I think the Messiah and Hillary deserve the same level of common decency and respect that the left has accorded George Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove all these years. Nothing less.

Unfortunately or fortunately, the media is a sordid reflection of what the audience wants to see or hear. If you think about it, one of the questions posed to Sen. Obama was from a regular Pennsylvanian who thought whether he wore the flag or not was an important question. I think enough Americans are interested in this topic for it to merit the national time that it did attract. If I were Obama, I would ask the lady if she thinks the fact that I don’t carry photos of my kids in my wallet mean that I love them any less ?

I think all news channels can probe the Presidential candidates a lot better on the issues and their plans, but that might not be so gripping a subject for the audience.

The left has its collective panties in a wad because two debate moderators had the (GASP!) temerity to ask questions that have been on everyone’s minds for the past two weeks? Please.

Welcome to the big leagues, chumps. If you can’t handle the types of questions that Republican candidates routinely get hammered with without whining and threatening Stalinesque retribution on your political enemies, you can kiss any hopes of winning in November goodbye.

Give me a break. The Republicans have for years now turned our political discourse into an infantile freak show. And now they don’t even have to Swift Boat anyone anymore–ABC will do it for them. As a result, we get breathless coverage of lapel pins and guilt-by-association attacks and feigned outrage over this or that, and meanwhile the bloody and expensive Iraq war goes on, our economy is in peril, our Constitution has been defiled, our health care system is a shambles, and on and on.

The emphasis on the inane “gotcha” questions in our public discourse and the lack of progress on any meaningful issue that threatens the rich corporate elites’ stranglehold on power are two sides of the same coin.

Please, the problem with the ABC debate was not that the questions were “tough”; it’s that the questions were *stupid*. Insultingly stupid. I’m saddened but not surprised that right-wingers applaud that trainwreckof a debate. It is a perfect indication that they have no intention of having a serious conversation on the issues this political season. They will try to distract us from their failures with one ginned-up “outrage” after another. But I don’t think people are buying it anymore, thank god.

I’m sure jollyroger would have preferred to have Chris Matthews and Keith Oberman do the questioning. I bet it would have sent a “tingle” up his leg.

Yeah, ABC has always been known as a bastion of right wing ideology.

Admit it, roger, you are just furious that the debate wasn’t a model of SNL pandering to the Messiah!

Sadly, the debate didn’t delve far enough. It didn’t ask about their terrorist associations and their association with Marxism and Marxists. Gee, I wonder why?

Google: “Barack Obama and Marxism” and see what pops up. Now I do understand that this is a resume enhancer for you lefties. How sad we have to go to the Canadian Press to get any information on Obama: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2289

It couldn’t have been that George Stephanopolous was Bill clinton’s communications director (read “spin doctor”) and may have had a built-in bias? No, that is not possible….

Look, after a decade of the Karl Rove-Rupert Murdoch-Roger Ailes big lie and distraction machine, the only thing amazing is that there were any questions of substance.

And as far as guilt by association, even when it is most tenuous (I happen to be on the same planet at the same time), this has been a part of the fear-mongerers repetoire for a long time. As a life-long Democrat, I may get drummed out if it ever came out that I shook hands once with Kit Bond (it was at a 4th of July parade and he came up to me to shake my hand, politeness dictated I do so). So by the logic of the “guilt-by-association theorists” I must agree with everything Bond has ever said or done.

No, the debate did not really help either Clinton or Obama, but it most definitely did not improve Stephanopolous’ and Gibson’s standing. Dumb questions from supposedly intelligent people are still dumb questions.

“Right-2b-right” does battle with his fantasies–and wins! He seems to think that the only alternative to the idiotic gotcha games that dominated the ABC debate is “pandering.” Um, okay. Perhaps rational, informed debate is just too “liberal” for him. Sad.

And he suggests I’m supposed to agree that ABC is some sort of liberal network and that the establishment buffoon Chris Matthews is interchangeable with Keith Olbermann. It’s always a funny thing debating conservatives–they claim to know what is liberal more than liberals themselves do. Thank goodness I have them to tell me what I agree with and believe in; otherwise, I would have no idea.

How much of a debate would these two socialists have on policy? Seriously, there aint a damn bit of difference between them on policy, so what else are they going to talk about for two hours?

Iraq - Both intent on surrender.
Taxes - Both want them raised. (On a side note, anyone notice how Barack the Magic Negro said he knew raising capitol gains taxes would decrease tax revenue but wanted to do it anyway?)
Gas prices - Raise taxes (windfall profits).
Health care - Raise taxes, you really dont think its is going to be “free” do you?
Judges - (Not that anyone is talking about judges) Both would give us Ginsberg, not Roberts.

And we have all heard that debate 20 freaking times.