but later withdrew her support when the prisoners had refused to renounce violence more than three weeks after clemency was offered.[7] Congress condemned the action, with a vote of 95-2 in the Senate and 311-41 in the House.[8][9] The U.S. House Committee on Government Reform held an investigation on the matter, but the Justice Department prevented FBI officials from testifying.[10] President Clinton cited executive privilege for his refusal to turn over some documents to Congress related to his decision to offer clemency to members of the FALN terrorist group.
Silly senator, Trix are for kids.
ABCNews tries to pitch you products via inbound COMPLAINTS via email or voicemail. Just received an email ignoring the COMPLAINT, pitching me a page long list of products and then say they don't accept unsolicited creative. Only THEY can engage you for anything. When Mr. Obama wins, we will take back the FCC! Nice touch, Disney.
Maybe we should call Verizon, the SPONSOR for that travesty -- and register our complaints or cancel our service and move to AT&T and finally buy an iPhone???
Call the following no. to register a complaint at ABCNEWS/Disney. It will be very busy due to the "overwhelming no. of calls" I was just told in NY. 818-460-7477. Last I heard, Americans OWN the media spectrum and not Rupert Murdoch or the Bush/Clinton cabals. Not interesting in one more view of Chelsea, ABC. Let her go on "American Idol" like everyone else seeking an entertainment career based upon nothing. Continue calling so your voices will be heard about who OWNS this Country!
.
{{{{DRUDGE POLL}}}}WHO WON THE DEM DEBATE IN PA?...
...........................
HILLARY CLINTON
42% 54,954
...........................
BARACK OBAMA
58% 76,480
...........................
Total Votes: 131,434
I wish Charlie G. would have asked Barack Obama if he thought Hillary Clinton was a racist. I'm still fuming about the man at one of Barack Obama's rallies calling Hillary a racist because she called Barack an elitist. Our country is in a war. Our country has gas prices the highest they have ever been. Our dollar is falling. Food prices are going up. People are losing their homes because of the mortgage crisis. We don't need the race issue to be invoked simply because Hillary called Barack an elitist. People need to go back to the issues that matter. Barack does not have the experience needed to lead the country for the next four years.
You've won and start acting like it.
First and foremost, do not agree to any more debates as they will only be a farce providing campaign fodder to the RNC. Of course, if you can pull off an upset in Pennsylvania, this thing is over.
Hillary will battle on if she wins, but after you've swept the May 6th primaries, start campaigning for the fall.
After May 6, don't mention Clinton, ever. Act as if she does not exist and ignore her. She will continue to go negative but will look silly and desperate when your campaign has moved on.
Prepare clear and concise responses for Wright and bitter issues, then go right into your talking points, talk up your change mantra.
Start your stump speeches against McCain, highlighting your policy and issue differences.
Clinton will look desperate and silly, and she will be forced out of the race
Anyone who thinks Mr. Obama has shown his "A" game to the Clintons during the Primaries, is a fool. He has out-managed/maneuvered the Clinton cabal of special interests and toadies -- from a running start -- without breaking a sweat. The Republicans KNOW he has changed the game and that is their worst nightmare. I would focus more on the new Clinton Doctrine of creating an umbrella protective entity over the entire Middle Eastern region. Contrast that hawkish position w/removing our troops pandering from Mrs. Clinton. Reminds you of McCain/Bush...and, her original positioning last year when she thought she had this thing WON before a vote was cast. It takes more strength to manage a quadruple teaming during 45 minutes of a "debate" -- w/Republican talking points, than what the Clintons have done or will do...or John McCain. Finally, it is NOT Hillary Clinton's role in the Primary to act as a defacto Republican competitor. That is not her place. It is her job to try to win the PRIMARY...NOT GAME THE SYSTEM.
How in touch is Charles Gibson? He challenged HRC and Obama with a reference to a Constitutional provision that was overridden by Amendment XII over 200 years ago!
Gibson asserts time and again that households with an income in the range of $200,000.00 are considered the middle-class.
How many people knew Stephanopoulos was the Clintons' former press-secretary? Disclosure would have been appropriate.
ABC blew it by trivializing the fundamental problems and very serious challenges people face today. How many more times will the Wright issue and bittergate be exaggerated? And Obama's "association" with Ayres? For heavens sakes -- c'mon Obama was only 8 years old. Today the man is a college professor, his wife a well-esteemed educator. What is it about Obama not wearing a flag lapel pin? [Hillary does not either] Obviously some confuse symbology with patriotism -- worse some equate patriotism with nationalism.
I just returned from the neighbourhood store -- people are very upset and angry about last night's farce of a debate. Most said they turned it off after the first 30 minutes. Rightfully so.
This is the kind of politics Obama wants to change.
Last night was an assault on the Constitution. How ironical that the "debate" was held against a backdrop of our Constitution and Gibson asked only one question about a provision in the Constitution that no longer exists. The symbology of that is nothing less than breathtaking considering how much has been overridden by the Bush administration.
That is another reason to elect Obama in November as President of the US. He promised to abide by the Constitution and reverse many of the Bush policies.
Anyone who says they've never seen an unfair debate like this couldn't have been watching last October 30, when the NBC team did its takedown of Hillary. Obama has been given a free ride by the media, while the press's attitude toward Hillary is best summed up as "Kill the Witch."
Crossfire interview of Jon Stewart during the 04 election. Watch the MEDIA pundits LAUGH at the dysfunctional and very profitable last DYSFUNCTIONAL PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION COVERAGE.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=11TaDDUVcGQ
Crossfire interview of Jon Stewart during the 04 election. Watch the MEDIA pundits LAUGH at the dysfunctional and very profitable last DYSFUNCTIONAL PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION COVERAGE.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=11TaDDUVcGQ
Saturday Night Live showed that the establishment media is corrupt & in the tank for Obama. ABC asked him questions everyone expected them to ask, and that he should have been prepared to knock out of the ball park. The fact that his answers were a disaster was hardly ABCs fault. Watching the Obama crazed media, and Obama, whine about ABC is simply astounding. What everyone should be asking is: Is Obama really as out of touch with real people as he's appeared to be for the past month? Obama loving ABC fed him the questions he needed to resolve the problems he created and put Clinton away. Instead they, totally unintentionally I'm sure, showed the country the real Obama. Most debates are a waste of time. This one showed the country the real Obama, and was worth every minute!
ARE YOU SERIOUS, DO YOU WANT ANOTHER GLASS OF KOOL-AID
What a crybaby - he won't do anymore debates - well maybe he should not be President if he cannot stand a little heat. Geez what a wimp!!!!!
Wah Wah Wah all you Obama supporters. Clinton has been facing all of this media bias for the past several months, and anytime she says anything about it, you call her a whiner, among other things.
Stop being so hypocritical and suck it up. It's not so nice when it happens to your candidate, is it? You're just lucky it didn't start happening to him until now, or this primary season would look very different.
P.S. - stop trying to pin all of Bill's decisions on Hillary. It's pathetic and shows your (very low) level of intelligence.
P.P.S. - learn Engligh. Wealth does not equal elitism. One is a monetary figure, the other is an attitude one has regardless of one's income bracket. No wonder you vote the way you do.
P.P.P.S. - I'm BITTER because my candidate is being chosen for me by all you MORONS.
Though I've belted you and flayed you
By the livin' Gawd that made you
You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din
Throughout this primary season (which has been filled with endless, exhausting, often infuriating media bias) Hillary Clinton has been skewered by the press while Mr. Obama has had a teflon coating--nothing sticks. Who is this guy, anyway? He has left few tracks (voting 'present' how many times--get a spine). When some information about him does emerge through the wispy clouds--his association with Rev Wright, the PA remarks--it is rationalized and written off as a'silly' concern. Well, you don't have as deep a commitment to a church as has Mr. Obama w/o knowing the outrageous opinions of its racist pastor. Sorry, it isn't believable. Disingenuous? Duh--just a bit......
Well, if Obama does not want to go to any show or more debates, that's perfectly fine with me. HRC can free go to any discussion forum or shows to talk about her plans and proposals and what she's planning to do on DAY ONE!
It's not wise for Obama to say not going for futher debates or shows. Obama seesm have great fear of handling tough questions. People don't like to see a future president candidate showing weakness of taking heat from media or other hosts. If he can't handle the heat, his supporters will lose confidence. Well, maybe he just DOES NOT have strength or real stuff inside him to counter back(??!!)
BTW, don't ever forget how HRC has been treated (like shit) by media and clinton haters from DAY ONE TILL NOW and yet, still sustaining well. Obama and Obamabots finally got that lousy taste.
WHY DOES OBAMA HAVE TO WHINE SO MUCH WHENEVER HE IS QUESTIONED?
The so-called Hillary "honesty question" pales in comparison to the Obama "company he keeps" issue. She told a fib to embellish her foreign policy experience. HE associates with anti-Americans, anti-Semites, criminals, known terrorists and the like. There IS no comparison! And, finally, FINALLY, the main stream media is talking about it! If, by some cosmic joke, this joker still wins the nomination from the stupiddelegates, then we Dems will have no choice but to vote for McCain in November. He would be far preferable to a racist black-separatist and his "friends" roaming the halls of the White House.