Debate Reaction

I missed the debate, and apparently I missed a show. 

Marc Ambinder:   

Keeping the score card, there's no way Obama could fared worse. Nearly 45 minutes of relentless political scrutiny from the ABC anchors and from Hillary Clinton, followed by an issues-and-answers session in which his anger carried over and sort of neutered him. But Hillary Clinton has a Reverse-Teflon problem: her negatives are up, and when she's perceived as the attacker, the attacks never seem to settle on Obama and always seem to boomerang back on her. So it would be unwise to declare that Hillary "won" the debate in the dynamic sense just yet.

Well, if Hillary is still "Rocky", this must have been Rocky II.

Andrew Sullivan, normally a lyrical Obama supporter:

9.51 pm. The big winner is John McCain. Then Clinton who seemed at least awake. Then Obama whose calm was nonetheless trumped by obvious exhaustion.

Obama is tired now?  Wait 'til the 3 AM phone calls start.

More Sully here:

It was a lifeless, exhausted, drained and dreary Obama we saw tonight. I've seen it before when he is tired, but this was his worst performance yet on national television. He seemed crushed and unable to react. This is big-time politics and he's up against the Clinton wood-chipper. But there is no disguising the fact that he wilted, painfully.

But there is always a silver lining of the rain is falling on Obama:

In some ways, I'm glad. No normal reasonable person subjected to the series of attacks on his integrity, faith, patriotism, decency and honesty would not wilt. And we need a normal reasonable person in the White House again.

So the more Obama wilts, the more normal he is, and the more normal he is, the more we need him in the White House.  Hmm, the next time McCain commits a verbal miscue, I await Andrew's sigh of relief at McCain's normalcy.

This from Sully is funny:

9.32 pm. No questions on the environment, none on terror, none on interrogation, none on torture, none on education, none on spending, none on healthcare, none on Iran … but four separate questions in the first hour about a lapel-pin, Bitter-gate, Wright-gate and Ayers.

Put another way - OMG!  I have been watching for twenty minutes and no one has had a chance to bash Bush! 

Karl at Team Protein also snarks at Andrew's media criticism.

Comments

[capitano]

Obama whose calm was nonetheless trumped by obvious exhaustion.

Dude, we were told McCain was too old. If all that fund-raising is too much, imagine when the pressure is 24/7/365 for 4 or 8 years.

Compared to what GWB goes through every day, this is nothing. What a pussy!

[Topsecretk9]

Hmm, the next time McCain commits a verbal miscue, I await Andrew's sigh of relief at McCain's normalcy.

EXCELLENT point TM! Sort of like Glenn Greenwald's obsession with McCain/Haggee and then he's hissy fit over Wright?Obama attention.

[Topsecretk9]

Wright?Obama attention = Obama/Wright attention

[Chris]

It's like Sully's in love.

[Cecil Turner]

I think we need a label for someone who pretends deep involvement in US politics, but is unwilling to pursue citizenship. Perhaps an "unnaturalized illiberal"?

[Chants]

Sully's in love with his spleen.

[Elliott]

On the citizenship issue, Sullivan says he can't get it:

The one tiny benefit of being denied U.S. citizenship solely because of my HIV status is that I can simply tell campaigns any donation I could give would be illicit. But if it were legal, and HIV-positive immigrants weren't deemed beneath citizenship, I'd give freely.

[Cecil Turner]

On the citizenship issue, Sullivan says he can't get it:

Well, that's interesting. I didn't even know it was a disqualifier for a green card. But from what I can tell from a quick google (and the Q&A support sites), it doesn't affect naturalization as long as you're already a legal resident:

If you are applying for citizenship (naturalization) and have therefore already been a legal resident for five years your HIV status will have no impact on your application.

I also seem to recall some contrary discussion (by Sully) about whether or not to apply (way back when), but can't find it anywhere. Short response: thanks for the info, but not sure I'm buyin' it.

[Thea]

Andrew Sullivan said: "No normal reasonable person subjected to the series of attacks on his integrity, faith, patriotism, decency and honesty would not wilt. And we need a normal reasonable person in the White House again."

Funny, Bush has been subjected to all of that and if he seems tired, frazzled or slow on the uptake Sullivan and the rest are merciless about it. And if he doesn't seem battered, if he maintains his energy and humor, he's also an idiot. Bush can't win...meanwhile Sullivan wants to pat Obama's hand. I can't respect that guy anymore. A shame, because when he is not freaking out, he writes very well.

[M. Simon]

Obama on Capital Gains:

The Punishment Is Necessary

He says lower capital gains taxes increase revenue but they should go up for the sake of "fairness".

Whoa Nelly. Make the punishment stop.

I discuss Bondage and Safe Words too, for those in need of an education.

The mask is really slipping.

I love this campaign.

[M. Simon]

A shame, because when he is not freaking out, he writes very well.

That was years ago.

[Jane]

He says lower capital gains taxes increase revenue but they should go up for the sake of "fairness".

That was truly truly stunning. The entire debate just picked me up and threw me against the wall. I could not believe the questions - go Charlie - or the answers. I hope it is replayed on en endless loop from now until November.

[clarice]

TM picking on Sully is rather infra dig--like wrestling paraplegics.

[DebinNC]

Here's the PA debate transcript, and the "raising Obama's capital gains tax for purposes of fairness" section.

[DebinNC]

Ugh. "..Obama's raising the capital gains tax.."

[steveaz]

So Obama wants to raise taxes because of teh Fairness?

I thought the branch of government charged with adjudicating "fairness" was the Judiciary.

What's happened? Won't the courts enact the Democrat's agenda for them? And if not, will an Obama administration remedy this by pitting its AG against our independent court system?

All together, with hands on the Koran, I do solemnly swear to uphold...

[Pofarmer]

No questions on the environment,

What does a former "community organizer" from Chicago know about the environment, anyway?

[Rick Ballard]

How could a true marxist not be against raising taxes on profit derived from the use of capital? Who could be surprised by BHO's steadfast stand on his principles?

Likewise, BHO is very deeply committed to infanticide. His committment is unquestionable and he provides additional evidence by equating a known domestic terrorist - Ayers - with Tom Coburn, a very comitted foe of abortion who particularly detests the infanticide which BHO holds dear.

I agree with Clarice that picking on a lackwit like Sullivan is small sport but I admit the frisson of schadenfreude that comes from watching slack jawed yokels awakening to the fact that their shiny new penny is losing luster with each passing day.

BHO wasn't ready to become a Senator in 2004, he really isn't competent to be other than a community organizer today. I sure hope he has the perserverance to knock Red Witch off the field but I have strong doubts that he can.

[Elliott]

But from what I can tell from a quick google (and the Q&A support sites), it doesn't affect naturalization as long as you're already a legal resident.

Sullivan making statements of dubious credibility? Knock me over with a feather.

[capitano]

Sullivan is pretty crafty and apparently stingy as well:

"Hey, I'd love to donate but I wouldn't want you to violate campaign finance laws. Sorry."

[E Buzz Miller, Rev Dr]

See, the real person running the Presidency would be Aunt Esther, I mean, Michelle, the wonderful chipper songbird who has all of our best interests at heart.

When our Volvos need an oil change, she will recommend a very good one that is clean and fair.

She can recommend a good Whole Foods that has choice arugula and grass fed beef, if you aren't a vegan.

Community organizers are great at knowing where to get a decent meal.

Barry would make a fine President, for too many reasons to list. It's best that he doesn't know too much about anything, that way he can grow into the job.

[capitano]

As Jane and others commented on the capital gains tax rate, his answer is irrational, but I believe consistent:

MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair.

Obama and his supporters want you to ignore that he is unqualified to be President and vote for him because of the message it will send to the rest of the world -- the symbolism of it all. In other words, ignore the most important criteria and focus on the symbolic even if it damages the country.

That's exactly what he's saying here -- the symbolism of reducing income disparity is more important than the professed Democrat goal of increasing tax revenues.

We steal because we can, not because it's logical!

[Danube of Thought]

Toast, I tell you. Toast.

[narciso]

Let's take it one at a time ,shall we; In Andrew's view and the 'reality based community' like Yglesias that he's joined, the terrorist are justified in their attacks," just like William Ayers, was driven to attack targets in the US, because
Nixon continued the lie, that was the Vietnam War . We're making the problem worse , in our current war that's we've made worse by our criminal handling of Afghanistan, Iraq,our gulags at Bagram & Gitmo. We didn't send 400,000 troops to Iraq as Gen. Shinseki told us, and Rumsfeld punished him for it. and 100,000 to
Afghanistan. Frankly why are we in Afghanistan, they didn't attack us. anyways. Beside it was a justifiable reaction to occupation of their lands Any information from a terrorist must be extracted in a quiet tete a tete; because they're just like our soldiers Never mind that they don't have uniforms or regular insignia, don't belong to any recogizable national authority. They blow up market
places, schools, mosques et al with
car bombs, suicide bombers, because they don't have F-16, B-52, Tomahawk missiles.
Frankly we should find a way to give them some, to restore the balance. We nuked two cities; why should we be the only ones to have the bomb. We must know exactly who we are targeting and why, even before we get the warrant; and the source can't have come from any physical or psychological interrogation. Frankly, Israel should accept
it is hated, and surrender to the understandable grievances caused by the 'occupation' after all they came to power through terrorism. Frankly we don't even know what actually happened on 9/11; and besides they (whoever they are)or Bush have killed way more people than what happened on 9/11. By the way, we're not at war, unless they officially declare a war,
start up the draft, and ration food and fuel. Then we'd protest, the honorous nature of this war; because it's for gas pipelines and oil. By the way, you know why don't we go after Sudan, because they don;t
have . . .Well the Chinese need oil too, since we've shipped all our industry there. We've served as such a bad example, using up 1/4 of the world's resources, and as much as the world's pollution. We need to reduce our carbon foodprint, no matter that we'd go back to the 19th century standard of living. China & India, can't be forced
to follow the rules we made...The problem with spending, is that Republicans are hypocrits, frankly they're evil, they'll spend billions for Halliburton. they won't protect our troops, but they'll send all this money abroad. and the money will end up in Federal Reserve accounts (that was
part of Patty "Osama builds schools in Afghanistan" Murray's rant about Pentagon spending last night) They won't protect our ports, trains, bus stations, schools, from the terrorists. They use fear, to sell their policies No Child Left Behind is an atrocity, and it's George Bush's fault
(never mind the fact; Ted Kennedy drew up. Besides, Bush broke his promise to fully fund it. WE need a Marshall Plan, for our cities, we don't need to be opening schools in Iraq and closing them in Philadelphia"

That's just some of what they really believe
and they might say, if the corporate media
didn't censor them, and distract them with
"Wright, bitter, et al

[PeterUK]

Didn't Sully get citizenship when he married that bloke then?

[PeterUK]

"Obama and his supporters want you to ignore that he is unqualified to be President and vote for him because of the message it will send to the rest of the world -- the symbolism of it all"

Only the unsuccessful bits,India,China and the Asian Tigers won't give a damn.

[DebinNC]

DOT: "Toast, I tell you. Toast."

Didn't you recently downgrade them to croutons, which nicely complements the arugula discussion?

[Ranger]

The issue with the Captial Gains' tax is intereseting. First, the majority of this tax is not paid by "rich people" but by pension funds and people who have mutual fund shares not in tax deffered or exempted acounts. So, by raising this particular tax, what you are really doing is reducing the amount of wealth available to working/middle class people in their retirements. The side effect of this is to make Social Security payments a larger part of their retirement income. The point about raising the tax on Cap Gains is not to "make it fair" but to make people more dependent on Social Security so there will be less political resistance down the road to either raising the payroll tax cap or using general funds to make Social Secturity payments.

That is why the people pushing this could care less if the government actually loses money by raising this tax. In fact, that is a feature not a bug, because when revenue falls it will justify another round of tax increases too, thus giving people even less money to invest for their own retirement funds.

It is not about fairness at all, it is about increasing dependence on government and building a block of political support for even more taxation in the future.

[Ranger]

The question about Ayers wasn't even that tough. If ABC had really wanted to drop the hammer, they could have pointed out in the question that Obama's entire political career was launched at a meeting in Ayers' house. That shows an relationship that goes beyond just serving on a board together.

[DebinNC]

The lefties are being encouraged to express their outrage at ABC. Here's the link, if anyone here wants to express appreciation.

[Jane]

I saw that Deb, and I thought it was funny. How dare ABC ask the Messiah hard questions. That is just so unfair.

[narciso]

In point of fact; they both don't have any real qualms with the likes of Ayers, Doehrn, Rosemberg, et al. Clinton let Susan
Rosemberg, the hitter in the Nyack New York
Brinks case, the FALN responsible for Francis Tavern and other 'understandable
attacks of pro-independence activism. Obama
sponsored Ayers, a 'tenured radical' if ever there was one, because they may have been wrong; but it was their concern over
poverty and Nixon's War that drove them to it.

[Jane]

Boy Obama is sure benefiting from all this Pope coverage. That man is lucky as all get out.

[Enlightened]

Oh man that debate was, well - enlightening.

I can't imagine in my wildest nightmares either of those two as the CIC. God help us.

[MayBee]

I saw that Deb, and I thought it was funny. How dare ABC ask the Messiah hard questions. That is just so unfair.

Considering we've been held hostage over the past few years to coverage of Cindy Sheehan, Jeff Gannon, and Katrina, the Ayers question seems quite fair.

I really think Obama's worldview leans more toward the Ayers and the Wrights. He could have answered those questions to correct that notion, but he didn't.

Why not? Is it because he isn't nimble enough, or because he doesn't want to lose that vote? The only voters I've seen him willing to criticize so far are the Bush supporters.

[MikeS]

I didn’t see the debate. I’m a bit ashamed, but I tend to keep my distance from Liberals. They seem frustrated and bitter to me. Which is understandable.

25 years ago, their ideology was repudiated by the American people. Their leaders kept promising them that it would come back, but it didn’t happen. In fact things got so bad in the 90s that they hoped changing their name would turn things around, but it wasn’t enough.

So, in their bitterness they cling to their antipathy for religion, guns, the military, business, trade, unborn people, democracy, common sense, fried foods, petrochemicals, industrialization, farming, historical accuracy, truth, justice, and the American way.

[centralcal]

Deb: I am the one who said Obama was croutons over the weekend on another post. DOT may not know what you are referring to.

Anyway, OH HAPPY DAY! OH HAPPY DAAAAY! The left and their lovers (MSM) are having a knock down drag out over the debate. Everybody is whacking somebody on their side. As I said. OH HAPPY DAY!

[DebinNC]

Deb: I am the one who said Obama was croutons over the weekend on another post. DOT may not know what you are referring to.

Thanks for the correction, centralcal. That comment made me lol.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

I was busy coaching a Little League baseball game, but from the BBC, this sounded like fun:

When, for example, [Hillary] questioned Barack Obama's association with a professor of education, who had once belonged to a far-left group that advocated planting bombs for political ends, her opponent shot back that President Clinton had actually pardoned two members of the same group.

[Danube of Thought]

Thanks for clearing that up, Centralcal. I was unsure what Deb was referring to.

I'm listening to Rush at the moment, and he just declared that neither Dem candidate is electable, and that the Dem party now knows it. I believe this is true, and by God I am loving it. It appears now that the two sides are trading blows over which one had the most meaningful ties to Communists in their pasts. Could we ever have dared hope for something this wonderful?

[boris]

advocated planting bombs ...

How is actually planting and exploding bombs "advocating planting bombs" ??? Shouldn't the Beeb have a better grasp of the English language?

[MayBee]

The IRA advocated planting bombs too, Boris.

[Ranger]

Well, I just heard the entire quesiton on Ayers, and it sounds like ABC did drop the hammer on Obama.

[clarice]

Well, that's how I feel D(OT) but you are far more prudent than I so your view makes me feel more secure in my judgement.

Assignments:From now until the convention JOM must divide in half.
One-half has to keep emailing Obama encouraging him to keep up the fight.The other half has to do the same thing with Hill.

[sbw]

Conclusion? Obama -- there is no "there" there.

[DebinNC]

"It appears now that the two sides are trading blows over which one had the most meaningful ties to Communists in their pasts. Could we ever have dared hope for something this wonderful?"

LOL. No. Scott Rasmussen says John McCain is the luckiest man in America since Ringo Starr.

[Bill in AZ]

I think the Capital Gains tax question was a "synapse firing" test - to see if either candidate has any synapses capable of firing. Gibson framed the question twice, and both times the synaps-o-meter stayed flatlined.

Even the most simple form of life, when confronted with an apparent contradiction like "reduce taxes ==> increase tax revenue", will at least fire a pair of synapses and wonder why, before going back to their simple existence.

Of all species in this universe, libs remain the only species uniquely incurious and oblivious as to why reducing taxes increases tax revenue.

Then, of course, Obama trotted out the tired old distortion that the debt had gone up - without mentioning the corresponding revenue increase (caused by a GDP increase). Nor did he mention that the deficit gap had been narrowing, at least until just recently when it has flattened, and may even be widening - coincidentally with the seating of a democratically controlled congress.

[Rick Ballard]

I wonder if there will be a rematch of When Commies Collide for the North Carolina primary? I sure hope so - BHO needs to flesh out those Clinton pardons.

[PeterUK]

"LOL. No. Scott Rasmussen says John McCain is the luckiest man in America since Ringo Starr."

Probably a better drummer though.

[DebinNC]

MR. GIBSON: "And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?"

Obama ignored not only the increase/loss of revenue part of the question, but also the harm to 100 million part of the question. I guess he considers that harm to be another worthless "distraction".