digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at washingtonpost.com

Wash. Post: The Clear Debate Loser Is **ABC**

washingtonpost.com — "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." ....Disappointing SOAP OPERA version of a serious debate.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • jforjools, on 04/17/2008, -5/+123And really--a commerical break only 5 minutes into this thing???

    This should be the last time that ABC is ever allowed to host such a thing. (And I think the two 'hosts' normally do just fine at their 'day jobs'. --What's the deal??)
    • thescimitar, on 04/17/2008, -2/+31Production was pretty horrible from all sides, not just timing. WTF was up with those bizarre camera movements and angles? About halfway through the debate, the camera operator / board operator began slowly zooming in and out and in and out on Hillary... and then later in the program somehow managed to lose the top of her head completely! Obama's coverage was equally bad, not to mention the random intercutting of half-second Hillary reaction shots.

      Honestly, a two-year community college video department could have produced this better, actual debate content not withstanding. It wasn't just mediocre production quality, it was embarrassing.
    • Hangly, on 04/17/2008, -2/+20Geraldo and Jerry Springer were busy?
    • kanvas, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2Charlie is usually great when he does one-on-ones with politicians. Does anyone know who picked the questions to be asked? Surely it wasn't the hosts.
    • supaklaw, on 04/17/2008, -2/+2Wow, first chimp operated debate. They should have just thrown food at them.
    • breadfred, on 04/17/2008, -1/+11I'd love to see a debate done by 1 of the BBC top journalists. Hard hitting, honest, direct. Impartial and brutal. NO taking ***** for answers. Hell, Jeremy Clarkson would have done a better job...
      • Sinnic, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1I would pay good money to watch Clarkson drive the candidates around a track and simultaneously host a political debate inside the vehicle.

        You could totally ***** around with them, too. Massive oversteer + healthcare reform = the billowing white smoke of progressive politics.
    • brightshadow525, on 04/17/2008, -4/+5So basically every news source sucks...? Digg is so much more reliable, of course, it's clearly unbiased... gtfo
      • Lewie, on 04/17/2008, -0/+5At least everyone has an equal say. Just because reality tends to have a liberal bias doesn't mean that Digg is biased. Where else can you say that millions of people have an equal say (even if it's just *thumbs up* and *thumbs down*)?
    • jbenson2, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Senator Obama is a man of no accomplishments, a man of no accomplishments other than getting elected to the United States Senate, and before that, to the Illinois State Senate. He’s done nothing, he has a wafer-thin legislative record, he wrote an autobiography about nothing. So when you have such a man running for president, all you can tell about him are who he has chosen to spend his life with. He’s chosen to spend his life with this kind of yuppy play terrorist who led the Weather Underground, and the neo-segregationist, racist, ranter like Jeremiah Wright. That’s really all we know about Barack Obama, and it’s entirely legitimate to ask him about it.
  • mollyk, on 04/17/2008, -4/+200I really miss Peter Jennings, he was relentless in his pursuit of excellence, and took his job's responsibility as a service to this country. Unfortunately, I was looking forward to NEW thoughtful, challenging question or maybe some easy ones that were relevant to current issues. Hard questions like - with the increased violence in Iraq - are you still considering immediate withdrawal of IRAQ? With the increased number of home foreclosures are you prepared to deal with the increased number of homeless? Or for an easy one: how do you think the Pope's visit impacts the US? But sadly, neither of the moderators covered any new ground - they kept with the banal 'issues' that have been dug up, buried and 'dugg up' again and again.

    This is a very sad example of news no longer being news any more. I really miss Peter Jennings - but I guess I am glad that he did not have to see tonight - it would have killed him.
    • zoom1928, on 04/17/2008, -52/+3> as a service to this country.

      Are you talking about Canada? He certainly didn't do any service to the US. That jerk-off often talked about how much he hated the US. Until just before he died, he refused to become a citizen. He only became one after one of his hateful rants almost resulted in him getting fired.
    • Dragular, on 04/17/2008, -43/+6So this is basically how it goes:

      Reverend Wright? Don't bring that up, you're being racist.
      "Bitter?" Don't bring that up, you're bitter.
      Flag pin? Even though it's news in the morning on 4/16, it's old news by evening of 4/16.

      So let's see. If it's been covered, then it's Old and thus Not News and thus no longer needs to be mentioned? Okay buddy. Tell you what, let's quit hearing the words "change," "hope," etc. etc. Quit talking about your plan for the economy. Quit talking about your not-really-a-plan for Iraq. If we can't bring up the bad stuff that we still have questions about, then you quit bringing up the stuff that you've gone over a billion times.
      • StarlessKnight, on 04/17/2008, -2/+16Reverend Wright? Don't bring that up, [because it's an issue devoid of substance.]
        "Bitter?" Don't bring that up, [because it's an issue devoid of substance.]
        Flag pin? [That is one of the most laughable and disgusting subjects I have ever heard of.]

        I don't know about you, but my patriotism is not defined by whether or not I wear, wave, or fly an American flag.
      • heypetray, on 04/17/2008, -0/+8They should have pulled a Kucinich and just avoiding retarded questions and instead answered the REAL questions that American's are asking.

        "The Rev. Wright issue has been answered. Those concerned need only look at my campaign website to find my stance on this subject. Instead I'd like to take this time to talk about my comprehensive plan for the economy, which I believe more American's are concerned about...."

        Give the interviewers the big F U and talk to America about what you really want to talk about!
        • 10lbhammer, on 04/17/2008, -0/+5that was one of my favorite things about kucinich. man, I loved watching that guy stick to his guns, whether in debate or interviews on the today show, whatever.
        • heypetray, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2Wow. I just reread my comment. Sorry to all the grammar nazis out there! :)
    • oldhick, on 04/17/2008, -24/+2He didn't become a US citizen until 2003... He wasn't a big fan of service to his country...
      • zeitgueist, on 04/17/2008, -14/+1Obama? He was born here. He'd have to be, otherwise he couldn't run for President. That makes him a citizen by birth.....
      • StarlessKnight, on 04/17/2008, -0/+6Ever tried becoming a US citizen? You don't fill out the paperwork one day and get a rubber stamp the next. Some people have been trying for decades, and not for a lack of passing the test.
    • mugicha, on 04/17/2008, -2/+24Warning: All of the replies to this comment are idiotic. Continue to read at your own risk.
    • superkendall, on 04/17/2008, -5/+4Increased foreclosures does not necessarily mean more homeless - well technically, they have no homes but it's not like many will go back onto the street. Most will instead go back to apartments or condos, where they should have been in the first place if they could not afford a house. I myself started with a condo, and only later on when I had saved enough and was earning enough, did I buy a full house.

      Also, the violence has settled down a lot in Iraq - Sadr has now been pushed back even further. If you really want to know what is going on there, you need to read the book "The Moment of Truth" by Michele Yon:

      http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0980076323

      This is a guy who has been there during the terrible times, and also through the period when things really started to work there when we changed our strategy to what we should have been dong there to start with.

      • BobOki, on 04/17/2008, -4/+7Yes, becuase after a foreclosure their credit will be AWESOME and apts and condos will line up to let them in!
        And I know each person that cannot afford to pay their $600-4000 house payments OBVIOUSLY has plenty of money to put a $600-4000 dep down on an apt!
        Nice call jack-ass.
        • lotu, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1You don't need credit to rent an apartment. You pay money every month or they kick you out it's that simple.
          • 11oops, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Beep, wrong answer. Many landlords and management companies do thorough credit checks before allowing you to sign a lease and is in fact a recommended practice.

            If you think eviction is as simple as posting a pink tag on their door and then they leave, you also have some catching up to do. It is generally lots of paperwork, one or more court hearings if the tenant fights it, potential legal costs, as well as further escalation including a possible sheriff assisted eviction. And then of course you have to deal with the potential mess and damage the pissed off evicted tenants leave you (which will most likely exceed the security deposit you collected -- ever have powdered concrete poured down your drains followed by days of running water?) which means small claims and more legal papers, lawyers, and hearings -- not to mention attempting to collect on the judgement.
      • gandhii, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1That must be quite a book to be able to tell me how things are going there in the present.
    • xieodeluxed, on 04/17/2008, -0/+8I miss Peter Jennings as well.. I have nothing but respect for the standards he set for the US media
      • stilesja, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Got to say, I think Brian Williams is the best Anchor we have now. Jennings was great, Brokaw was great, now Williams is the only real journalist at the desk.
    • moush, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1You think the people talking made the questions, you're grossly misinformed. They have writers.
    • DrBodyGlove, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Please don't compare Peter Jennings with these morons!! They have created hate in my heart for them!! So easily you can be turned off by someone yet this was not easy!! It was an Attack on America not just Obama or Clinton!
    • fiendlama, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1They did ask them both about their strategies for removal of troops and whether they would still do this if the military said it was a bad idea. I thought the answers from both the candidates were insightful. But otherwise, yeah, pretty much off target questions, and Obama saw through that and at one pointed called them on it. If you remember the part where he said something like "You see, this is what I'm talking about....blah...blah...blah...things that aren't important to what I need to do as president...blah...blah..blah"
  • JOHND777, on 04/17/2008, -8/+75Worst most pathetic debate ever! Even people who support Hillary would have to admit this was total bull s***!!!!
    • Browzer, on 04/17/2008, -1/+23I thought it was an atrocious debate. I looked at my watch at 8:45pm and couldn't believe the previous 45 minutes were devoted to such complete BS. Do most people even know what the f*** the Weather Underground is? Who gives a damn anymore, for chrissakes? (By the way, this question was given to George Stephanopulous by Sean Hannity).

      I would have loved either of the candidates to say, "That's a really stupid question, Charlie. I'm going to talk about the housing crisis instead." I wish someone in the audience would have stood up and shouted, "Talk about something important!" We needed an audience revolt like what happened with the Facebook kid during that interview.

      • 140Suffolk, on 04/17/2008, -22/+3Getting nervous? They will learn who the Weather Underground was. And hold it against Obama. As they should.
        • tannerpetry, on 04/17/2008, -1/+9And when they do, they will also find out about how the Clintons (since they ran the country as a team) gave a presidential pardon to a member (murderer) of the weather underground.
          http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0 ...
        • jtryba, on 04/17/2008, -0/+6They will hold it against him that he lived in the same neighborhood as and served on a board with a person who committed a crime 40 years ago? How does this tangential connection give voters any insight into Obama's views or character?

          If you read any of his writing, its clear that Obama believes that it is important to avoid judging a person solely on the basis of his shortcomings. He believes that everyone has something positive to contribute, and he is willing to attempt to bring those positive contributions out. I think that is a huge positive, and it sickens me to see it used as a tool to create these types of character attacks.

          He was friendly with a person whose politics he disagrees with. Love thy neighbor, anyone?
          • DavidS9, on 04/17/2008, -2/+0To know a person look at who he chooses to surround himself with.
          • wendelgee2, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Yeah, and he surrounds himself with U.S. Senators.
          • DavidS9, on 04/17/2008, -1/+0Look those in his life and how influenced him
        • sulthernao, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2This guy is a UIC professor. You have no ***** clue what your talking about.
          • DavidS9, on 04/17/2008, -1/+0Yeah cause being a guy who helps mold kids views on the world and has no problem KILLING Innocent people with terrorist bombing acts. Is a great friend to have by your side when your running for presidents
    • DavidS9, on 04/17/2008, -18/+4This was a Dem debate if they talked about something important it would be for the first time in 40 years that they did
      • wendelgee2, on 04/17/2008, -1/+12This is our country you're talking about, jackass. Not two football teams.
        • DavidS9, on 04/17/2008, -13/+1Doesn't change the fact that MOST Dem. Presidential candidates are left wing nut jobs that use alot of pretty phrases and promises to hide their true agenda. And during debates they don't say anything that is worth wile.
          • tannerpetry, on 04/17/2008, -0/+9And what are you claiming this underhanded agenda is?
          • DavidS9, on 04/17/2008, -8/+0Basically trying to reshape this country into something that looks a lot like Russia before the fall of the Berlin wall. This country was designed by people who believed in picking themselves up with very little interference by the Government. The Dems. want to make this a cradle to grave country, where no one is allowed to think or do for them selves.

            I know its a short answer but that's generally what they want.
          • creepermclurker, on 04/17/2008, -0/+6DavidS9: You're a victim in waiting.
          • diggitydoc, on 04/17/2008, -0/+7funny i thought a republican made the patriot act law...
          • wheresjim, on 04/17/2008, -0/+10I think Davis9 is right, they want to tap our phone calls, set aside basic human rights, destroy the economy and restrict democracy so that it only conforms to their worldview. Oh, wait...
          • DavidS9, on 04/17/2008, -3/+0You guys are right Liberals/ Dems. don't want to limit what you can eat, what you can think. And they for sure don't want to force you to use only certain types of light bulbs that if broken require hazmat clean up, or fill your gas tank with fuel that is hazardous and raises the cost of food. And they for sure don't want to tell you how to raise your kids, God forbid you do that yourself.


            Nice that shows you guess only look at propaganda and don't want to see anything else. I'm not saying Reps. are perfect far from but what they are trying to do is keep this country secure, while the Dems do what they can to make sure we are available to be taken over by some foreign power.
          • inkswamp, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2@DavidS9: "...a cradle to grave country, where no one is allowed to think or do for them selves."

            Ironic that you're decrying people not thinking for themselves when you're falling back on that "cradle to grave" meme which is a staple of Rush Limbaugh's pinheaded rants. You know that old saying, don't ya? When you point the finger at others, you have three pointing back...
          • DavidS9, on 04/17/2008, -2/+0Yeah, because one person says something means no one else can say it, without it meaning we are blindly following what they spout. I said what I said because of my OWN observations not because Rush said them.

            As for your little saying it is a two way street just like most everything else.
    • BevansDesign, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2Don't censor yourself. Digg has a built-in profanity filter that people can turn on and off at will. Just look above the first comment on this story.
  • jjive, on 04/17/2008, -19/+4A.B.C. - All Bigots Celebrated
  • chanop, on 04/17/2008, -9/+143I'm not all big on this Obama Craze (I like him and will vote for him) on digg, but I godda digg this ***** up, because last night was complete horse-*****. It's ***** like that, that makes me embarrassed to be an American.
    • fatrandy13, on 04/17/2008, -5/+13thats such a drastic thing to say... i thought it was clearly a horrible debate, but to say you're embarrassed to be an American? a little overkill don't you think? I hate this new fad of being ashamed of patriotism....
      • fenderbiz, on 04/17/2008, -8/+5Patriotism is dangerous. Don't be proud of your country, be proud of human kind. Just because you happened to be born in a certain country doesn't mean you should think your country is better than all others.
        • RaDeN305, on 04/17/2008, -0/+8Patriotism does not necessarily mean you think your country is better than all others. This ***** debate is not going to make me feel less proud of my country. It's not that serious.
        • DavidS9, on 04/17/2008, -7/+2This country is better then every other one that is the true meaning of Patriotism. To be Patriotic you have to put you country ahead of ever other country in the world. Everyone does it to one degree or another.
        • StarlessKnight, on 04/17/2008, -0/+8@DavidS9: Be careful of the line between patriotism and nationalism.
        • devaspark, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3@DavisS9:
          Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
          Patriotism

          Pa"tri*ot*ism, n. [Cf. F. patriotisme.] Love of country; devotion to the welfare of one's country; the virtues and actions of a patriot; the passion which inspires one to serve one's country. --Berkley.

          You are only half right. Patriotism does not mean your country is better than others. It is that you love your country more than others.
        • heypetray, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3Patriotism != Nationalism
        • Lewie, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1It is patriotic to want to do the best for your country and countrymen. Unfaltering love for your country no matter what is stupid and nationalism/fascism. I think American critics are some of the most patriotic people, because they are concerned about the future of our country.
          • fenderbiz, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1I'm more concerned about the future of people in general. Why should I love a country so much just because I was born there? I consider myself lucky to have been born here, however I don't care about it more than the rest of the world.
    • AbsurdParadox, on 04/17/2008, -0/+9Why the hell would the actions of one media company make you embarrassed of your nationality?

      The level of collectivism people use around here is astounding.
    • HoratioHellpop, on 04/17/2008, -8/+5So .. a televised debate makes you ashamed to be an American. Please -- leave the US before you pollute the gene pool any further.
      • StarlessKnight, on 04/17/2008, -4/+5The people telling other people to leave America--the land of the Free ring a bell?--comes precariously close to making me ashamed they're Americans. Presuming they're American, of course, which I hope they would be to even begin making such an outrageous "request."
        • HoratioHellpop, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1It's called sarcasm you bleeding-heart libtard. Look it up.
    • Dibou, on 04/17/2008, -3/+3Wow you have a really fragile psyche.
  • goldenratiophi, on 04/17/2008, -4/+250The debate was painful. Seriously:

    "Do you believe in the American flag?"

    WTF!
    • mikephimikephi, on 04/17/2008, -0/+32I know, what the hell does that even mean?
      • twinegarden, on 04/17/2008, -0/+17That is like asking a Christian "Do you believe in the cross?". It is almost as if they were hoping he would say something negative about flag waving jingoism.
    • redback, on 04/17/2008, -0/+9also what are the possible logical answers.... "no?"
      • ulsterwrod, on 04/17/2008, -17/+2If you had been paying attention, you would realize it is a legitimate question as Obama had a pastor who bashed America openly, and publicly. Obama's church published a Hamas terrorist document. And Obama has ties to a man who bombed American locations in the past. Wiliam Ayers.
        • conrail, on 04/17/2008, -0/+8*****.
        • yeti22, on 04/17/2008, -0/+8No, it's a worthless, jingoistic question.
        • jtryba, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3Bah.. wrong place...
        • heypetray, on 04/17/2008, -1/+3Hmm, you've really got me wondering whether or not he loves America. Thanks for your diligent insight.
      • jtryba, on 04/17/2008, -0/+12I like that- "has ties"

        He lived in the same neighborhood as an English professor who committed crimes 40 years ago. What is he supposed to do? Spit on him every time they pass on the street?

        As for Rev. White, it would be nice if we could have tried to understand the context of his sermons instead of playing 2 or 3 outrageous statements over and over. God forbid we attempt to digest the entirety of the situation instead of sensationalizing it.

        Did America create HIV. No, of course not, but it did conduct the Tuskegee experiments.
        From http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762136.html
        "For forty years between 1932 and 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted an experiment on 399 black men in the late stages of syphilis. These men, for the most part illiterate sharecroppers from one of the poorest counties in Alabama, were never told what disease they were suffering from or of its seriousness. Informed that they were being treated for “bad blood,”1 their doctors had no intention of curing them of syphilis at all. The data for the experiment was to be collected from autopsies of the men, and they were thus deliberately left to degenerate under the ravages of tertiary syphilis—which can include tumors, heart disease, paralysis, blindness, insanity, and death. “As I see it,” one of the doctors involved explained, “we have no further interest in these patients until they die.”"
        If I were an African American, I too would be weary of a virus that seems to affect minority populations at a higher rate. Our country could certainly do a lot more to stem the spread of HIV in those groups of people. We've ignored a growing epidemic, and largely due to socioeconomic reasons.

        Did the US cause 9/11. Directly? No. But could our policies in the Middle east affect the way people living there view us? Of course. Have our policies often caused violence and death? Yes. Have we materially supported dictators and theocracies for our own gain? Yes. Again, we would be well served to understand the entirety of the situation.
    • orangedude, on 04/17/2008, -0/+5Obama said it best himself:

      "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."
    • amida, on 04/17/2008, -2/+12"Yes, I do. There's one on the goddamn podium I'm standing behind."
    • sgtpppr, on 04/17/2008, -0/+10Honestly, I was waiting for them to say 'So, do you watch Lost and which is your favorite character?'.
    • yeti22, on 04/17/2008, -0/+10Believe it in? Hell, I've even seen one!
  • AlexMorph, on 04/17/2008, -42/+5How many articles need to make it to the front-page of Digg regarding this issue? WE KNOW!!! ABC dropped the ball! Now, stop submitting these articles.
    • goodposter, on 04/17/2008, -3/+10Shut up bitch.
    • StarlessKnight, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3It's... the news and it's kind of important. Two things: 1. something else will get the spotlight soon enough, be patient; and 2. you're using the Internet, Digg is not the only news or social news site you can visit, just like the radio doesn't just have one frequency for music.
  • chanop, on 04/17/2008, -6/+27Hypothetically, if Hillary were to become the nominee, would Diggers embrace her? or would they vote McCain? I'm not antagonizing here, I'd just like to get some other opinions. I cannot vote for Hillary, and very well wont vote if she's the democratic nominee.
    • RRJackson, on 04/17/2008, -37/+8I'll vote for McCain if Obama gets the nomination. He's probably a better candidate than either of them, anyway.
    • CressCrowbits, on 04/17/2008, -4/+24I suspect a McCain vs Clinton election would result in one of the lowest voter turn-outs in history.
      I would doubt either of them would get a second term.
    • pax85, on 04/17/2008, -9/+2Everyone should vote for neither of the two. Not going to vote, doesn't help at all. Voting for nobody might not change end result, but I would show what people think about their given choices.
      • gandhii, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1better to vote for a 3rd party candidate. Not voting means nothing.. no numbers get counted for that.. and it just gets assumed that they are lazy. A vote for a 3rd party candidate would send a clearer message if an unexpectedly large number of votes were made for such candidates.
    • GRTWHT, on 04/17/2008, -6/+12Sadly, I'm in the 'anyone but Hillary' camp. If she is in the election, I will vote for whoever I have left as a viable choice to defeat her. Otherwise, HELL NO I won't vote for McCain!
    • revisrev, on 04/17/2008, -6/+20I'll be voting for Hillary if she gets the nomination. Any democrat who thinks that McCain will be a better president than Hillary wasn't paying attention through Reagan, Bush I, or Bush II apparently. Republicans get the white house and immediately try to expand the executive branch's authority. McCain subscribes to the unitary executive theory and that's all I need to know to cast my vote against him.
      • RRJackson, on 04/17/2008, -14/+3Expanding the role of the executive is a good thing. Most presidents can't get anything done. Some, like Carter, were completely paralyzed by Congress. Bush just ignores the checks and balances and does whatever he feels like doing. Seems to be much more efficient.
        • Eiknujrac, on 04/17/2008, -2/+9Yea, it seems the country just loves what Bush is doing with it. /s
          • RRJackson, on 04/17/2008, -4/+2He's accomplished more than any president in my lifetime. He bought you your own nation in the middle east, FFS.
          • papipablo, on 04/17/2008, -2/+3Careful, you're blowing your cover as a supposed Hillary-voting, lifelong Democrat.
          • RRJackson, on 04/17/2008, -4/+2See, some of us can get past partisanship. I can acknowledge that the guy has been able to get a lot done, even if I didn't vote for him. And have actually signed petitions calling for his impeachment that I kind of regret signing now. Not that they had any effect, anyway.
        • StarlessKnight, on 04/17/2008, -2/+3Yeah, he said that once... something about how easy it'd be to run the country if it were a dictatorship and he was the dictator. What a lovely thought you have, RRJackson.
          • RRJackson, on 04/17/2008, -4/+2I certainly don't recall saying that. Feel free to provide a citation.
          • papipablo, on 04/17/2008, -2/+3It was probably before a comment where you pined for the days of segregation and after a comment where you say liberals suffer from white guilt.
          • RRJackson, on 04/17/2008, -5/+2I should have known my stalker would have something to say about it. And for the record, I never said I "pined" for segregation. I said that the civil rights movement was violent and ill-conceived and that it did a lot of damage to this country. That doesn't mean I oppose integration. I means I oppose setting a hundred American cities on fire. All those rioters and looters should have been shot to death on the spot. No water hoses or dogs. They should have been shot with turret-mounted machine guns. If that had happened right at the outset and all the leaders of the movement had been imprisoned it would have changed the tone of things considerably.
          • papipablo, on 04/17/2008, -2/+4Yah, everyone who doesn't look like you would be riding at the back of the bus and eating at separate lunch counters. Dr. King was one of those people that sums up everything that is great about America. You sum up everything that is wrong with this country--an intellectually lazy bigot with a penchant for megalomania and revisionist history.
          • RRJackson, on 04/17/2008, -6/+2What part of that history is revisionist? Over a hundred American cities were subjected to "race riots" during that era. It didn't do anything positive for race relations in this country. It sent a message to the black community that the only way to deal with Whitey is through violence. Integration was going to happen, anyway. It was just slow getting started in the south because of the racial tensions that have always existed in the south. What the civil rights movement did was set black communities at odds with the "oppressor" in areas where segregation was already on the wane, as well as in areas where there were problems.

            Of course, you can't discuss anything without resorting to ad hominem attacks, which is to be expected from the kind of person that finds a divergent opinion on the Internet and then stalks that person daily. I hope you're getting paid well to attack people who don't support Obama because you're a sad case if this fanaticism is genuine.
          • papipablo, on 04/17/2008, -2/+2Ditto!
          • RRJackson, on 04/17/2008, -2/+2Which means you have no argument.

            Hey, the civil rights movement actually hurt the cause of black Americans. Making it to 30 as a black man in this country without landing in prison is getting harder and harder to accomplish.
          • jtryba, on 04/17/2008, -2/+2Slow getting started? It had been over a hundred years since the end of the slave era. African Americans had been living under the thumb of Jim Crow laws, segregated education, and hate group violence. Leaders like MLK preached a message of extreme non-violence even in the face of oppression. Race riots occurred when the collective unrest, injustice, and inability to have their voices heard grew to unbearable proportions.
            It's one thing to regret the violence of the era, but its another to implicitly claim that the violence committed by the police, the KKK, and run of the mill bigots was better.
            Not to mention that without national visibility, progress wouldn't have just been "slow" it would have been imperceptible.
          • jtryba, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2Oh, and here's a video of the dictator comment:
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD3xfT0c99g&feature ...

            Actually, he said it twice:
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A09Ha5M82us&feature ...
          • RRJackson, on 04/17/2008, -3/+1Sure, sure...well, we've "progressed" to a point where about 5-7% of black America is behind bars. At this rate by the turn of the next century black babies will drop from the birth canal into a waiting cage.
          • jtryba, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2I don't think anyone's arguing that we don't still have a long way to go in terms of eliminating racial inequality. How you can tie our current imperfection to the civil rights movement is still not clear.

            It wasn't until the Voting Rights act of 1965- a direct result of the civil rights movement- that literacy tests and poll taxes were eliminated.

            That same year, before the act was passed, a peaceful march to Montgomery, AL ended in "Bloody Sunday" where 50 marchers were hospitalized after police attacked them with tear gas, clubs, and whips. It was this event, which brought the spotlight of national media, that helped propel the voting rights movement forward.
          • RRJackson, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2Thank you for that Wikipedia moment. Strange how the women's suffrage movement of the 20's achieved their goals without burning down American cities.

            The civil rights movement was the beginning of a violent cultural trend among disenfranchised black Americans. Now it's just a given that rioting and looting will occur in areas with a poor black population if there's some crisis. People are already talking about rioting in Denver if Obama isn't given the nomination. You see posts about how, "Denver will burn!" It's a massive failure of both white and black America that we're arrived at this place. White America's response to the civil rights movement was to bolster institutional oppression of black Americans. On the surface there was integration and prison reform, but the demographics of our prison populations tell a different story.
          • papipablo, on 04/17/2008, -2/+1How dare black people not want to be owned as property by white people! How rude!
          • RRJackson, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2Ah, more nonsense from the stalker. Just for a refresher, the civil rights movement took place after the abolition of slavery.
          • jtryba, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1The "Wikipedia moment" was provided as evidence for my argument-
            1)The violence of the civil rights era was not solely the fault of disenfranchised African Americans
            2)The civil rights movement resulted in undeniable positive changes that would not have come about without national attention.

            You're equating the movement with the rioting, and I think thats an unfair simplification. Also, you're ignoring the role discrimination plays in prison demographics. If so many young, black Americans were not serving inordinate prison terms on drug charges, and if the average young, black male did not get longer prison sentences for the same crimes, the stats would be far different. Perhaps there is a culture of violence, but, again, I don't think you can assert a causal link between a movement seeking the equal treatment of an oppressed population and that trend.
            Also, at that time, people of all races were rioting. The '68 convention protest is a good example.
            Interestingly, the British women's suffrage movement was violent- the Suffragettes used arson and bombing to try to influence laws. Regardless, the comparison is not applicable. White men weren't riding around in hoods lynching their wives.
            Again, I'm not arguing that the violent parts of the movement were constructive. I'm arguing that the movement as a whole was.
          • RRJackson, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1You seemed to miss my point. I understand that black Americans serve inordinately long prison terms. In fact, I think the single element that keeps any kind of drug legalization from finding its way onto the books is that it's a way to put young black men in prison for very long minimum mandatory sentences without being accused of racial motivations. I think a lot of this is backlash from the violence of the civil rights movement.

            BTW, while I understand the need for and the context of the Voting Rights Act, I'm not completely sure it was a bad idea to require literacy tests.
          • jtryba, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Fair enough. I understand your point.
      • mustbepatient, on 04/17/2008, -2/+5So you think Hillary *won't* be trying to expand her power? Her thirst for power defines her.
    • pintomp3, on 04/17/2008, -3/+14i will either stay home or hold my nose and vote for hillary. she is bad, but mccain is worse.
      • amida, on 04/17/2008, -2/+2Voting is your right. If it's McCain vs. Hillary and you don't like either one, please go out and register your distaste by voting for a third party candidate.
        • pojut, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2There is one thing you are forgetting. Men and women didn't die so we could have the right to vote. Men and women died so we could have the right to CHOOSE to vote.

          Let them exercise their CHOICE. Many countries don't offer their citizens that luxury.
    • BrianGarceau, on 04/17/2008, -4/+2That is how you should vote. Vote for someone who holds your ideals, you should not have to fall in line and vote for someone the party wants you vote for. There is no such thing as a wasted vote. If there is no one running that you like, don't vote. Never vote for someone because who don't like the other guy running. People already tried that in the Bush and Kerry elections.
      • LostAngeles, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1In situations like that, you must think of it more abstractly. You may not want Hillary in office, but you dislike McCain even more. By not voting for the lesser of two evils, you increase McCain's chance of winning through the vote you didn't cast.
    • laserdog, on 04/17/2008, -4/+44If Obama is the candidate, I'd vote for him.

      If Hilary is the candidate, I'd vote against McCain.
    • twinegarden, on 04/17/2008, -5/+2I wont vote if that's the case.
    • enri, on 04/17/2008, -0/+9Based on all the dugg down comments, why would people on Digg rather someone not vote than vote for a third party candidate?
    • florin, on 04/17/2008, -2/+5"Embrace" Hillary?

      Ewwwww...
    • mugicha, on 04/17/2008, -4/+8Of course I would vote for her, as I'm sure most Obama supporters would. She's not my favorite but dear god at least she's not talking about staying in Iraq for 100 years.
      • ulsterwrod, on 04/17/2008, -2/+4How long has the US military been in Europe?? South Korea??
      • PoonGnarfler, on 04/17/2008, -1/+0And BTW McCain can only be in office for 8 years, it's not really up to him how long we stay after that.
    • RudeTurnip, on 04/17/2008, -1/+17Worst case scenario, I'd write-in for Obama.
    • capnkid, on 04/17/2008, -5/+2I'm hoping to vote for Obama as he represents change and a sense of hope. If I can't vote for Obama, I'll vote for McCain so we can hurry up and just burn the whole damn thing down to the ground.
    • MonoDede, on 04/17/2008, -2/+6I'd vote for the Independent ticket. Mike Gravel.
    • wheresjim, on 04/17/2008, -2/+1If hillary got the nom, I'd have to take a real long hard look at who the evil of two lessers really is...
    • adrenaline33, on 04/17/2008, -2/+3McCain in a heartbeat.
    • DukeMojo, on 04/17/2008, -2/+2Move to China
    • bot001220, on 04/17/2008, -2/+2***** that, I'm voting for Obama no matter what. If It's Hillary vs. McCain, I'm going to write in "Barack Obama".

      I don't think "not voting" is the answer.
    • Nonplussed, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1I respect McCain but will hold my nose (very, very tightly) and vote for ........... Hillary. Sorry, it was really hard to type that. But policies matter, and McCain's a monster on most. I don't want 4/8 more years of Clinton *****, but it's better than another 4/8 of Bush.
  • johnhummel, on 04/17/2008, -3/+33Here's what I put on their feedback site here - if you thought their coverage was awful, I'd recommend you let them know:

    http://abcnews.go.com/Site/page?id=3271346&cat=ABC ...

    I am incredibly offended by how your network ran tonight's Democratic
    debate. Rather than engaging in discussions of the candidates
    policies, the moderators spent 60 minutes asking about flag pins, and
    other things that did nothing to educate myself or other voters of
    what the candidates stand on - save perhaps how to weather annoying
    and biased questions.

    I nearly turned the TV off. Last ABC political show I'll watch for some time.
    • elliam, on 04/17/2008, -0/+6How bad does it have to get before you actually turn your TV off?
      • wingo123, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3I couldn't even be bothered to turn my TV on in the first place. Evidently this was a good idea.
  • dtrinh, on 04/17/2008, -2/+63If you look at the pattern of questions asked, it was nearly the Hillary Clinton show last night. Gibson threw out almost comically pointed questions to Obama -- also going as far as to interupt Obama's answers sporadically -- and gave Hillary the debate's edge round after round. It almost felt as if they were feeding Hillary questions to make talking points on and then giving Obama specific mincings of words for him to defend. If that was ABC's game, then where were the NAFTA and Bosnia questions for Hillary? Epic fail, ABC.
    • jforjools, on 04/17/2008, -1/+10Absolutely NO followup on HIllary's assertion (again) that she was TIRED!?

    • pintomp3, on 04/17/2008, -0/+43"Senator Obama, why do you suck?"
      "Senator Clinton, why does Obama suck?"
    • sinrtb, on 04/17/2008, -0/+5I thought I was biased when I noticed those things last night.
    • 55mph, on 04/17/2008, -2/+6Obama came off presidential. Hillary came off like a tired whinny bitch who can not be trusted. jmho!
    • sgtpppr, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2They're afraid that Hillary will drop out if she loses too many more states. They want to help tip the scales even so that they can drag out the mudslinging all the way up to the last second before the convention. Remember that ABC and the other networks are simply in the business of selling advertising. Whatever gets ratings will run simply because it brings in more money. The network stations are hurting these days against cable news and are doing anything and everything to try and squeeze out some ratings. Even if it means turning a debate into Jerry Springer.
  • stealthc, on 04/17/2008, -3/+6What a surprise.
  • Thrilltone, on 04/17/2008, -2/+11The Media is supposed to be an impartial watchdog for the people
    but who is the end recipient of all the campaign money?
    Any reporter who tried to mention campaign finance reform would be transferred to the Greenland
    • DavidS9, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Compare that Debate to the Rep. debate and you will see how impartial they are
  • zoom1928, on 04/17/2008, -42/+6Wow, aren't you elitist. A debate finally covered the things the people are concerned about, and a few out of touch idiots start their whining. It was good to see someone finally confront Obama about his racist and hateful rants. Most of us are tired of seeing him play the race card over and over again.
    • Dragular, on 04/17/2008, -1/+22You must be bitter.
    • neognostic, on 04/17/2008, -2/+11zoom1928 is just mad that Bush isn't running for a third term, so he could vote for the worst president in history a third time.
    • adventchild08, on 04/17/2008, -1/+4When has Obama played the race card? You think people are concerned about this stuff?
      Aren't you concerned over the economy? What about the war?
    • goodposter, on 04/17/2008, -1/+6I hate zoom1928.
    • StarlessKnight, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2"A debate finally covered the things the people are concerned about[...]" I would hope real Journalists could filter out the nonsense. What's next? A video question from someone asking, "Are you sure you aren't Muslim and that you don't follow the Koran?" Yes, because that's such a deep and philosophical question.
      • zoom1928, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2> "Are you sure you aren't Muslim and that you don't follow the Koran?"

        That is a valid question. Why don't candidates have to answer questions about themselves. They're running for the most important job in the world, and you can't even ask basic questions about them?

    • sgtpppr, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2If THAT is what Americans want to see in a debate for one of the most important elections in the history of the United States, then maybe it's time I moved to Costa Rica.
  • waggdogg, on 04/17/2008, -8/+9ABC in is business to make money and to them this was a money making opportunity.
    • Hangly, on 04/17/2008, -2/+7That they completely blew.
    • philhatesyou, on 04/17/2008, -3/+4Precisely why important things shouldn't be left to the Free Market.
      • PhantomRogue, on 04/17/2008, -0/+4You really want a "State Sponsored" News system? Like we would hear anything negative about the State then. This is not a result of a Free Market. This was a result of a Biased corporation who bought the rights to a Debate in order to fool the general public into thinking Clinton is the answer. People realize this, and it hurt Clinton more than Obama could have ever done on his own. Thank you ABC for further demolishing Clinton's chances.
        • philhatesyou, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2State sponsored news? A la BBC? Where do I sign up?
        • Hangly, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Or like PBS? Dear God, yes please!
      • AbsurdParadox, on 04/17/2008, -0/+4Hahahah what?!

        Look at the people railing them for it. This is the free market at work.
        • sgtpppr, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2Exactly. If you don't like what they showed, stop watching their station. They'll change real quick if you hurt their pocketbook. In the case of gov't sponsored media, the only thing you can do is throw molotov cocktails in the street to get programming changed.
    • hulettk, on 04/17/2008, -1/+0Fox News leads the way for this crap. Watch the others hop on the bandwagon.
    • StarlessKnight, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Money making would have been a fair debate where both candidates got grilled equally, with equal time for response, and relevant questions. Money losing would be what they did, an unabashedly biased "debate" with nonsensical questions that didn't deserve to be asked in the first place ("Do you believe in the American flag?" If that's your best shot, you seriously have problems you need to resolve before November in order to pick the best candidate, not your personal flag buddy). They angered their viewers, now the advertisers will "lose" money and subsequently so does ABC.
    • Nonplussed, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2Wrong, Starless. Viewership was up, just like it has been at Fox for years. Like it or not, most Americans don't want a debate on the issues. They want a debate on ***** lapel pins. Pathetic and sad, I know.
    • xu1993, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2Well they had over 11 million viewers and ran commercials every 5 minutes, so I'd say they did well. That's probably the best night they've had against Idol in years.
    • BobCFC, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1God bless the BBC and the lack of adverts
    • jbenson2, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1You Sherlocks don't have a clue how the market operates. The point is that ABC had record turnout for the debate. The response is music to the Network's ears. Do you Sherlocks really think they are going to stop a money-maker like this debate in the future?

      Who's bitter now, O-man?
      Certainly not ABC
  • Shannonp, on 04/17/2008, -2/+26The debate was not fair to either the candidates or the American public. Did you ever think that Americans, who are losing brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, and children in the war; who have to choose between a full tank of gas and a full cart of groceries; who are losing homes as we speak...deserved 50 minutes of flag pins and prodding about who's in Barack's extended social network? Thanks, ABC...for nothing.
    • HoratioHellpop, on 04/17/2008, -3/+3//who are losing homes as we speak.// Which is entirely NOT the fault of the government, and shouldn't be bailed out by the government. Greedy ***** who buy more house than they can afford? Sure, let's bail them out. Not.
  • bubba9999, on 04/17/2008, -2/+12The problem is that ABC News has been headed down the tabloid highway, slowly, but surely for years. Someone with control in their organization is envious of Fox News' ratings, and have been injecting elements of Fox-ism into their content to try to appear "edgy". Like waggdogg said, it's for the $$$.
    • bullhead2007, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Every news outlet has been down the road to tabloids for a long time. Britney? Not news. Fox accelerated and increased the amount of it, but it's been pretty bad for a long time.
  • FREETHINKER2008, on 04/17/2008, -1/+31The news has been cancelled. To attract new viewers they are using E channel style reporting.
  • savantidiot, on 04/17/2008, -1/+10Is it just me, or did ABC just blip out Obama's comment about trivial media coverage from last nights debate summation on Good Morning America just a few minutes ago (EST)???
  • Hangly, on 04/17/2008, -2/+41Just the way they introduced the debate. "The sparks are flying?"

    Jesus Christ this isn't the WWE, show some goddamn respect!
  • momsshizzle, on 04/17/2008, -18/+6I just finished listening to the debate on XM. Even though I prefer Obama to Hillary, Hillary clearly owned Obama on most issues. She has clear consise answers to most questions while Obama stopped and paused many times.
    • savantidiot, on 04/17/2008, -0/+9To be fair, you did not say you are an Obama supporter. That said, I think your comment history speaks for itself. Are you paid to bash Obama? I doubt it based on the comment frequency, at least on this account. It however is fairly obvious MS pays you to bash linux in particular and promote MS products, Vista especially.

      "Don't worry. If Osama Obama doesn't get the nomination...."
      "I'm so upset! Quick! Someone get me some rope! Errr....." (for context this one was a reply to headline: CNN.com's - Front Page Obama hit-job)
      "Osama+Obama=same thing"
      "Yawn, another Ron Paul, oops, I mean Obama article. Buried."
    • neognostic, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2Ignore the ignorant tramp, she is a liar just like HRC.
    • goodposter, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1Hillary is a bitch and a bitch will never be president.
  • paulcbrady, on 04/17/2008, -4/+5The media proved last night that they deserve to be replaced with independent news from the collaborative communication on the Internet. My God, it was so obviously slanted and read line by line from the republican "play book" that Gibson and Stephonapolis should be ashamed of themselves.
    • Buzzbean, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Just like the Republican YouTube debate had questions submitted by Democrats and Independants. This is the Primary election. Only Republicans have a say in the Republican race and only Democrats have a say in the Democrat race. They're breaking the rules on both sides.
  • amightywind, on 04/17/2008, -22/+5Gibson questioned Obama about raising taxes and the Laffer curve. Obama's response: "yes, lower taxes result in higher revenues, but we're going to raise taxes anyway."
    "We are the ones we have been looking for." - B. Hussein Obama
    • goodposter, on 04/17/2008, -3/+5"Barack Hussein Osama-Bama" lol shut up bitch barack is going to win and you know it. white racist bitch
    • StarlessKnight, on 04/17/2008, -2/+5Barack H. Obama! His name, say it! Barack. H. Obama. Do you go around calling everyone by their first initial, middle and last names? "Hey Director J. Holy Christ, how are you today?"

      Or would that be *cue dramatic music* J. Hussein Christ? It's a trap! /s
      • SpacePoet, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1How many times have you ever heard boosh be called by his middle name, Walker?
    • dxgg, on 04/17/2008, -1/+9Those who go out of their way to stress his middle name know that there's nothing of substance that can be said against him.
    • wheresjim, on 04/17/2008, -0/+9Hey, my middle name is Joseph, does that make me a Stalinist?
      • amightywind, on 04/18/2008, -3/+1No. But if it were Josef, we might have a problem.
    • banderwocky, on 04/18/2008, -0/+3John Sidney McCain III
      Hillary Rodham Clinton

      So what magic fear mongering can you surmise from these names oh great might wind blower? What does your magic crystal ball say here? Wait a minute, whats your full name?

      • amightywind, on 04/18/2008, -2/+1You again? Don't you have anything better to do than chase me around digg, you hoser. Do you enjoy pain? My full name is A. Mighty Wind. My race is Red Blooded American.
      • banderwocky, on 04/18/2008, -1/+3I just can't help but point out BS when I see it. And with you, it's getting pretty easy. Are you going to analyze John Sidney McCain III or no? What does his middle name tell you about Who he is? What religion, his past, his present, his future O great Diviner! Red Blooded American is obviously not a Race. There is only one, the Human Race. Red Blooded American pertains to your Social, Political and Nationality. Clearly.
        • amightywind, on 04/18/2008, -2/+1John Sidney McCain - nice solid name for a great American.
          Hillary Rodham Clinton - authentic American women leave their maiden name behind when they marry. Identifes Hillary as a butch feminist.
          Barack Hussein Obama - certainly diverse, 'nough said...
          • banderwocky, on 04/19/2008, -1/+3so you're just judging people on how American they are based of their names. I'll even go as far as saying you would base how patriotic they are based solely on their name. Good job on keeping bigotry alive and well, oppressing liberty or recognizing that ALL men (women) are created equal. How un-Constitutional of you.
  • catachip, on 04/17/2008, -3/+35The ABC debate last night was absolutely pathetic. For the first 45 minutes we had a continual onslaught of attacks on Obama from the two moderators, plus Clinton. Even worse the attacks and questions were all REPUBLICAN style talking points. Flag pins, whose more patriotic, guilty by association, guns... it was shameful. Even when Obama tries to respond he was often interrupted by one of the moderators or challenged.

    This, of course, did not happen with Hillary. They spent a mere 5 minutes on her Bosnia lies. Even when she stated right there that "I said things that I knew not to be true... I'm sorry". Well, that's a lie, and they should have made her specifically state that she lied and WHY. I turned off the debate after the first hour. What a useless, petty, pathetic waste of time during such a critical part of the campaign.

    Have a debate, sure, let the candidates duke it out. But have it about issues, not about talking points I'd expect to hear from Bill O'Reilly on Fox News.
    • JavanSClark, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1umm it was 52 minutes...
      • ulsterwrod, on 04/17/2008, -2/+1"The ABC debate last night was absolutely pathetic. For the first 45 minutes we had a continual onslaught of attacks on Obama from the two moderators, plus Clinton"
        This statement is completely false. No one was attacking Obama. Clinton has been getting bashed by the press repeatedly since day one.
  • sassip, on 04/17/2008, -7/+2Tim Robins at National Association of Broadcasters. Why does the "Main Stream" media continue to Pander to prurient and "Jerry Springer" interests of Tabloid Journalism. We're better than that! http://adage.co …
  • sassip, on 04/17/2008, -5/+3Tim Robins at National Association of Broadcasters. Why does the "Main Steam" media continue to Pander to prurient and "Jerry Springer" interests of Tabloid Journalism. We're better than that!
    http://adage.com/brightcove/single.php?title=15065 ...
  • mrgreenjeans9, on 04/17/2008, -1/+23y'know Stephanopoulos lost the plot with me earlier in the campaign season. (don't take this as a ron paul spam comment mind you) he was interviewing Representative Paul about his presidential bid and (i'm paraphrasing here) said something along the lines of: "you KNOW you can't win." who the hell is this commentator/news person/pundit think he is? HE doesn't decide who can win or not, the electorate does/should. this time, they didn't pick the Representative...ok, sounds good. i just thought he had a lot of gall. and now with this 'baiting' debate to get them into a catfight. is it any wonder we are where we are as a country in regards to war, economics and politics? the 4th branch is a gossiping whore.
    • nosecohn, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2He did largely the same thing with Mike Gravel. Stephanopoulos doesn't even get what it means to be a journalist. Besides that, he WORKED in the Clinton Whitehouse for many years, which should have immediately disqualified him from moderating the debate. Zero journalistic ethics over at ABC.
  • SpinningHead, on 04/17/2008, -4/+7This represents the kind of journalism that gets guys like Bush elected. And what was that crap they kept pushing about capital gains cuts boosting revenues? Capital gains cuts were followed by short gains when people sold off stock and then the revenues began to fall again. Did Limbaugh write the questions for this?
  • michaelscottfan, on 04/17/2008, -3/+7What happened to ABC?
    • hydroplane, on 04/17/2008, -1/+4They married Disney.
      • virtualval2001, on 04/18/2008, -0/+0you just made my night!

        Disney is a world where they paint reality for you. Someday your prince will come, or someday this network will get ratings.
  • jbenson2, on 04/17/2008, -16/+3After watching the debate - just one more question:
    Who's bitter now, O-man?
    • StarlessKnight, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2That's it? That's the most pressing question on your mind, right now? Right down there with "Do you believe in the American flag?" No, really, keep asking stupid questions. Ignore the big issues. You know, do what Obama was talking about in San Fransisco.
      • jbenson2, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Senator Obama is a man of no accomplishments, a man of no accomplishments other than getting elected to the United States Senate, and before that, to the Illinois State Senate. He’s done nothing, he has a wafer-thin legislative record, he wrote an autobiography about nothing. So when you have such a man running for president, all you can tell about him are who he has chosen to spend his life with. He’s chosen to spend his life with this kind of yuppy play terrorist who led the Weather Underground, and the neo-segregationist, racist, ranter like Jeremiah Wright. That’s really all we know about Barack Obama, and it’s entirely legitimate to ask him about it.
  • philhatesyou, on 04/17/2008, -0/+17Seeing as to how George Stephanopoulos has always been a Clinton sycophant, I can't say I find this surprising.
    • bonddotcom, on 04/17/2008, -2/+0"Word of the Day" toilet paper?
      • xhazerdusx, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2Either that or he/she actually HAS a better vocabulary than a 10th grader. Don't be such an *****.
  • kacole2, on 04/17/2008, -14/+6i really wish all you Obama supporters would quit flooding digg with this political garbage. It's like a ***** band wagon. I'm still undecided between the two. I just knew after watching the debate last night that some people would start bashing ABC bc Hillary straight up beat Obama. Give me a ***** break diggers. One thing goes wrong with Obama and you blame it on ABC. JFC!
    • zoom1928, on 04/17/2008, -3/+3It's amusing watching the disruptive group of Obama spammers.
    • hulettk, on 04/17/2008, -0/+4And what does that make you? A Clinton spammer? A McCain spammer? A Fox Network spammer? Face it, ABC is following the path of Fox and Americans are calling it what it is: TRASH. Lap it up if you want. Garbage in - garbage out.
      • ulsterwrod, on 04/17/2008, -2/+2"And what does that make you?" Someone who tells the truth about the bias here.
    • neognostic, on 04/17/2008, -1/+5I digg them up just to piss off whiners like you @kacole2
    • Drax0n, on 04/17/2008, -0/+4It was the fact ABC didn't ask any questions abhout anything that actually matters, they had a agreat chance to DEBATE policy, economic, foriegn, domestic all issues that will really matter to the next presidant. But instead ABC acted like a cheap tabloid going after panty sjots of paris hilton. it was disrespectful to both candidates.
  • phatt-matt, on 04/17/2008, -9/+3You shouldn't be mad at ABC. You should be mad at Obama. What a lightweight. If he can't answer a few tough questions at a debate, how do you think he would be able to handle the presidency?
    • biggyfred, on 04/17/2008, -1/+4Tough questions? I didn't hear any tough questions. I was too distracted by the high school-esque journalism by the moderators. I taped it and went back to watch it again, thinking maybe I was just being uptight. It was even worse the second time. I still can't believe that the candidates themselves had to bring up the mortgage issue, one we can all agree is seriously screwing up the economy. Seriously, WTF?
    • laserdog, on 04/17/2008, -0/+4Tough questions would have been awesome. He is an amazing speaker.

      Asking him the same thing that has been asked for the past two weeks is just weak sauce.
      • phatt-matt, on 04/17/2008, -3/+3Then why did he have so much trouble? He should have blown them away, right? Instead he stammered and sounded unsure in everything he said. This is the guy who has said he'll "talk" with terrorist leaders. Who's going to be tougher? The terrorists or the press?
        • biggyfred, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2Everyone expected a heavyweight championship title bout, including both candidates and most people around the US and the world. *Everyone*. There were times when both candidates were obviously irritated and dumbstruck by the level of discourse. Sure, he stumbled a few times. Is a stumble in an absolutely awful debate meant to trap and deceive in any way analogous to a sit down with Hamas as the President of the United States? Gimme a ***** break, dude. If you don't like him that's fine. Many don't. But don't be a total douchebag about it. Geez. You aren't being dugg down because what you're saying is politically acceptable. You're being dugg down because what you're saying is ***** retarded.
        • StarlessKnight, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2OH MY GOD HE STUMBLED? Nothing like George W. Protecting-us-from-Terrorists Bush, right? He's so eloquent and regal and-- cut the crap. People are allowed to stumble when not reading off a script.
        • laserdog, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1I thought his response to the terrorist association question was great.

          On the spot he thought to equate it to the abortion bombers on the right. And then, after turning the sword, instead of attacking he just dropped it, saying essentially "you shouldn't have to apologize for being in the precense of crazies".

          He says he doesn't like it when politics is being played. And when he has the opportunity to play the same ones, he doesn't.
  • 140Suffolk, on 04/17/2008, -19/+7What are you people afraid of? Obama, when he thought no one was listening, displayed his contempt for working Americans. We DO think this is important.

    Obama likes to spend Sundays listening to anti-white, anti-American hate speeches. Then lies about it. We DO think this is important.

    Obama has a come-over-and-bring-the-wife-for-barbecues friendship with a terrorist bomber from the 60s! We DO think that's important too.
    • biggyfred, on 04/17/2008, -2/+10I dugg you up because we need to remember that there are people like you in the shadows of the US. If we slip up, douche bags like you will always be there to slither into positions of power.

      And that has nothing to do with Obama.
      • dagnabbit, on 04/17/2008, -1/+6And I dugg him down, because ***** him.
      • 140Suffolk, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Geez, you kids can't stand to hear something different can you?
    • laserdog, on 04/17/2008, -2/+4You see contempt where I see a politician actually displaying empathy and true understanding of the complex factors that are killing the middle class.

      But I suppose you'd prefer a president who just smiles and recites "Americans are the greatest people in the world!"
    • Buzzpatrol, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3You are exactly the kind of stupid, bible bashing, gun toating redneck ***** that we DON'T need in a serious debate!

      If you cant see through and realize what Obama means (Which EVERY single socialogy professor would agree with by the way) you are retarded sir!

      Dugg deep down!
      • 140Suffolk, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Every single sociology professor? Oh, then I take it back. Not.
        You think it doesn't matter? OK. Wait til November. That's why you're so frantic to cover it up.
  • papipablo, on 04/17/2008, -1/+6ABC really showed that there was absolutely no need for another debate between Obama and Clinton. We've heard it all before. Rather than focus on issues, they focused on the same garbage stories we've been hearing for months. The media knows that as long as they can keep Obama/Clinton going they can sell advertisements, and that's all they really care about.
    • milliamp, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2It is a common, well established campaign tactic to use dirty/smear politics near the end of the debate rather than just focusing on individual issues. This has repeatedly shown to be effective with the American people, which is why it is basically standard practice.
      • ulsterwrod, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1sorry i pressed the wrong button. i meant to digg it.
  • 140Suffolk, on 04/17/2008, -9/+3The reason we think the Rev Wright story and the bitterness/cling story are important is this: these are what tell us what a person will do when no one is watching.
    And what we've learned about Barack is that when he thinks no one is watching he wants to take his young daughters to listen to a hate speech. He wants to buddy up with 60s bombers.
    If the Dems are silly enough to nominate him it will also come out how he made speeches for his cousin Raila in Kenya. The one who just lost for President there. And then turned his minions loose to burn 1,000 Christians alive. Look it up.
    • StarlessKnight, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1And that would be the reason why you're wrong.

      Say, when do we arrest the Bush family for those ties I heard about with the Nazis way back in the day? Oh, sins of the father clause not in effect? That's too bad, I do so enjoy guilt by association trips. /s
      • 140Suffolk, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1What his grandfather? Two generations ago? You think that's similar? OK.
        How about Barack making speeches for his cousin Raila in Kenya? The one who lost for president a few months ago. Then turned his followers loose to burn 1,000 Christian alive.
  • hulettk, on 04/17/2008, -1/+0The news media is following the example led by Fox and ultimately Jerry Springer. When Jerry left real journalism for trash TV, he made a ton of money and had an enormous base of viewers. Fox aligned their newsroom with the drama-laden format that Jerry perfected. They even hired Geraldo. Now other networks want a piece of that pie. Get your waders, the trash tide is rising fast.
  • hamobu, on 04/17/2008, -1/+5Tom Shales is a great TV reviewer. he does a great job of recongnizing where the problem with the show is and then communicating it to the reader in a concise, yet engaging way. I dugg the article just for Tom Shales.
  • spikespikespike, on 04/17/2008, -1/+3Just like to point out the guy who wrote the article is listed as a "Style Columnist," not a political commentator...which actually might give him more credibility.
    • jcasaurus, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1I didn't watch the debate, but it sounds l like there weren't any "political" things to "commentate" on.
    • wheresjim, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1He's actually the TV reviewer for the Post, not a political commentator.
  • cheeseysynapse, on 04/17/2008, -11/+2Operation Chaos! Whats the matter marxists? The poor abc news man treated YOU LIKE A ***** REPUBLICAN FOR ONCE?! LOL. YOU ***** BITCHES MAKE ME LAUGH! BEST DEBATE EVER!
    • Sean42, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1so you were satisfied with flag lapel pin questions? I don't care who you support, the questions were stupid.
    • StarlessKnight, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1This is what 90% of DIGG just heard: Wha, whawha wha. Wha, wha whawha WHAWHAWHA WHA, WHAWHA, WHA WHA WHAWHA.
  • DavidS9, on 04/17/2008, -2/+2That wasn't a debate it was a light pillow fight. Yeah some of the things stung but not for more then a minute. I have had more thoughtful and insightful discussions with a two year old. Last time I was in a debate, they may have changed the rules cause it was in high school, my main job was to under cut my opposition's stance and make them look as foolish as possible. Last night sounded more like a polite discussion of similar view points.
  • mshtml, on 04/17/2008, -3/+8The same thing happened to Ron Paul in every republican debate. You didn't care then about media bias or how corporate interests control what you see and hear on tv. Now that Obama is being systematically deflated on a national level you cry foul?
    • cjshamrock, on 04/17/2008, -0/+8Yeah it's a shame what they did to RP. He deserved better
      • Drax0n, on 04/17/2008, -2/+1Yea just look at all the states he won!
        • toastjam, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2That's exactly the point, Drax0n: had he been given a fair shake in the debates and news coverage based on the strengths of his positions, perhaps he would have done better in the voting booth.
  • Trichomonas, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1You have to love, among other, the Washington Post, NY Times and The Economist. As long as articles published here are well written and provide different viewpoints on the issue I'm happy.
    • RMRilke, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2The Christian Science Monitor has excellent reporting as well, especially on international news, I highly recommend it if you like those three.
      • hyaena, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Don't let the "Christian" part scare you away. It did me at first, but then I read about the history of the CSM.
      • Trichomonas, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1I'll take a look. Thanks for the info.
  • trademork, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1ABC also showed that they don't have their act together online either. Stuck at work, I went to their live blog of the debate and the page kept hanging up and crashing my browser. Thanks for nothing, ABC.
  • renski13, on 04/17/2008, -0/+13It's interesting. You can see how frustrated Obama is with this whole debate. I started to feel like the debate was between him and the moderators. There's only one thing I disagree on with Obama. He keeps saying the American people are smart enough to see through the distractions and reach the true issues. Obviously any politician has to say this but I don't believe the American people are smart enough to see through the distractions. It's a sad idea but when Paris Hilton is on the news and we need disclaimers on our coffee cups I don't believe Americans can see through distractions.
  • cjshamrock, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2This debate changed nothing.

  • mfc5200, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2So is the news in this country slowly turning into this?

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-752920742 ...

    I have a feeling that movie is going to be prophetic.
  • Knabber, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2The "Clear Loser is........" the American people.

    After another awful excuse for a "debate" on real issues, people will still unfortunately vote for one of these two. Is this a surprise to anyone that the debates (especially a liberal one) was about he said - she said BS? I find it hilarious that even a rigged "debate" for the Democratic party can't get passed their own candidate's issues of character.

    All three candidates have been chosen for you, now its just a matter of time which clown gets elected by the sheeple and if we bend over to the left or to the right. You're still bending over regardless.


  • T8erT0T, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2Gibson and Stephanopoulos acted like two wash-women who had no idea what the hell they were talking.
    A 12 year old junior high American Government student could have done a better job asking questions.
  • JohnnyKdiggs, on 04/17/2008, -1/+18Stolen elections don't always look like violence and revolution. Sometimes they look like TV programs.
    • xhazerdusx, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Wow. This is seriously great insight.
  • ajadoniz, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1So now you guys are complaining about the soap opera-y *****? I wish I had taken screen shots of the digg front page from the past 6 months. Good thing I don't base my political opinions on what I read on here and I hope you guys don't either.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 76 of 76 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.