ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos, a co-host of Wednesday night’s Democratic debate, quizzed presidential candidate Barack Obama about his relationship with William Ayers, a member of the Weather Underground, a radical group that conspired to bomb buildings such as the Pentagon in the 1970s.
Prefacing the issue under the “general theme of patriotism,” and previous questions about why Obama has, at times, refused to wear an American flag lapel pin, Stephanopoulos noted, “[Ayers] never apologized for [the bombings]. And in fact, on 9/11, he was quoted in the New York Times, saying, ‘I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.’” The ABC host pointedly observed that Obama’s campaign has described the relationship with Ayers as “friendly.” Stephanopoulos then asked, “Can you explain that relationship for the voters and explain to Democrats why it won’t be a problem?”
[UPDATE, from Brent Baker. The question enraged MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, who charged at the start of his 10 PM EDT live post-debate second edition of Countdown: "The campaign may have seemed dirty. It had nothing on one of the moderators of the debate tonight." He soon elaborated on his anger at Stephanopoulos [audio here]:
The real story of his debate may not be found where they found the answers, but where one of the moderators found his questions: Sean Hannity of Fox News, and separately a local New York right wing radio host [presumably Steve Malzberg], each insisting during interviews this week with George Stephanopoulos of ABC that he ask Senator Obama about his tenuous past link to 60s and 70s terrorist radical William Ayers. Tonight, Stephanopoulos did that.]
Obama’s response included stating that Ayers's actions happened when he was very young and asserted they weren’t relevant. Oddly, he went on to compare a man who was involved in bombings that killed people to his colleague, Republican Senator Tom Coburn from Oklahoma. Obama stated, “The fact is that I’m also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions.”
It should be pointed out that conservative radio host Sean Hannity encouraged Stephanopoulos, who appeared on Hannity's show on Monday, to ask the question about Ayers.
A transcript of Stephanopoulos’s question and Obama’s comment about Coburn follow:
4/16/08
8:42pm
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: But first, a follow up on this issue, general theme of patriotism in your relationships. A gentleman named William Ayers, he was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and other buildings. He’s never apologized for that. And in fact, on 9/11, he was quoted in the New York Times, saying, “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” An early organizing meeting for your state senate campaign was held at his house and your campaign has said you were “friendly.” Can you explain that relationship for the voters and explain to Democrats why it won’t be a problem?
…
BARACK OBAMA: The fact is that I’m also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions.
*****Update at 10:00 PM by Noel Sheppard: It should also be noted that WOR radio's Steve Malzberg suggested Stephanopoulos ask this question when he interviewed the "This Week" host on Tuesday:
William Ayers is a man who was head of the Weather Underground, a radical group in the 60s and 70s, set bombs at the Capitol, set bombs at the Pentagon, and was quoted in the New York Times oddly enough, ironically on September 11 before obviously the events of that day, saying that he didn't go far enough, and he doesn't regret it at all, and he wished he could have done more. Your campaign has described your relationship with William Ayers as "friendly." How could a man running for the presidency of the United States possibly have anything to do with, or have anything but disdain for a man who did what he has done to this country?
Stephanopoulos responsed to the last query: "It's a damn good question."
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Yes, Scott
April 16, 2008 - 20:50 ET by Cape ConservativeI, too, said to myself "HUH?????" I really didn't get the connection and I'm sure Senator Coburn won't appreciate being mentioned in comparison to a member of the Underground!!!
Do you think they're still
April 17, 2008 - 07:35 ET by Hero SquadDo you think they're still friendly this morning?
Nice non-answer, Obama. Hannity is going to eat this up this afternoon.
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
In the tank . . .
April 16, 2008 - 20:54 ET by GalvanicFielding a question from Stephanopoulus is like getting a question from Carville, or Begala, or Lanny Davis. He's still a Clintonista.
Did he ask Hillary if her husband pardoned the Puerto Rican terrorists/cop-killers in order to curry favor in New York for her election?
As for Obama and Ayers, I don't think it will cause any shift in his support. He's ridden out the Wright controversy; Ayers is hardly a blip on the radar screen right now.
But McCain will have field day with Obama's associations this fall.
Galvanic
April 16, 2008 - 20:58 ET by Scott WhitlockHe didn't, but Obama actually brought up Bill Clinton's pardons.
Yeah I thought that Hillary should have come back on that and
April 16, 2008 - 21:53 ET by Dee Bunkshe didn't. She should have drawn the distinction of Ayers not being remorseful and thinking he should have done more damage and thinking our country deserved 911.
Associations
April 16, 2008 - 21:15 ET by AzRenegadeMichele has never been proud of her country. Rezco is on trial. Wright hates the US of KKK. Ayers has no regrets for setting bombs.
The Obamessiah could go on the campaign trail with Osama and the far left lunatics would still be doing the swoon!
AzRenegade
Keith Olberman
April 16, 2008 - 21:15 ET by tdavisjrSaid that this was basically a question planted by Sean Hannity and right wing radio. He said this was where George was getting his talking points from
Heaven forbid that a Republican question should be answered
April 16, 2008 - 21:56 ET by Dee BunkIt's so unusal that it's shocking to Olberman
<Sound of duct tape being pulled off roll>
April 17, 2008 - 06:10 ET by motherbeltThe real story of his debate may not be found where they found the
answers, but where one of the moderators found his questions: Sean
Hannity of Fox News, and separately a local New York right wing radio
host...Olbermann
That's right, folks, the real story of this debate is that a question was suggested by a couple of conservatives!!!
It's a good thing I didn't watch the debate...I need duct tape just to read about it here!!
If there was ever even a smidgen of pretense that Olbermann could ever be fair, it was laid to rest right there. He outed himself as a flaming leftie...of the genus that insists the questions of conservatives aren't even valid, (how dare they!!) and should be ignored.
Just another liberal who won't tolerate a differing view.
As for Obama's claim that Ayers' crimes happened a long time ago, and Ayers was "very young", he was 25 when he joined the Weathermen and was still bombing at 30 (not exactly a college-student protester).
Way to follow up, Steffie! (Well, you did ask the question...research and followup is probably too much to ask!) But why didn't you bring up the fact that Ayers was certainly not "young" in 2001 when he said “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.”
Timothy McVeigh was 27 when he bombed the Murrah building. If he were still alive, would Obama be claiming that he was "young" when it happened?
BTW, Scott, regarding this:
Obama’s response included stating that Ayers's actions happened when he was very young and asserted they weren’t relevant.
Did Obama actually say his actions "happened" (in the passive voice) rather than his crimes were committed? or is that just your phrasing of it? Because if he did, I find that really objectionable.
MB, you sound like you're having a rough morning.
April 17, 2008 - 06:21 ET by OldSailor88This will cheer you up.
Noli habere bovis, vir!
Thanks, OldSailor!!
April 17, 2008 - 07:46 ET by motherbeltLOL!! I needed that!
Hi MB - in the happened when he was young comment
April 17, 2008 - 08:47 ET by Dee BunkObama was referring to himself. He said he was 8 years old when Ayers did this. He was trying to say that he shouldn't be responsible for what some friend of his did when he was only 8 and didn't know him them.
It was a good diversion by Obama but anyone with a discerning bone in their body would know that Obama is avoiding the true point. The point is that Ayers is not in anyway sorry about what he did and has publicly stated he should have done more and that he thinks America deserved 911. These things happened while Obama had a relationship with him, not when he was 8 years old.
Of course we aren't responsible for all the stupid things are friends say but if you are going to be in public life then you need to distance yourself from these type of extremists. It's Obama's far left votes combined with these associations to radicals that paint the picture. If Obama had made any votes that were against the radical elements of his party then might have an argument. He doesn't. His votes show that he is placates these radicals and is influenced by them whether he actually agrees with them or not.
Hi, Dee....I see what you
April 17, 2008 - 16:39 ET by motherbeltHi, Dee....I see what you mean...I misread it and stand corrected on that.
However, Stephanopolous still should have followed through on his friendship with a man who NOW says he doesn't regret it and wishes they had done more.
I am just sick and tired of Obama's getting a pass on all this...his pastor and Ayers. His attitude is apparently "mind your own business; it doesn't matter who my friends are." He says Ayers is a "University Professor (nice touch, that, don't you think?) that he "knows." Well, he went to a fundraiser at Ayers' house so he doesn't have a problem with his raising money for him. Nobody raises funds for a politician without the expectation of at least having that politician's ear. But Obama wants everyone to believe that he is the one person who can lie down with dogs and not get up with fleas. And the MSM let him get away with it.
dee, mb, sailor....
April 17, 2008 - 20:40 ET by MrShyWhat I found most disgusting -- on top of the overall smug tone in his voice -- was his opening AND closing of his response with the very condescending intro and outro of his name, "George...." He actually called the moderater by his name, not once but twice. Was George Step or Gibson ever responded to by name in other answers? Much less TWO TIMES ??
It had such an ugly sense-of-entitlement tone of "Okay, you're overstepping the line now with your questions... so I'm going to talk down to you and call you by your name." This guy continues to expect a red carpet laid out for him to the White House.
What an arrogant you-know-what.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Mr Shy and MB
April 18, 2008 - 17:41 ET by Dee BunkI noticed that two Mr Shy. Obama immediately took it as some personal question that Stepho had when obviously reporters are supposed to ask things that others want to know and just because they ask it doesn't mean they think anything about it. At least that's how it's supposed to work. Obama came close to the finger wave like Clinton with Wallace
MB - I would have read the young thing the same way you did had I not seen the debate.
Who gives a rat's ass?
April 17, 2008 - 07:43 ET by GrannyGrump42Who cares who came up with the question? It was a legitimate point that needed to be raised.
Followup
April 16, 2008 - 21:20 ET by ThisnThatPerhaps Stephanopoulus should ask a follow-up question:
"Mr. Obama, can you explain your strategy for reaching across the aisle if you become President?"
Obama: "Be glad to. I would compare Republicans with groups like the Weather Underground."
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Obama is taking every
April 16, 2008 - 21:49 ET by BondPlainBondObama is taking every opportunity to bring about his own misfortune and downfall. There's an old proverb that mentions giving someone enough of something and they will see to their own demise. He's getting it done. Badly.
His ability to make that kind of moral equivalence demonstrates his rife naïveté, especially in matters moral.
Here ia a fun little
April 16, 2008 - 21:52 ET by red_dragon311Here ia a fun little nugget
Barak H-word Obama is so fun to watch
"As a news consumer, however, the word of an MSM journalist isn't good enough." - Dabird
Yes.
April 16, 2008 - 22:00 ET by BondPlainBondAnd the Left will, as usual, turn a blind eye when yet another of their bad actors, Obama, is found to be just as smarmy as every other "politician" out there and is certainly nothing "new".
Did Obama mean, by labeling his platform "Hope," that he hoped he wouldn't get caught having so many unethical, less-than-savory, current, and on-going relationships?
Remember, too, Obama's insatiable hunger for Soros-specific money.
And I will bet you a dollar
April 17, 2008 - 04:30 ET by motherbeltAnd I will bet you a dollar to a doughnut that Steffie didn't ask him about that!
Another one under the bus
April 16, 2008 - 22:00 ET by FOXFANHaving recently thrown his grandmother under the bus, Obama at it again, this time with Coburn. I'm sure he will appreciate it. The first forty minutes I felt Obama took a beating and looked visibly shaken. Should he get the nomination this forty minutes will be nothing compared to what he will get. I don't believe he can stand up to it, he's not presidential material. Then Hillary and Obama completely boxed themselves in on retreatng from Iraq, cut, run and surrender no matter what they are told. Disgusting.
Another one under the bus
April 16, 2008 - 22:02 ET by FOXFANHaving recently thrown his grandmother under the bus, Obama at it again, this time with Coburn. I'm sure he will appreciate it. The first forty minutes I felt Obama took a beating and looked visibly shaken. Should he get the nomination this forty minutes will be nothing compared to what he will get. I don't believe he can stand up to it, he's not presidential material. Then Hillary and Obama completely boxed themselves in on retreatng from Iraq, cut, run and surrender no matter what they are told. Disgusting.
FF... I'm glad you posted
April 16, 2008 - 22:05 ET by bigtimerFF...
I'm glad you posted this, I am getting ready to watch it now.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
RUSH DESERVE A BIG "THANK YOU"...
April 16, 2008 - 22:28 ET by RMRHonestly, if not for Rush's "Operation Chaos", the Dems and the drive-by-media would have already crowned Obama king, hoisted him up on their shoulders, and started the long march to the White House.
Rush's brilliant strategy prolonged this fight and forced the drive-by-media to shine this "bright light" on Obama.
I hope most will agree, we owe a big THANK YOU, to Rush Limbaugh.
RMR... Hear!
April 16, 2008 - 22:33 ET by bigtimerRMR...
Hear! Hear!
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
That's an explanation????
April 16, 2008 - 22:51 ET by JPR1Did he ever offer a legitimate answer?
I suppose somewhere there is someone who was "friendly" with Jeffery Dahmer but is sharp enough not to bring it up.
JPR1
April 16, 2008 - 23:00 ET by RESTLESS 1How on earth could he give a legitimate answer when it wasn't a legitimate question?
Let's look at that question again:
“Can you explain that relationship for the voters and explain to Democrats why it won’t be a problem?”
That question was nothing more than a setup for the answer that was given. Kinda like the old Carnac routine with Johnny Carson. Stephie knew the answer before he asked the question, and he knew just how to ask it.
Zing!
April 16, 2008 - 23:15 ET by BondPlainBondDidn't Obama say at one point in this discussion, something to the effect of, I had the opportunity to be friends with Ayers, a terrorist, because Mrs Clinton's husband gave him a pardon.
The look Hillary gave Obama after that lil tidbit was motionless and very cold.
"motionless and very cold"...
April 16, 2008 - 23:35 ET by JPR1She's got that one down pat.
Didn't hear Stephie ask
April 16, 2008 - 23:34 ET by JPR1the question but to me, this is no comedy skit.
I DO want to know, among other things, why the "Magnificant O" has or has had any kind of "relationship" with a guy like Ayers.
It will be a problem to Dems.
Good luck getting your
April 16, 2008 - 23:59 ET by RESTLESS 1Good luck getting your answer. He will not be made to give one by the MSM. Perhaps during the GE, he will have less wiggle room.
While I might be mildly interested in an answer, in the end it really doesn't matter to me as I think it is well known what Obama believes. He is nothing more than a far left, activist antagonizer. I wouldn't vote for him no matter who his friends are.
Perhaps during the GE, he
April 17, 2008 - 04:44 ET by motherbeltPerhaps during the GE, he will have less wiggle room.
Surely you jest.
Right now they "might" be inclined to go a little rough on him (well, about as rough as an emery board) when it's two dems. Come the GE, when he's against McCain....forget it. They will be his biggest cheering section. And John McCain will get a real eye-opening when he see how fast his "friends" desert him. As the saying goes, why support a pretend liberal when you have the real thing, in spades?
Yeah, I know that could be considered racist...but not here where most people have some common sense. I refuse to see another perfectly good phrase flushed down the toilet of political correctness.
Restless 1
April 17, 2008 - 08:03 ET by JPR1"He is nothing more than a far left, activist antagonizer."
Your'e absolutely correct, but being too polite, he deserves to be reviled. :-)
I have to disgree with your contention that "it is well known what Obama believes". It seems to me a whole bunch of people have bought his shtick and really don't have a clue. But I have HOPE this will CHANGE!
JPR1
April 17, 2008 - 00:23 ET by BondPlainBondYou're right. Boy, are you right. This is no comedy skit. This is the future of our nation.
The Left is content to have immoral and unethical people running our country and determining its foreign and domestic policies.
Has Pelosi ever been investigated for her real estate fraud? Has Feinstein been investigated for her military contracts fraud? Cynthia McKinney was celebrated by the Left for striking a security officer. Leftist pundits are cheered for unjustly (and disrespectfully) calling their opponents "Nazi," "Fascist," and "Racist" giving the nod to regular citizens to use the same disgusting and disrespectful language with their personal opponents in daily life; the Left condemned the young men from Duke immediately, before knowing ANY of the details, choosing instead to believe the lies of a drug-using, mentally unstable prostitute because she was black and instantly (and automatically) considered her the victim.
Their support of Obama, a man whose choice of close personal friends would have had him barred by any repectable social gathering thirty years ago, and shunned from society in general, is now considered, only by the Left, to be chic, and hip, and cool, and "brave"... and worst of all, the Left has now labeled this behavior, "patriotic." The Left is big on labeling and classifying people and groups of people.
There's something very wrong with that kind of perverted thinking and it is pervasive in our society.
Obama's relationships with these unsavory characters has been to get him the "street cred" the extreme Left demands of its "leaders". To be the nominee, it's incumbent upon Obama to be as blatantly unethical and as blatantly immoral as the high-placed, well-positioned, and monied of the extreme Left that are paying him to be successful in this campaign.
People like Olbermann, Couric, Matthews, et al, pound the bought-and-paid-for admittedly-biased-to-the-Left MSM drums by telling the masses of hobbled minds watching that Obama is courageous to maintain these relationships with these "misunderstood fellow human beings". The MSM are telling people it is perfectly acceptable to be friends with a terrorist, a racist, a murderer. It's an "understanding" thing. "An acceptance thing." "An issue of deeply-felt personal tolerance." Yeah, right.
It's a gang initiation. Take your beating for being "brave enough" to have intimate relationships with those with whom the Right disagrees (as any person of good conscience and moral character would), and we'll get you the money and the political power to take "us" where we want to go. After all, the rest of America are clinging to guns, religion, and racism. They're stupid. They'll never know what hit 'em. The rubes.
Thanks Bond
April 17, 2008 - 08:16 ET by JPR1You've amplified my thought nicely.
Especially:
"...by telling the masses of hobbled minds watching that Obama is courageous to maintain these relationships with these "misunderstood fellow human beings"."
Dead on!
Brent
April 16, 2008 - 23:39 ET by Noel SheppardBrent,
Concerning Olbermann, kind of suggests he's reading NewsBusters, doesn't it? ns
There's an assumption
April 17, 2008 - 08:36 ET by FastEdtheat obie know how to read, nevermind interpret what he can read. He has a history of distorting everything that he thinks he understands, based only on his agenda. If things don't fint into his small little "facts" box, then is just isn't true. Ideologs(sic) think they are thinkers, without bias, 'cause they already know the truth, before it becomes revealed. When there is a difference, they play the blame game -
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Hussein O
April 17, 2008 - 00:12 ET by ScrapironMaybe Hussein really did sleep in church for 20 years. He throws every Non black, Christian, and American under the bus at the drop of a hat. Every thing he says makes me think I'm still right that he is a radical Islamist. One thing for sure, he has '0' qualification to be in the Senate, much less in the office of POTUS. He don't know sh** from shinola and that would explain the record breaking number of 'here' votes.
Old, Retired and glad of it.
Well, I'll be danged,
April 17, 2008 - 00:22 ET by bigtimerWell, I'll be danged, Georgie asked what Malzberg suggested....
Yep, Olbie(msnbc) must read NBs.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Ayers
April 17, 2008 - 00:49 ET by jaywlThe next good part will be Obama trying to explain how often he consults his terrorist friend for advice. We know it is "not on a regular basis", so Ayers must advise our President-to-be on some irregular basis. Is that often, whenever one or the other needs assistance, does Ayers call Barrack, what advice has Ayers given on what topics, did Ayers advise Obama on his response to 9-11 or to The Evil Bush's invasion of a sovereign nation? Gee, I could get carried away!
Finished looking at
April 17, 2008 - 02:43 ET by maggieqpublicFinished looking at Olbermann for the first time in a long time. The debate was also shown late on the west coast.
Olbermann was dismissive about Obama’s association with 60’s/70’s radical, William Ayers.
Sorry, Keith, the Weathermen were not your run-of-the-mill, joint-smoking, peace-marching, Gallo Spanada jug-drinking, anti-war college students of the Vietnam era. Ayers and his associate, Bernardine Dohrn, were underground, FBI-listed proponents of the violent overthrow of the U.S. government. And the Weathermen planned and executed bombings. And Ayers has not expressed any regret for his actions… other than “not doing enough”.
Why on earth shouldn’t I be concerned about the friendly relationship between a possible president and an anti-government radical like Ayers?
Current vs. Future
April 17, 2008 - 02:54 ET by CaringwhiteguyPeople on the left (KO included) seem to relish claiming the current President is too friendly with Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Banking, etc. What's wrong with asking a potential future President if he's too friendly with Little Terrorism?
Excellent question...here is the answer:
April 17, 2008 - 09:12 ET by jpatchBecause now you're playing by the same rules that the libs play by. That's a "no-no". And you can tell that you've done something right, because people like Keef Olberdouche are flipping out about the ORIGIN OF THE QUESTION. Talk about distracting people from the important information!!
Baraka Hussein Obama Jr. comes off as a total d*ck every time he's on camera...just like his wife.
"Look...I woudln't be here if I wasn't patriotic...Look, I wouldn't be here if I weren't the most qualified...Look, I wouldn't be here if I didn't love this country..." He acts as though the Presidency is his birthright, and that the questions are just holding him up.
Give me a break, Baraka!! You ain't seen nothing yet!!
How many other America-hating close friends does Baraka have? Does he honestly think this stuff doesn't matter?
Steve Malzberg
April 17, 2008 - 03:17 ET by goldwaterfanIt takes guts for an openly gay man like Malzberg to ask such questions. I remember a few years ago, when Malzberg was a substitute host on Scarborough Country interviewing Jerry Falwell. It was clear, Falwell despised him. Falwell was simmering, but he kept answering questions, then repeated them as propaganda. Stephonopolus is the new Falwell.
Nice non-sequitur. Steve
April 17, 2008 - 05:20 ET by motherbeltNice non-sequitur.
Steve Malzberg is "openly gay"? If true, I didn't know that, but WTH does that have to do with anything? Other than a chance to say it, and bring up Jerry Falwell, to boot.
That has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.
Hey Keith,
April 17, 2008 - 03:38 ET by SlicksterHussien obama is a coke snorting, closet muslim liberal negro who lies about where he gets his money, get used to it!
I was shocked they asked the
April 17, 2008 - 05:40 ET by BlazerI was shocked they asked the question's they did, far more than probably kos or Olbermann.....pleasantly shocked that is. However this will be the same grilling both of these moonbat's recieve from the right during the ge....only not as nice. They should thank Stephie and Gibson for the warmup session.
Now with that said, I haven't heard this mentioned on any of the blog's or MSM and I wish they would pick it up here at NB. During last night's debate when the question's concerning Iran and nuclear weapon's came up , both candidates responded in a fashion that Iran "is" actively seeking nuclear weapon's, they answered question's concerning a nuclear attack on Israel, and Clinton went so far as to say that Iran's nuclear program was due to a failed policy by the Bush admin. I thought the left was saying Iran hasn't been seeking a nuclear weapon's program since 2003....it was one of thier big talking point's the last few month's. What's up with that?
Clinton promised "mass retaliation" (yea, right) and Obama said he'd give them "carrot's and stick's", which I thought was very Clintonian of him (vis-a-vis North Korea).
All in all I'll give ABC an A- for the first hour and an F for the second hour, which was just a bunch of recycled BDS talking point's.
Obama looked tired, shaken and rattled after Stephie and Gibson smacked the halo off his head and started playin' hula-hoop with it. The nutroot's have gone nuclear and now ABC is the new Fox. It's shaping up to be a good day. : )
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
The Iran Question
April 17, 2008 - 08:50 ET by KC MulvilleThis was the one part of the debate I actually watched (baseball was on during the first hour, and "Criminal Minds" was on the second).
Both candidates revealed their incompetence. Both claimed that George Bush has failed to disarm Iran, and that the solution required that we engage the Iranians and talk with them. As anyone who's been paying attention knows, we've been doing that for 25 years. The problem isn't that we aren't talking with Iran. The problem is that Iran refuses to make any concession, or agree on any basic principles on which to build an agreement - on anything. There is nothing to be gained with them. It's like trying to haggle a price on a car, and the dealer has already given you his final (and unacceptable) price. What next? You get up from the table and say, call me when you change your mind. We've already been haggling with the Iranians for 25 years, and they refuse to budge.
The only way to get movement in that negotiation is to either
Thus, the strategic importance of Iraq, and why no responsible leader would leave Iraq. I forget whether it was Clinton or Obama who said that we have to get the surrounding countries to apply pressure, and that's why it's so important to recover "America's lost prestige." Did either of them notice that the Bushes just recently persuaded China to agree to diplomatic condemnation of Iran's nuclear program? That was a big thing. But the media hasn't reported that at all. (I don't care if Bush got it by trading off an agreement to attend the Olympic ceremonies, the point is that he got it.)
Hillary claims credit for a new strategy, which is identical to the strategy she's condemning. She just doesn't realize that it's the same thing. Hillary had the nerve (or idiocy) to say that "you can't just look at Israel, you have to look at the entire region." I practically shouted at the TV! If only she would look at the strategy throughout the whole region. Her plan, like Obama's, amounts to nothing more than this ... Bush is stupid, I'm smart, and if I just explain things to Iran, I'm sure they'll see it my way. Their arrogance is appalling.
Maybe our "Iran problem"
April 17, 2008 - 08:53 ET by sarcasmoGoes back more than 25 years, like, say, to 1953-blowback??
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Frank Marshall Davis
April 17, 2008 - 05:56 ET by ricklailI am wondering when they will ask him about his relationship with Frank Marshall Davis-a known commie.
If you ain't the lead dog, the scenery never changes.-Lewis Grizzard
Let me get this straight
April 17, 2008 - 07:42 ET by GrannyGrump42Actually committing terrorist acts, and endorsing further terrorist acts, is, in Obama's opinion, comparable to believing that perhaps the death penalty would be an appropriate penalty for killing a baby. Glad he clarified that. (And remember, Obama holds abortion as an absolute right to a dead baby, even if the baby in question survives the attempt and emerges alive.)
Olberman
April 17, 2008 - 07:45 ET by jsteve2xImagine the sound of a hand stretching an overinflated balloon combined with the screach of fingernails slowly across a chalkboard. This is Olberman's brain about to explode. What I would pay to watch that! This Dem/Liberal trainwreck just rewinds and replays....Ah the soothing sound of liberals screaming into the night!
Steve
Guilt by association
April 17, 2008 - 07:57 ET by kbworkmanAhh... This is really a good example of mis-direction.
Guilt by association and misdirection here. Confuse the questioner by creating an obsurd connection to one of your opponents and by doing so put a question in the listeners mind about your opponent.
It was a little weak though. I doubt if many people bought the connection. I think most of them saw it as what it was. Smoke and mirrors.
Slick. Great use of the principles of propaganda.
We difinitely need this guy in office... We just need to know where they need a dogcatcher.
Now, I'm sorry I missed this
April 17, 2008 - 08:53 ET by marpelNow, I'm sorry I missed this debate. I thought that Charlie and George were just going to roll over for Obama and stab Hillary. I was wrong. I watched Ghost Hunters instead.
Olby mad because a question
April 17, 2008 - 10:03 ET by fosstenOlby mad because a question may have been PLANTED at the Dem debate?
Oh golly!
That never happened at a GOP debate, did it?
I still await a reasonable explaination
April 17, 2008 - 10:08 ET by theduck6How does a smart ass sports reporter who has imploded enough times to be eligible for hazardous duty pay suddenly fashion himself as a political pundit and get his own show? (even if it IS when no one is watching)
Great Question
April 17, 2008 - 11:04 ET by jpatchIt's really sad and sick, isn't it?
Same goes with Bill Maher...how does that infantile perverted hack have his own show on HBO?
And get this: some of my "friends" tell me that, "Olbermann is just the liberal Bill O'Reilly." Ya, they're totally the same...except that Bill O'Reilly is actually a highly acredited journalist and writer, whereas Olberdouche is an ex-sportscaster who talks out of his as* without having a shred of credibility, objectivity, or professionalism. Wait, I take that back.
Keith Olbermann is a professional: a professional jackass.
Any self-respecting person should be embarrassed and ashamed if they believe that Olbermann should be in the position he is in.
Did Georgie Boy get it right this time?
April 17, 2008 - 11:32 ET by goldenthroatHow is Olbermaniac going to handle this one?
Check out Osama Bama's latest endorsement - this is a hoot!
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Hamas_Endorses_Obama/2008/04/17/88754.html
Hey, why not? Ol' Jimmah Cahter is over there paving the way for him! What's he looking for? A place in Osama's administration?
"Yeah! That's the ticket!" - Tommy Flanagan
Goldenthroat - this is the key statment in that article
April 17, 2008 - 12:08 ET by Dee Bunk“I understand American politics and this is the season for elections and everybody tries to sound like he’s a friend of Israel…
“I hope Mr. Obama and the Democrats will change the political discourse when one of them will be the president.”
Whether it's Hammas, Reverend Wright, Luis Farrakhan, or Imajihad they all know that Obama doesn't really mean anything he says against them.
And add to that, Dee Bunk...
April 17, 2008 - 12:57 ET by goldenthroatDee Bunk,
El Rushbo was saying on his program today that Osama Bama can't articulate without a speech writer. Take away his teleprompter and he is lost in the woods!
And this man wants to become the head of the greatest nation in the world? No wonder Makmud Imanutjob, Hamas and the PLO love him!
"Yeah! That's the ticket!" - Tommy Flanagan