The Slant Against Hillary

What was astonishing about last night's debate was that the very bias which the Clinton campaign has frequently complained about against her candidacy and in favor of Obama's campaign was once again plainly and unashamedly in evidence. It was embodied in the way Tim Russert, an angry scowl on his face, honed in on Hillary Clinton on the NAFTA issue -- and kept bullying her after every answer she gave. In contrast, he kept his fury in check when addressing Obama about the same issue. The only time he really focused some ire on Obama was over the Farrakhan issue.

Russert raised the idea of Obama rejecting Farrakhan rather than simply denouncing him but then never pursued it when Obama deflected the question with a non-answer. Finally it was Hillary Clinton who got Obama to agree to reject Farrakhan rather than simply denounce him. Next time Mr. Russert should watch Saturday Night Live on his own NBC network to find out what NBC's own highly regarded show thinks about the continuing bias against Hillary.

Comments

[LeoMarvin]

Nonsense.

[athy]

Many of my friends had wanted to consider voting for Sen Obama but the media is not doing its job in following up with him about many questions that they (and I ) and other voters have on the following:

-Times UK investigation 2/26/08 article "did British Iraqi billionaire Nadhmi Auchi really lend millions of $ to Barack Obama"s fundraiser weeks before Mansion land deal in Chicago?-

-What is the true relationship (if any exists) between Mr Auchi, Mr. Rezko and Sen. Obama?

-How much $ does Sen. Obama receive from various industry sectors "not lobbyists? How does HE define a Lobbyist?
--How much does he receive from in-house lobbyists who work solely for one company, union,trade association, or other group? I understand that these people may lobby but their contributions are grouped in the totals (acc to a recent article posted in CJR)for the various industries they represent, along with contributions from other employees in the sector, their relatives, whatever PAC money has been raised, and donations from trade and professional associations.
-On what basis did the politically controversial former advisor to former president Jimmy Carter Zbigniew Brzezinski endorse Sen. Obama last summer, for president?
-Some claim that it was Brezinski"s misguided actions (during the 1960"s and "70"s in Afghanistan/Soviet Union conflict) that led to the present day military strength buildup of Osama Bin Ladin"s "including others- terrorist groups. Any comments from Sen. Obama about this?
-On what basis did Sen. Obama select Brzezinski to serve as a foreign policy advisor for him?
-During this weeks" debate-Sen. Obama brought up his Terri Schiavo experience as one in which he regrets supporting the unanimously-arrived at decision of the Senate. How does he feel about the way in which the decision was arrived at (Voice votes because 97 Senators were out of town and only 3 were on the floor during the vote)
-What does Se. Obama think about the fact that the law which was "unanimously" approved by Voice Vote was a violation of the separation of powers. Many historians and constitutional lawyers argued that Congress had exceeded its powers by substituting its judgment for that of the courts and directing the courts . Judge Stanley Francis Birch Agreed.

-Who decided that there would be no formal record of this vote and what does Sen. Obama think about this? Does he view it as going against his position of supporting transparency and accountability in government? Why or why not?

-Sen Obama sponsored a bill in February 2007 which defined a legal structure to prosecute State Dept. contractor crimes in US courts. There is a good possibility it will not pass until the next pres. takes power. Even if it passes, there are serious unresolved questions about how contractor crimes can be monitored effectively. The US Embassy in Iraq is slated to become the largest embassy in the world. If Sen. Obama as president maintains that embassy (and its army of diplomats and US personnel going in and out of the Green Zone) a significant armed force will be required for protection. That job is presently being contracted out to private contractors including Blackwater, DynCorp, and Triple Canopy. Based upon the wording of the sponsored bill (which is considered weak in the area of providing accountability measures ) some legal experts and Justice Department officials claim that the new president may be forced to continue using these "unaccountable" forces in Iraq. What is Sen. Obama"s opinion of this statement?

[seilnotnilc]

The media is not creating the inconsistencies and lies that are integral to MRS Clinton but observing and reporting.

[FLB]

Yes, I agree. And, not to be mean, but doesn't the press have some reasonable contempt for the Clintons since they are so often found to be less than honest? I actually think the press has shown great generosity to her by not bringing up Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, et.al. mistresses of Bill's... something the RNC would surely love to pounce on. Even her most ardent and supportive biographers often retell stories about her tendency to be "secretive."

So, I do think it's fair for the press to (pardon the pun) "press" Mrs. Clinton on her tax returns, White House archives, foreign policy experience (remember, she never had a security clearance as First Lady), and other pertinent matters. Now, they could be more civil about it though...

[roncraw]

Obama should have never have been able to make lite and had the crowd laughting when Hillary had him denouce Farrahan's support.He and most people in the audience knew the words didn't mean the same thing.Denouce(reject,castoff) condemn(openly discard).If Tim wasn't so biased against Hillary he'd have called him out on it.

[BeyondGoodAndEvil]

Pity you don't even know what words were used.
Did you watch the debate?
Did you have your hearing aid turned on?

Obama "denounced" Farrakhan's support.

Clinton insisted Obama also "reject" Farrakhan's support.

A couple of days later, Clinton herself refused to "denounce" OR "reject" support given by a Latino in Dallas who said "Obama's problem is that he happens to be black".

http://salon.glenrose.net/?view=plink&id=6471

One of Hillary's problems is that she is a hypocrite. Her hypocrisy is often on display, as witnessed during the debate in Wisconsin, when she criticized Obama for using words that were from his friend Deval Patrick. Minutes later she lifted words from both Bill Clinton and John Edwards.

Hillary, ready on day 1 to make a complete fool of herself.

[seilnotnilc]

I agree, Roncraw is splitting hairs and Hillary is still an paragon of virtue, truth, and the American way. It is sad that she has to bulk up her dearth of experience with lies yet the tragedy is that she lies to herself.

james

[Annavedo]

Pity that YOU are the one who doesn't even know what words were used. It was not Hillary, but TIM RUSSERT who originally attempted to get Obama to not simply denounce, but REJECT Farrakhan's support. Obama wouldn't do it, and tiptoed all around an answer. Tim had his nose so far up Obama's ass that he let it go. Hillary held Obama's feet to the fire and forced him to do it. Later, when the Latina you mentioned made her questionable remark, Hillay was in fact, quick to both denounce AND reject her support. Get your facts straight.

[NYC07]

She has lost 11 straight elections, Name one other candidate who had that record that the Democrats didn't want to leave the race ?? I think she is getting the biggest pass ever.

[AGPolitics]

How can any sane person ask her to get out of the race when her supporters are raising all this money and asking her to fight for them?
Hillary had over 8 million people go out to vote for her in good and bad weather, Obama had around 10 million. Even though O is wining, there are still too many H supporters for her to ignore them or dismiss them
All you O supporters are making a mistake to keep calling on her to quit. ALL AMERICANS should have their voice heard in the primaries.
If you are so sure of O's wins, why are you so afraid of her running? Why can't you all act like grown-ups and accept that she has her own supporters? Huckabee is still runing and McCain says it's his right....Are Obama supporters trying to take away our right to even vote as well as the nomination... how absolutely UNACCEPTABLE!!!

[kgb999]

Uuuuhhh .... I've never heard Obama say Hillary should quit. Likewise, I've heard of many McCain SUPPORTERS calling on Huckabee to quit.

[arthuride]

Obama won because many Republicans voted for him, noting thre realities: (1) they will vote GOP in November, (2) America is still racist and most will vote against ANY black candidate, and (3) most older Americans want someone with experience and not just rhetorical skills and will vote for that experience over rhetoric in November--people like me (even when we are registered Democrats)--as style of substance has little meaning to us. Obama, I agree, will win the nomination, and Democrats like me--who have consistently voted for proven, experienced, Democrats for 40-50 years--will ensure his defeat in November.

[kgb999]

If you'd vote for McCain, then you are NOT a democrat - both candidates very amply represent the democratic party's platform while McCain clearly does not. That would be like throwing a temper tantrum - in which case, you deserve another 8 years of GOP rule.

I think it's as much the Clinton supporters as Clinton herself who are her undoing. A lifelong "democrat" threatening to defeat their own party's candidate if the don't get their way - man!

[FLB]

You really expect us to believe you were ever an Obama supporter. Pleeaazzeee.....

[ProgressiveJ]

Having Republicans in your cabinet is nothing revolutionary - Bush had a Democrat in his cabinet, and Clinton had a former Republican as Secretary of Defense.

What would really be revolutionary is Universal Health Care. What would really be revolutionary is an economic stimulus package that went beyond shallow tax breaks and actually stimulated the economy through spending and directly reducing energy costs for middle americans. hillary is offering the SUBSTANCE of revolution, not just the RHETORIC of revolution.

If Obama was really serious about getting rid of the special interests, he would not be using the rhetoric and imagery of the special interests in mailers speaking out against universal health care. Simply disgusting, and he gets away with it. And on NAFTA, Obama said in speeches in 2000 and 2004 that on balance NAFTA was good for the economy...hillary actually started denouncing NAFTA before Obama did!! And who picks up on it? Who cares? Nobody. Because the media is a pack of sheep and seem hell-bent against electing a woman president, even if she is the most qualified person for the job. This election has made me sick.

[LisaP]

The MSM love Barack Obama for three main reasons:

1. He is a male.
2. He allows them the illusion of relieving their white guilt.
3. Hillary's obvious intellectual gifts produce in them an unbearable case of brain-envy.

Thanks so much MSM for ensuring that John McCain will be the next "Mr. President".

[taxiq]

Lisa - You nailed it 1-3. But I hope the American public is not so stupid & masochistic to elect another right-wing republican.

[seilnotnilc]

you are a sexist* and Hillary has no intellectual gifts. You need to understand the difference between being intelligent and being well-educated. In fact, with her GIFTto remake the same mistake she doesn't appear to even be educable.

james
* and before you answer that a woman cannot be a sexist let me define the term for you:
sexism is discrimination based on gender especially against women not EXCLUSIVELY against women. So you too, can be a sexist and obviously are.

[SShaw490]

Hillary's problem is she's running a typical political campaign in which she is formulating positions on issues, responses to potential charges, manipulating alliances behind the scenes, etc. Obama, on the other hand, is standing there telling America what he thinks and what he stands for. A perfect example was Obama saying that, if elected, he'd ask Republicans to serve in his cabinet - a move that's generally thought to be politically inexpedient, to say the least, when you're trying to get the Democratic nomination. But that's what he thought, and that's what he said.

Clinton's problem is that she's so used to parsing politics that she hasn't retained the ability to just say what she thinks. The American people can tell.

[swanky]

Too bad they're not his words.

[SCharb]

Ah, yes, Saturday Night Live"" the comedy show of record. You know you're losing when you start citing SNL as reality.

Lil' Timmy made a very special effort to be fair by badgering Obama. Would you rather go first, or be accused of anti-Semitism? Choose wisely!

[eyeswideopennow]

Initially, I was an Edwards supporter, then I was an Obama supporter, but for the past month, after reading all the hateful, demeaning posters, ie Obamabots, I have changed my mind. I am now totally supporting Hillary Rodham Clinton. That is Senator Clinton to you mister. They attack her like you hear about on Fox, MSNBC, talk radio etc. And what that has told me is that I am no longer comfortable at any of these sites, with the exception of DK. There, Democrats are somewhat tired of the vitriol and there is more balance.

Senator Obama cannot win without the support of the entire Democratic Party. If you do not want my support of your candidate, if he wins the nomination, then keep up with the Republican talking points. And I am not just one voter, Senator Clinton's support is huge. I am tired of the sexists, mysognists crap from Obama's supporters. Post as you like, but know that you are seriously hurting the chances of your St. Obama.

I will vote for Nader, or I will write-in a vote for HRC.

[seilnotnilc]

I believe you need to change you user name to Eyes Wide Shut if you believe Obama supporters have cornered the market on sleaze and it is your candidate that is using the Republican's play book. have you noticed the latest fear mongering commercial of Hillary Clinton? But if you really wish to see vitriol go on to the democrats website and question Hillary's questionable experience. You will note or probably not that the stats that Hillary attracts the less educated are correct for they attempt to refute fact with fury.

james

[candybar]

Regarding Hillary getting the first questions at the debates TODD said she got six out of ten of the first questions Abrams said she had a legitimate claim she got five out of rhe first six in the debates since december. He as a lawyer said its better to go second. EVEN TODD HAD TO MASSAGE THE FIGURES TO MAKE THE CASE AGAINST HER

[sjl106]

And your part of the problem stephen. set the record straight!

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304

The New Republic
Race Man by Sean Wilentz
How Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton.
Post Date Wednesday, February 27, 2008



DISCUSS ARTICLE [404]
|
PRINT
|
EMAIL ARTICLE





After several weeks of swooning, news reports are finally being filed about the gap between Senator Barack Obama's promises of a pure, soul-cleansing "new" politics and the calculated, deeply dishonest conduct of his actually-existing campaign. But it remains to be seen whether the latest ploy by the Obama camp--over allegations about the circulation of a photograph of Obama in ceremonial Somali dress--will be exposed by the press as the manipulative illusion that it is.
Most of the recent correctives have concerned outrageously deceptive advertisements approved and released by Obama's campaign. First, in Iowa, the Obama camp aired radio ads patterned on the notorious "Harry and Louise" Republican propaganda from 1993, charging falsely that Senator Hillary Clinton's health care proposal would "force those who cannot afford health insurance to buy it, punishing those who won't fall in line." In subsequent primary and caucus campaigns, the Obama campaign sent out millions of mailers, also featuring the "Harry and Louise" motif, falsely claiming that Clinton favored "punishing families who can't afford health care in the first place." A few bloggers and columnists, notably Paul Krugman in The New York Times, described the ads as distorting, but the national press corps mainly ignored them--until Clinton herself, seeing the fraudulent mailers reappear in Ohio over the past weekend, publicly denounced them.
The Obama mass mailings also attempt to appeal to Ohio's labor vote by claiming that Clinton believed that the North American Free Trade Agreement, signed in 1993 by President Bill Clinton, was a "'boon' to our economy." More falsehood: In fact, Clinton had not said that; Newsday originally applied the word "boon" and has now noted the Obama campaign's distortion. In this campaign, Clinton has called for a moratorium on all trade agreements until they are made consistent with labor and environmental standards--and account for the effect on jobs in the United States. Obama makes a big deal about how Bill Clinton signed NAFTA. But he fails to mention that, within the councils of her husband's administration, Hillary Clinton was a skeptic of free trade agreements, and as a senator and candidate she has said that NAFTA contained flaws that need to be rectified. Ignoring all that, the Obama flyer features an alarming photograph of closed plant gates, having no connection to any action of Senator Clinton's, as well as the dubious quotation about her from Newsday in 2006. Newsday has criticized "Obama's use of the quotation" as "misleading ... an example of the kind of slim reeds campaigns use to try and win an office." Obama, without retracting the mailing (and while playing to protectionist sentiment in the party) said only that he would have his staff look into the matter--long after the ad has done its dirty work.
Misleading propaganda is hardly new in American politics --although the adoption of techniques reminiscent of past Republican and special-interest hit jobs, right down to a retread of the fictional couple, seems strangely at odds with a campaign that proclaims it will redeem the country from precisely these sorts of divisive and manipulative tactics. As insidious as these tactics are, though, the Obama campaign's most effective gambits have been far more egregious and dangerous than the hypocritical deployment of deceptive and disingenuous attack ads. To a large degree, the campaign's strategists turned the primary and caucus race to their advantage when they deliberately, falsely, and successfully portrayed Clinton and her campaign as unscrupulous race-baiters--a campaign-within-the-campaign in which the worked-up flap over the Somali costume photograph is but the latest episode. While promoting Obama as a "post-racial" figure, his campaign has purposefully polluted the contest with a new strain of what historically has been the most toxic poison in American politics.

[barackoblogger]

When will the Clintons take responsibility for ANY of the mess they've made of their campaign?

[SouthCentralDel]

sjl106,

You leave out a ton of details about the details you cite, that are less helpful to your candidate. You can't be taken as seriously when you do.

[sjl106]

and your part of the problem, set the record straight.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304

The New Republic
Race Man by Sean Wilentz
How Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton.
Post Date Wednesday, February 27, 2008

After several weeks of swooning, news reports are finally being filed about the gap between Senator Barack Obama's promises of a pure, soul-cleansing "new" politics and the calculated, deeply dishonest conduct of his actually-existing campaign. But it remains to be seen whether the latest ploy by the Obama camp--over allegations about the circulation of a photograph of Obama in ceremonial Somali dress--will be exposed by the press as the manipulative illusion that it is.
Most of the recent correctives have concerned outrageously deceptive advertisements approved and released by Obama's campaign. First, in Iowa, the Obama camp aired radio ads patterned on the notorious "Harry and Louise" Republican propaganda from 1993, charging falsely that Senator Hillary Clinton's health care proposal would "force those who cannot afford health insurance to buy it, punishing those who won't fall in line." In subsequent primary and caucus campaigns, the Obama campaign sent out millions of mailers, also featuring the "Harry and Louise" motif, falsely claiming that Clinton favored "punishing families who can't afford health care in the first place." A few bloggers and columnists, notably Paul Krugman in The New York Times, described the ads as distorting, but the national press corps mainly ignored them--until Clinton herself, seeing the fraudulent mailers reappear in Ohio over the past weekend, publicly denounced them.
The Obama mass mailings also attempt to appeal to Ohio's labor vote by claiming that Clinton believed that the North American Free Trade Agreement, signed in 1993 by President Bill Clinton, was a "'boon' to our economy." More falsehood: In fact, Clinton had not said that; Newsday originally applied the word "boon" and has now noted the Obama campaign's distortion. In this campaign, Clinton has called for a moratorium on all trade agreements until they are made consistent with labor and environmental standards--and account for the effect on jobs in the United States. Obama makes a big deal about how Bill Clinton signed NAFTA. But he fails to mention that, within the councils of her husband's administration, Hillary Clinton was a skeptic of free trade agreements, and as a senator and candidate she has said that NAFTA contained flaws that need to be rectified. Ignoring all that, the Obama flyer features an alarming photograph of closed plant gates, having no connection to any action of Senator Clinton's, as well as the dubious quotation about her from Newsday in 2006. Newsday has criticized "Obama's use of the quotation" as "misleading ... an example of the kind of slim reeds campaigns use to try and win an office." Obama, without retracting the mailing (and while playing to protectionist sentiment in the party) said only that he would have his staff look into the matter--long after the ad has done its dirty work.
Misleading propaganda is hardly new in American politics --although the adoption of techniques reminiscent of past Republican and special-interest hit jobs, right down to a retread of the fictional couple, seems strangely at odds with a campaign that proclaims it will redeem the country from precisely these sorts of divisive and manipulative tactics. As insidious as these tactics are, though, the Obama campaign's most effective gambits have been far more egregious and dangerous than the hypocritical deployment of deceptive and disingenuous attack ads. To a large degree, the campaign's strategists turned the primary and caucus race to their advantage when they deliberately, falsely, and successfully portrayed Clinton and her campaign as unscrupulous race-baiters--a campaign-within-the-campaign in which the worked-up flap over the Somali costume photograph is but the latest episode. While promoting Obama as a "post-racial" figure, his campaign has purposefully polluted the contest with a new strain of what historically has been the most toxic poison in American politics.

[elizab1949]

Are you kidding?? This article, written by a very respectful historian, is a joke. he fails to mention that he is numero uno clinton friend/champion. I could not believe the garbage in this piece...

[taxiq]

Brilliant!

[hank48188]

It's not the first question of the debate, it's when the same question is asked of both Hillary and Obama. Hilary will answer first and give a detailed response and then Obama will say he agrees with what Hillary just said.

[pilotinfla]

The problem is that Clinton is basically dishonest and Obama is basically honest. Clinton was not honest about her changing views on NAFTA, she claimed she would release her tax returns soon and today we find out that she really won't and she blames the delay in release of old White House papers on George Bush who has nothing to do with it. I could go on...

I think Russert did a great job in trying to pin Hillary down -- she is slick Hill -- always ready with the quick lie. Why would anyone want someone who is so nasty and distasteful to be president?

[Macready]

well said pilotinfla

[swanky]

I'm with ya Rastaman426 - maybe he can throw the money changers out too.

[Rastaman426]

Yeah...I can't wait until Obama becomes President...then he can walk on water, turn water into wine...and raise the dead...YEAH!!! Can't Wait...

[seilnotnilc]

your point is well taken that she is nasty and distasteful but I could live with that for she is not running for ms congeniality . My problems with her is her need to lie when the truth would better serve; her lack of skills or experience; her righteous indignation when the truth is told about her which I believe should be reserved for the righteous. She reminds me of the old joke, if her mouth is moving she's lying but then her experience lies in lying.

james

[Leftielder]

Time for some new glasses. She's not being savaged by the press. SHE'S LOSING! Yell at Mark Penn.

[seilnotnilc]

no, yell at her. If she can't control her paid minions what will she do with a split/hostile congress?

[LeftLeanWing]

The Slant against Hillary is that she is trying too hard to prove that she is as Good As A Man when she really doesn't have to. She should have shown us how Great It Is to be Woman.

I was expecting for her to convey that a woman would lead differently and that that ain't bad. All of this Fight Fight Fight She-Ra Xena rants kind of wore on me after awhile.

To be honest the political sensibilities I expected to see in the first viable woman candidate are being portrayed by Obama instead.

Isn't it Ironic ....

[clr2]

Hillary isn't even the best woman to run. What has she done on her own? NOTHING!

[swanky]

Cuz a woman is nothing without her husband, right? She couldn't POSSIBLY have done ANYTHING herself, right? She's an appendage, right? Or wait, I got it - She's a RIB! That's what you're saying isn't it?

[dragonfly142]

Since when? a photo op of the king of dirty tricks Karl Rove is telling the GOP to play nice....since when does the GOP play nice...why are they being so kind to Obama? This from the guy...that had the whisper campaign on Ann Richards was a lesbian to Get Bush elected to gov of texas. Bush's chief of staff giving Obama credit?? is something wierd about this? We have just finsihed with 9/11..people don't feel to kindly towards radical muslims; and the fact Obama's father was muslim and his stepfather was a radical muslim and Obama went to a radical muslim school in Jakarta doesn't seem to matterat all??? There are so many questions...and they are all swept under the carpet,we are to believe the whole world and all caucasian people are now colorblind...it would be real nice, but not likely!! both by GOP and by gop corporate press who would have you think Obama walks on water. Staged faintings close enough for Obama to react to and within camera range??? Is it me or does something really stink here??. CT people are voting african american??? uppity white folks...sure I'll buy that!! Iowa white farm fol ..ok I'll buuy that ...etc etc etc..perhaps along the lines of the 2000 rigged elections. Even liberals who hated the 2000 election have been swept up in the He is the second coming Rapture propaganda. It seems it isn't important he was brought up in a radical muslim culture..it doesn't matter he has no experience at all...Nothing seems to matter not even that he has only been a senator since 2005...Don't attack Obama not if you are GOP or democrat? No he is untouchable WHY??? The corporate press vehemantly hate Hillary and praise Obama...if you haven't noticed you are blind! All african americans are thinking like a group again...and he is not even one of them or one of us. He and his church have Louis Farrakhan ties....that doesn't matter and the wierdest part the press won't report anything derogatory about Obama...this wreaks controlled election.. .The fix is in folks

[LeftLeanWing]

"his stepfather was a radical muslim and Obama went to a radical muslim school in Jakarta doesn't seem to matterat all???"

o Right-o, a radical Muslim would marry a white unconverted divorced non virginal atheist with a black kid.

o Barack's 'radical' elementary school in Jakarta was a secular school with boys and girls in the same classroom. It was called a 'Sekolah' which translates from Malay into School. It was a school started by and administered by the Dutch for there expatriates before being taken over by the Indonesian government

" It seems it isn't important he was brought up in a radical Muslim culture."

o with the exception of the 4 years in Indonesia; Obama was raised by his divorced single mother and his Kansas born Midwest ( not Mideast) grandparents.

Obama will not be Swiftboated without a fight

Go back to your Swiftboat Madrassa, you really do suck at it, back rehashing and string together that same old rejected crap.

[elizab1949]

The problem is, your story is wrong...he never went to a radical muslim school...this whole story has been circulating for over a year...a Clinton precinct worker in Iowa was fired for emailing it around...
the negatives are coming around now that he is ahead...just wait. and clinton contributes her fair share (via her campaign of course)

[GREATERSC]

Get all of your facts right before you open your mouth. I am prould to say that Barack Obama is one of us. If he was poor and struggling then that is all you would see is another black man or to be politacally correct African American. Just because Hillary Clinton says something that does not make it true. If you are going to beleive that then you might as wall take George W. Bush at his word. And these questions that are swept up under the carpet. They are to get people just like you, who do not fact find for themselves to find out the truth. They play on your fear of a powerful black man turning this country over to radical muslims. Do you think that there is anyway that it could possibly happen. Do your research and you might get by all of this mess about the press playing favorites with Obama. If he had lost eleven in a row they would have packed his bags for him and sent him back to Washington D.C. or better yet back to his home state. Check your facts.

[Ono4Hoopono]

OK. There is something reeeeeaaaaally fishy going on here.

After the last debate, I posted a complaint that Clinton had an advantage because she got to go first AND she got the last word [for which she got a lot of coverage when she said what an honor it was to run against Obama so it was a REAL ADVANTAGE]. I also brought up the point that the most questions were put to her first, giving her another distinct advantage to control the debate, and put Obama on the defensive, by making him have to answer to her buried attacks before getting to his own position.

But when I posted that complaint, a Hillary supporter[now apparently a Hillary troll] lambasted me, saying Obama had CHOSEN to go second.

BUT: if Obama HAD CHOSEN to go second or had gotten second from some sort of a DRAW, CLINTON WOULD HAVE MENTIONED IT LAST NIGHT, but she DIDN'T. AND IF IT WAS BASED ON A DRAW, OBAMA OR THE MEDIATORS WOULD HAVE MENTIONED IT, but THEY didn't. So we know the plant that Obama had chosen to go second WAS ANOTHER LIE PLANTED BY THE CLINTON DISINFORMATION BRIGADE.

IT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME THAT OBAMA WOULD CHOOSE TO GO SECOND, because of the DISTINCT ADVANTAGE in GOING FIRST, and the distinct disadvantage in always having to play catch-up when your very capable opponent gets to set the tone of the debate.

So somebody in the Clinton camp is telling a tall tale, you can't have it both ways.

[vanessa04]

Debate tactics 101: He who has to answer first is at a disadvantage. The person who answers second gets to rebut and respond to the points made by the first. Going first is NOT an advantage. That's why, in FAIR debates they...

...ALTERNATE questions between the two participants.

It's not about setting the tone of the debate. Go first, and you have to show your hand to your opponent.

Rationalize away, but Tuesday's debate was a sparkling example of the media bias for Obama. Thus it has been for months.

[punkingale]

Obama chose to go second in the CNN debate. Campbell Brown said he did. Did you even watch that debate?