Obama says debate focused on 'gotcha,' not policy issues

I agree, Obama did respond well to the aftermath of the debate. He was clearly struggling on some of the questions during the debate. Hillary's wisdom did pay off at those times. Obama was a bit under prepared, but seriously, who can be prepared for every question. As far as the elites comments, I don't believe he really is an elites, he is just very smart, which is a blessing I will not deny him, but he does tend to struggle with his delivery with a 2 minute sound bite on a question that takes much more than 2 minutes to explain. Of course, that is why god invented the Oxford Note Card, which I am sure Obama is building his collection every day. He will overcome this in time. However, he should not be embarrassed to admit that Hillary is just has more practice in answering some of these questions than he does, and no doubt, John McCain will too, by the simple virtue, they both just happen to be a bit more practiced on these matters. (I am really trying to avoid saying anything about their respective ages.) However, In Obama's defense, having a well practice answer does not necessarily mean the correct questions are being asked. More so, maybe the problem with this country is we keep asking the wrong questions, and that is where Obama will really shine.

i don't agree with everything you just said. i think that it's just easier to lie thatn to tell the truth. you have to stop and think everything this man has said and done has been evaluated and torn apart not just by hillary and mc cain but the press too. then we get off subject of what really matters. he's frustrated at that. i am too. i'm tired of hearing about his pator and the ppl that he knows let's talk about what really amtters. bc then we get off subject about what they both stand for. if he couldn't handle himself 1. he wouldn't be here anymore. and 2. he wouldn't be in the lead. so i don't think it' that hillary has more experience in general it's just she's a better liar. under the circimstances he handled himself very well and answered the questions honestly.

lol!

If only we were uninformed than your propaganda might work.

Well you are uninformed that it's an "if ... then" statement, not an "if ... than".

Anyway, why should Senator Obama expect the media to do his job for him? It's up to the candidate to get out his or her own message. If he wants to talk about the issues, then he needs to talk about the issues. It's truly is as simple as that.

I wouldn't normally do this, but since you found it necessary to correct KIR's grammar:

It's truly is as simple as that.

You see Adam, "it's" is a contraction of "it is" thus your sentence reads, "It is truly is as simple as that." So don't (that means do not) be a jerk!

The media runs the debates, Adam. When asked questions about something unimportant, do you want Obama to just start talking about something entirely different? While that may sound good in theory, the media will just attack him the next day for being evasive and avoiding the "tough questions" during the debate.

DITTO!

Anyway, why should Senator Obama expect the media to do his job for him? It's up to the candidate to get out his or her own message. If he wants to talk about the issues, then he needs to talk about the issues. It's truly is as simple as that.

I imagine what he expects is for them to THEIR job - informing the American public by asking relevant questions - rather than McCain (and apparently Clinton's) job - political hackery.

You see Adam, "it's" is a contraction of "it is" thus your sentence reads, "It is truly is as simple as that." So don't (that means do not) be a jerk!

touché

The media runs the debates, Adam.

First off, this is in no way written in stone. The media doesn't have to run the debates. Second, the media is only representing the issues of the day. Whether you like it or not, Obama's "elitism" and the "bitter" comment are issues of the day. If Obama doesn't want them to be issues, then he needs to counteract them himself.

I imagine what he expects is for them to THEIR job

This is TV media, their job is to entertain and get good ratings. It is Obama's job to inform us of his positions, and it is our job as concerned and active citizens to seek out that information. The media television media is just one tool, and a rather poor one at that.

----------

But the issue still remains that it is Obama's job to get out his message, not the medias. For Obama supporters out there, please tell me what important issues have been part of his message the past month?

I'm currently in Pennsylvania in the Philly TV market, and I've seen Obama's recent campaign ads, I'm at ground zero of his campaign message. Let's just say none of it is packed with issues.

Now this isn't to say that any other candidate is doing all that better of a job. However, it's not like the media is treating any of the other candidates all that differently either, or has in the past. When was the last time that the media made issues major focuses of their efforts? Hell, think back to the crap from '04. Why does Obama seem to think that the media should treat him any differently than any candidate in the past decade or more?

The media runs the debates, Adam. When asked questions about something unimportant, do you want Obama to just start talking about something entirely different?

Yeah. I remember when the media tried to run the debate, but Hillary wasn't done talking about healthcare, so she held on like a pitt bull and didn't let go until she was good and ready, moderators be damned.

And then she was called shrill and obnoxious.

Just can't win, can ya?

"You've run a campaign strong on slogans and triviality and short on real issues"

I was pretty upset for a while that Obama was not talking policy or giving us details into what he has planned for this country. As of late though, he has been A+ in this department. He's spouting off all sorts of new ideas and plans that he has. So, while your statement was very relevant last year... He's addressing real issues in full force now.

Just complaining about the media is no solution.

Like when Hillary complained about the media being too easy on Obama? Or when she complained about him always getting the first question?

Like when Hillary complained about the media being too easy on Obama?

Are you trying to use that as an example of how complaining about the media is a solution? Or as an example that Obama is an awful lot like Hillary?

Like when Hillary complained about the media being too easy on Obama? Or when she complained about him always getting the first question?

Yea seriously, is your standard for a candidate to be just like Hillary? I don't think that's all that better.

He's spouting off all sorts of new ideas and plans that he has. So, while your statement was very relevant last year... He's addressing real issues in full force now.

Maybe that is true in states where the primaries are long over, but in PA, his message has been more fluff.

Are you trying to use that as an example of how complaining about the media is a solution? Or as an example that Obama is an awful lot like Hillary?

I am using that as an example of how Clinton(s) is (are) no better than Obama when it comes to complaining about the media.

Ben, and that's fine. I wasn't meaning to say any different. I'm sure McCain is just as bad as well, except everyone is ignoring him since he doesn't matter at this point.

...Second, the media is only representing the issues of the day. Whether you like it or not, Obama's "elitism" and the "bitter" comment are issues of the day. If Obama doesn't want them to be issues, then he needs to counteract them himself.

Adam, this is a perfect example of how the media controls the discussion, and not necessarily the candidates. Everyone who was at that fundraiser or who had otherwise seen/heard the entire speech knows that Obama's "bitter" statement was taken way out of context. The media chose to focus on the "bitter" comment, and not on the relevant issues Obama addressed at that very same event (indeed, in that very same misquoted paragraph).

If the media would stop focusing on the petty bickering and meaningless gaffes and 7 second sound-bites, and instead relayed the candidates positions on the issues, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

And to say the media doesn't largely, if not totally, control the discussion is very naive... how else is a candidates message going to get out to as broad an audience as possible?

What do you expect the media to focus on?

I would like them to focus a few questions on the decade of biotech crops and billions of export losses it caused along with the 8 years of Clinton support that is still strong. It is a global issue impacting the food crisis, the agriculture subsidies and Hillary's ties to a destructive system of Agent Orange makers in the food supply. Can't that trump a lapel pin?

The country is in a mess and the ABC Media focus is on NONSENSE...?

Maybe he should stop pointing? An open-handed, gentle gesture, perhaps?

No one points constantly. I'm sure you could find a picture of Barack Obama looking Presidential/angry/funny/down-to-earth/snobbish/crazy that doesn't draw comparisons with Malcolm X. These guys take a million photos.

I'm not saying you're wrong - I'm just saying he points. And pictures get taken. So if you're a pointer who doesn't like it when your picture is taken, stop pointing. But honestly I don't think he cares anyway.

Nah, he probably doesn't. But I've noticed an ongoing pattern, so I bring it up. Should "I'm just saying he points" make me laugh like it did?

Well since the original comment, more pictures have been added, and only one shows him pointing, and one does have him making that open handed gesture that Chasing recommended. Prophetic ;-)

Yep, how bout that? (Although Current #6 is humorous. Looks like he's getting his pimp-hand ready, rather than shaking hands, based on his face. LOL)

DITTO!

I'm surprised at George and Charlie though They are respected men and sunk down to Sean Hannity's style of low ball.

I agree with you, however, under the circumstances, Obama still got his points across, kept his composure, even gracefully defended Clinton on several occasions, yet whenever she saw any opportunity to attack him, she always-- and I mean ALWAYS-- went for it. I'm glad Obama is bigger and better than that. Is it me or does Hillary seem more and more Neo-Republican??? Her and McRoboto (if you pay attention, he does move & gesture like a really rusted robot) represent exactly what Americans are bitter about: Dirty Politics and Deviations from the Real Issues at Hand. Yet both claim they're more in touch with the people than Obama??? Talk about disillusionment. Some people really -desperately even-- need a reality check. I suppose Clinton and McCain are telling us that now is the best time to believe that pigs can fly, do they really think Americans are that incompetent??? Maybe, Clinton and McCain are taking good Americans for poor saps, but not Obama, he's knows the people know better (watch the clip).

Obama is the Man, McPhony is full of baloney, and Billary Clintongate is poorly representing women.

That, my friends, is the Bottom Line!

IRIEchitect X Boy do I agree with you here. I have always respected Charlie Gibson as a upfront, straight up Journalist. Last night he lost all of my respect and so did ABC and I wrote them first thing this a.m. and told them so. I hope other let ABC know that Charlies and George acted more like thugs then journalist.

It was one ambush after another and we know where the info came from, it was George who forgot he wasn't working for the Clinton's any longer.

If I had been for the Hill/Bill I sure wouldn't have been after that debauch,, it couldn't rank as a debate. It was a gutter fight and the only one who came out clean was Obama.

GO OBAMA

Get over it and stop hating!

Out of simple curiosity did you even bother considering an actual reply or are you more of the comment for absolutely no reason type?

Stellar analysis.

Uh, actually, you're confused. When they came at Hillary for Bosniagate, and they asked him if he thought she was truthful, he basically said "We're both gonna say things that are out of line when it goes on for this long. What did you expect?" That's not remaining silent. That's saying the question is stupid, while still sounding like you're answering it.

I am not confused. All other the debates were filled with "gotchas" aimed at Senator Clinton. Maybe you missed those debates. Senator Obama remained silent during and after each one. Until last night, media men gave Senator Obama a pass on the "gotchas" during debates. It became his turn last night. After Saturday Night Live came back from the writer's strike, Senator Clinton expanded on their joke about her "gotchas." I cannot recall her giving a speech that rallied her supporters to applaud her complaints. Hmm! this was a change.

Bosniagate?
No comparison to Watergate, so doesn't merit a "gate."

Maj-ster,
What complaining? I personally appreciate someone (even the candidate himself) calling attention to the elephant in the room. The questions to both Senators were clearly meant to sensationalize, not to enlighten. And if more of us make the distinction between hard questions and political riddles, maybe, just maybe, this era of info-tainment would pass...like a large kidney stone.

And BTW, the Messiah has not returned. Thinking any person elected to the presidency is going to single-handedly "change" this nation, is delusional. Our constitution guarantees that will not happen. He/she may set the tone, we ultimately change it. I think that's what so many young, engaged voters understand and why this particular candidate is so attractive.

maybe, just maybe, this era of info-tainment would pass...like a large kidney stone.

That's a classic, thanks for the grins!

George S was pitiful in what were barely disguised attacks with questions given to him by Hannity, et al.

That's what we would guess Clinton's former Press Secretary would do. It went as planned except that the age of the Internet has made it a lot harder to lie to the voters and spin the issues.

That's what we would guess Clinton's former Press Secretary would do....

I don't know... Am I the only one truly creeped out and distrustful of George S?

I mean, any man who goes from strategist/confidante of the President to major media analyst of presidential policies just doesn't seem like the most impartial member of the jury.

Agreed TBK, what a total waste, I turned to another channel after 30 minutes. I was not going to give this abc bull-crap any more of my precious time. Now I see why abc rating 'SUCK"!

Barack could kill this lady with the enormous baggage the Clinton's bare, but being the gentleman that he is and the fact he's probably feeling like he's going to win the nomination, decided to just go easy on this lady....Mannnn

I wish Michelle Obama could debate Hillary, I bet she would have handed her ass to her on a platter.

Had to let it go...do what you got-da do!

Obama is facing what any politician faces who has the gall to run for the most important job in the world. It's not a time to get all touchy feely about what is or is not proper questioning

Contrary, it is time to get touchy feely about asking stupid questions about Obama's wearing a flag-pin to signal he's a patriotism??? How dumb is that old Charlie, George nor Hillary were sporting one on their lapels last night, but that's OK...RIGHT!

Or what about the crazy question about some guy belonging to the same club of Obama, who 40 years ago was a rebel and Obama was...Oh about 8 years old, by the way Hillary's husband happened to pardon him and about hum-mm, a hundred or so criminals/terriost/drug lords..., but that's OK....RIGHT!
Many of whom 'these crimnals' have contribute to Bill's Lie-'brary...

What a crock of crap...wrost debate format I've ever witness, hands down!

I want to see touchy feely on the issues, not media gossip!

Perhaps it's 'gotcha' time now because Obama was allowed to escape earlier scrutiny.

If that were true we should have something more significant than his lapel pin to debate. The truth is it is Hillary who has escaped scrutiny as the American press carefully avoids any talk of her role in the bankrupting of American farmers with a policy that gives the bulk of the crops to the Agent Orange Gang. Hillary is the corporate pick to continue the Bush-Clinton-Bush Legacy that privatizes the food supply and subsidizes a globalization policy that's banned in American media.

We can talk about scrutiny that's omitted when there's discussion of Hillary's ties to Monsanto.

I agree.

Obama's answers to such questions are dismissive to the public who asks through surrogates. Why did he choose to stay at that church? His wife's family is from Chicago, why didn't they switch to her family's church when he found Rev. Wright "objectionable? Were children at the services when Rev. Wright spoke "G.d America," or is there a children's service at the same time, is something I wonder about? In that church, is there discussion after pastor's sermons? Obama says he did not hear the sermons that play on the "loop." When did he first find out about them? Who told him about them? Was Mrs. Obama there in church when they were given? There are so many questions, and I feel his dismissive attitude does go to questions about his judgment.

It is thought by many, he had the good judgment to be against the war in Iraq. It is thought by some, he had the bad judgment to stay a member of that church.

No one who supports him now will switch to the another camp were he to "explain (his) answer." It is possible some not in his camp would switch to his if they like his explanation.

As Senator Clinton said, her baggage has been examined. Do we want to find out about a hidden compartment in Senator Obama's baggage after he is the nominee? What is our option then?
The current administration lost our confidence after tricking us with smiles and sweet talk into electing it. No one pressed them on questions they didn't want to answer. Look what happened.
Obama is the same old same old.

In the end our choice is the Democratic Party's nominee or the Repub Party's nominee. I do not want a bad surprise from the Democratic nominee after the election.

Nietzsche,

Obama was asked "Does wright love America as much as you?".. Not "Is Wright patriotic?"

That silly, badly worded question was the beginning of my laughing fit.

Majerska, "Had the reverend not retired and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying there at the church," the senator said.

For example, Obama was annoyed when asked whether he thought Wright was patriotic, and he thought it sufficed to note that Wright had been a Marine some years ago---how is that relevant? He should have been asked whether he thinks Wright's ranting in his first sermon after 9/11 that Americans deserved to have 3000+ people die in the inferno of the World Trade Center was ANY EVIDENCE ATALL of anti-American attitude! I would further like to see him answer this: Can you justify, or are you horrified by, the fact that members of YOUR church were JOYOUSLY happy, clapping and rooting Wright on, when Wright was yelling that Americans had the nerve to be upset when 3000+ people were trapped, burned alive, melting from the heat as they called 911 or their children for the last time, or jumped from the World Trade Center!!! Explain your answer.

This is exactly why Obama gets upset every-time some knucklehead ask a stupid question like this. It's stupid and knuckleheaded to think that any real American would sit in church and rejoice over 3000 + people losing their lives in 9-11. Who in the world are you to judge these people's hearts?

Trying to make these people into monsters "ONLY' makes people who think like this the biggest monsters of all. I'm not going to try and break down these 1 minute snippets in his one hour sermons taken out of context to any Clinton supporters, to include George Stinkhanopoulos, because you folks already have your minds made up, so what's the point..

But I will say this, there are people who know exactly what the good Rev was saying to include Hillary Clinton's Pastor who has been one of many white Pastors to come to the aide of Rev Wright.

I personally will not be distracted by stupidity which has ruled this country for over seven straight years and seems to have overflowed into many assuming & judgemental Americans.

I'm glad Obama allowed it to just roll off his back, because it's petty silly politics of the Washington Media that was muzzled by the Bush & Gang but now wants to incite gossip, we the 'People' are about to 'Change' all of that!

I wonder where George and abc have been during the last five years of this 'War', where we invaded a country for no good reason....these kind of knuckleheaded events are what causes a seed of hate towards the U. S from other countries who see us as bullies.

We can't afford to have more of the same with Hillary/McCain who would continue to bullie the world...remember the worst terror attack in our history was the US dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ...

Most of the surviving hibakusha still live in Japan, which to date are numbered at 266,598. At last count in August 2005, the death toll from these atomic weapons stands at 379,776– some from the blast itself, and others from radiation and fallout exposure in the following months and years.

Yea the good Rev Wright was right, the chickens did come home to roost from our seed of Terror unleashed on these 379,000 dead and God did dam the US for this deed of the worst Terrorist attack on mankind in our history.

And some idiot wants to question Rev Wright's patriotism, a man who embraced the uniform of a Marine, who seen the aftermath of this devastation of Americana's weapon of mass destruction!

But people like yourself think it was OK and want to judge the good Rev....Go figure......................

Obama 2008!

"because you folks already have your minds made up, so what's the point.. "

This is exactly the point.
Nothing at all will move one of Obama's supporters to McCain's side. Nothing at all.

To put the country on track, Obama supporters must move those undecideds to his side.

The rage with which Obama's supporters attack Senator Clinton does little to move her supporters to his side. The loyal Democratic Party members would move to his side if they had to. The "not loyal" are up for grabs. From the info given out by the Media Men on all media, Senator Obama's strength is not with loyal Democratic Party members, but with new to the party members. Frightening, for no one knows what they will do if offered a choice of McCain and someone else, not their guy. This election is really about the county's future not the candidates.

Obama supporters take the all or nothing stance: he does not have to answer questions he doesn't want to answer. Doing so is the old way, he is the new way. Yet, many of his in-party supporters are from way back, schooled in the old ways. Do any of them get Cabinet posts? Will any of them become his day-to-day advisers? Will they really give-up the old ways? Just what old ways do you want rejected?

We are over 13. We can assess for ourselves what anyone says, be it Rev. Wright or Charlie Gibson. Explain to a four year old (they sit in the main body in some churches) why the pastor just said "G.d America!" or "the chickens came home to roost." Explain to a 10 year old why Senator Obama got more attention from the moderators than Senator Clinton, when Senator Clinton usually gets more of the attention.

We the People 2008!

haha, I didn't realize we were moving on to how sermons affect children in the pews. Interesting point added there at the end - that doesn't seem to coincide with everything else being discussed. Explain to a four year old (they sit in the main body in some churches) why the pastor just said "G.d America!" or "the chickens came home to roost." This can be said of any religion or church.
Explain to a four year old why the pastor just said "YOU WILL BURN IN HELL!"... Or discusses stories in the bible that are violent, innapropriate for young children to be administered to. I don't think this point has so much to do with Wright and Obama as it has to do with society in general - and how overly unabashed we are about discussing previously taboo subjects in front of children. Although, churches were far worse as far as violent or offensive sermons go in the past - and children were subject to it then too. Pretty sure some of our brightest politicians attended these churches. This has nothing to do with the current discussion though.

Explain to a 10 year old why Senator Obama got more attention from the moderators than Senator Clinton, when Senator Clinton usually gets more of the attention. Well, just like this: Because Senator Obama has an amazing campaign that is rewriting how campaigns will be run in the future. He's making more money, is a great orator and is drawing huge crowds. It's only expected he would get more attention from the media. Especially when Hilary is regarded as "old news"... How often does old news beat the new?

What it has to do with the current discussion is people not currently supporting Obama find his family's pastor difficult to accept. Wright was Sen. and Mrs. Obama's pastor for nearly 20 years. The family did attend a church supporting a liberation theology. Parents are familiar with how they do explain hell fire and brimstones to kids, how do parents explain liberation theology to kids? Not many know how it is done. This makes people wonder about it. The Pope is visiting. The Dalai Lama visited. People wonder about them too. Were either of them to g.d America, how would parents explain that to children? Parents had to explain to children that some parents did not protect their children from abusive priests. No easy explain!

"It's only expected he would get more attention from the media." It is exactly this attention that his supporters are complaining about. Why? None of them complained when Senator Clinton's baggage was re-re-examined by the media. None of them told the media to move to the economy, the war, the housing crisis. They, and he, sat/stood and watched her baggage examined. In the first 20 debates, "old news beat the new."

Take a few hours and think about what the old style Repubs could ask Senator Obama. How many of those questions can he not respond to? When Bill Clinton ran for office, they attacked his wife. How many of that style of attack can Senator Obama not respond to?

Had Senator Obama answered "Yes" to Charlie Gibson's first question, how different the tone of that debate. He was the same old same old and stood as silent as she. Even more silent, for he " has an amazing campaign that is rewriting how campaigns will be run in the future. He's making more money, is a great orator and is drawing huge crowds."
He talks the talk, and he had a chance to walk the walk.

Parents are familiar with how they do explain hell fire and brimstones to kids, how do parents explain liberation theology to kids? Why don't you ask them? Are you implying that you have some sort of inside information that Mr. and Mrs. Obama are unsatisfactorily raising their children?

"It's only expected he would get more attention from the media." It is exactly this attention that his supporters are complaining about. Yeah, so?

Why? None of them complained when Senator Clinton's baggage was re-re-examined by the media. None of them told the media to move to the economy, the war, the housing crisis. They, and he, sat/stood and watched her baggage examined. In the first 20 debates, "old news beat the new." Really? I'm an Obama supporter that has been complaining about the lack of substance in most of the debates - since the start. Was your response specifically directed at these select Obama supporters that you're describing or meant to address Obama's character or Obama supporters as a whole?

Take a few hours and think about what the old style Repubs could ask Senator Obama. How many of those questions can he not respond to? When Bill Clinton ran for office, they attacked his wife. How many of that style of attack can Senator Obama not respond to? One can only speculate, there are is no ground evidence that would help me adequately answer this and keep an objective stance.

Had Senator Obama answered "Yes" to Charlie Gibson's first question, how different the tone of that debate. He was the same old same old and stood as silent as she. Even more silent, for he " has an amazing campaign that is rewriting how campaigns will be run in the future. He's making more money, is a great orator and is drawing huge crowds." Can I borrow your magic 8 ball? You seem to have intimate contact Obama and insight into his mind.

"Why don't you ask them?"
The Repubs might ask them this and other things. I am implying nothing other than I do not know how to explain it to a child. I understand it less well than I understand any number of other theologies. I do not know how to begin to tell a child a priest/minister/man of the cloth can say g.d at the pulpit for a good reason. I do not know how to begin to tell a child a priest/minister/man of the cloth can say "home to roost" after the child saw people jumping from the buildings. I do not know and would like an example from someone, not necessarily the Obamas. You know the theology? If so, your explanation will do for now.

" Yeah, so?"
Precisely.

"I'm an Obama supporter that has been complaining about the lack of substance in most of the debates - since the start."
To whom have you complained? We do not have enough characters available for me to share the complaints I sent to moderators, Media Men, networks, etc. Until Sat. Night Live returned from the strike, no Media Men gave mention to the lack of substance questions directed toward Senator Clinton. The skit on that show turned the tied. I will guess, few letters from Obama supporters went to Media Men asking them to stop searching Clinton's old baggage. You could prove those suspicions wrong. Direct me to your complaints about that and I will have new information. New information helps a person make new decisions.

Do "keep an objective stance" and toss the rage toward George and Charlie for switching to Obama from Clinton as the person who gets the non-substantive questions.

"your magic 8 ball" Wish someone had one for I do not. No insight into anyone's mind other than my own. For me, had Obama said "Yes" I would have seen him as truly different, something new. I don't see him as either.

Majerska

I believe Obama answered the first question eloquently: Well, I'm happy to start with a response. Look, this has been an extraordinary journey that both Senator Clinton and I have been on and a number of other able candidates. And I think very highly of Senator Clinton's record.

So I'm confident that both Senator Clinton's supporters and Senator Obama's supporters will be supporting the Democratic nominee when we start engaging in that general election.

Why exactly should the answer have simply been "yes"? I personally feel that there are far more deserving candidates for the role of vice president - hell - PRESIDENT than Obama and Clinton. So, their not signing the other in a verbal contract did not affect me.

How about, if he'd said, "As of today, No." or "As of today, Yes."
Less simple but to the point. It would have been different and new.

He has said all of this noncommittal stuff, in the same words, before this debate. He is like other politicians. Not new. No change

It is only me, I realize this, but when I hear anyone other than a stand-up comedian do the same routine I feel the person cannot think on their feet. It is only me, I know, but it is my little quirk and has been for a long time. I dislike it when comedians do their act as answers to talk show host's questions. It is a quirk I have. I know it affects my response to Obama's public speaking skills. It is only me. I would like newly stated answers and shorter ones from him. It is what I would like, but there is no reason for anyone to do what I would like. I am not asking he change his ways. I am expressing my opinion and trying to explain it so that you won't misinterpret it.

Yes, I would ask her to be VP. No, I would not ask her to be VP.

Something new. Something different. At least, new and different to me, the only person for whom I speak.

Majerska
How about, if he'd said, "As of today, No." or "As of today, Yes."
Less simple but to the point. It would have been different and new.

Explain to me as to why his explanation for not making that sort of decision at this point in the race was unsatisfactory? Although I agree that the Democratic primaries/caucuses just appear to be dragging on and on, that doesn't mean the candidates should be making that type of decision before the bell has been rung. He could have said "I like cheese and pickles on my hamburger" as a response to the question and it would have been different and new - doesn't mean it would have been an acceptable response. I definitely prefer that my candidates are well spoken and speak at length to explain themselves, it gives me more insight into who they are/what they are about.

He could have said "I like cheese and pickles on my hamburger" as a response to the question and it would have been different and new - But the lol it would have caused would have been a change.

Well spoken.
Define "well spoken."
Who is not well spoken?

This is my observation. Remember I speak for myself and come to my own conclusions. I am not trying to convince you of anything. When Obama speaks from prepared words, he delivers them well.
When he speaks off the cuff, without drawing on phrases/talking points he's used before, he is not. There are ums and stammers aplenty.

Watch the second part of the debate, the part with the substantive questions. Do you find him as well spoken as you find him when he delivers a speech from prepared text? I do not, but you may. I am only asking.

Majerska,

Watch the second part of the debate, the part with the substantive questions. Do you find him as well spoken as you find him when he delivers a speech from prepared text? I do not, but you may. I am only asking.

I did find that interesting, it was like watching Obama slip on a banana peel, and keep slipping. He gathered himself here and there. However, I think the question that might have threw him off balance (where the tide in the debate changed to Hillary's favor), was the question regarding Israel and how he'd respond as the President to any attacks/threats made against it by Iran, because apparently Israel is America's strongest ally in the Middle East, not Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or any other Gulf states. I really wanted to hear him say: "Whether it's Israel, or Palestinians, or Iraqis or any other nation in the world, America will always defend those who seek our help, without bias, because that's what America and the Democracy we're so proud of, is all about". Alas, he stumbled on that question big time. Also, what does Israel have to do with anything? I mean, there are tons of countries out there that at odds with each other (like in Africa for example), how come the question focused specifically on Israel??? Perhaps to please the AIPAC lobbyist? Interesting, or perhaps it's just my view that I find that sort of odd.

slip on a banana peel, and keep slipping
Happens all the time in interviews and in debates when his talking point is not there to use. I am as befuddled by his being called a great speaker as I was by Reagan being called the Great Communicator. I don't see it. I didn't see it. Obama gives a great speech, maybe writes a good speech, but on his feet, not so good.

what does Israel have to do with anything
The debate point was the War in Iraq. Israel is in the region. Israel is a nuclear power and our ally. Yet, question and answer could be intended "to please the AIPAC lobbyist."

One of the countries in Africa currently in turmoil is Kenya, Obama's father's family's home country. I find it curious that no one ever asks anyone anything about the situation there. There's never a: should we get involved diplomatically? Is the UN doing enough? How does this relate to Darfur? Nothing. Ted Kennedy got dragged into discussions about Ireland. His more distant relatives lived there. I understand it could be that the Kennedy family had money to contribute to that cause and the Obama family doesn't have the same ability. Yet, as you note, there is never a mention of Africa in the debates.

As for the debate turning in Clinton's favor...she is a knowledgeable person. In every one of the debates, her answers to substantive questions were substantive. Her plans, and you can find them on her web site, are well thought out. She could take her hand off the Bible and get to work in hour one. I feel she would for go the parties if need be. She would work 10 hour days if need be. I like working with that sort of person. This is one of the reasons I want Senator Clinton to get the Democratic Party's nomination.

Majerska,

Sorry to go off topic, but I found this statement of yours very interesting:

Israel is a nuclear power and our ally.

See, that's what I don't understand about the double standard in the Middle East equation. How come Israel gets a "free pass" on Nuclear arms, yet the rest of the Middle Eastern nations are under a microscope, just for having Nuclear Power Plants? How is that fair, balanced and unbiased??? I understand that it holds those for 'self-defense' reasons, but why give one country that right over another? It's like having two men in a fight, and telling one of them "Hey buddy, here's a gun", unfair advantage over the other? I'm not questioning Israel's intentions, I'm questioning the transparency and neutrality behind that.

The given scenario would indicate that it seems as though America is playing favoritism with Israel, which really doesn't help the situation. It's like being a referee in a boxing match, but instead of being impartial, you're siding with one opponent more than with the other... isn't that considered illegal, or unfair? Perhaps, that might explain why there is much Anti-American sentiment in many parts of the world (not just the Middle East), because America does more to help Israel than Palestine... or perhaps it's just everyone's imagination.

Point being, I am not naive either, I understand Israelis and Americans see "Islamic" Extremism as a common threat, however, that threat is summoned by the fact that as much as American Foreign Policy has promised a "road map to peace" in the Middle East, so far nothing diplomatic has been done, and no progress can be achieved when the so-called neutral party (America, i.e. the referee) is taking sides. I'm not saying Americans or Israelis are the bad guys either, so please don't get me wrong, I'm just saying that it's not the right approach to resolving centuries of conflicts in that volatile region of the world, after all, we all just want to live in peace. I know you know what I'm trying to say, so please don't assume I'm accusing anyone of anything, I'm just trying to look at the bigger picture, that's all.

That's, my friend, is the Bottom Line!

By the way, I thought Hillary did make some valid points here and there, and it's not that Obama is not good on his feet (as you put it), it's that he's a natural born writer. Obama clearly demonstrates that he likes to take his time to formulate his thoughts in propers sentences, in order to make sure what he says comes out clearly & eloquently and not get misinterpreted. That's what great writers always do! However, it doesn't mean that he's not good in debates, or wouldn't be a fit President to lead the nation, because I'd rather have someone that knows what they're talking about, take time to think about what they're saying and say it clearly, than someone that says anything just to get the population on their side without any sincerity in their words.

"How is that fair, balanced and unbiased???" Did you intend this for FOXanythingbutnews?
Person to person, you and I can try to be "fair," but the more people we involve the greater the difficulty in achieving fairness.

You are correct "he's a...writer."

"I'd rather have someone that knows what they're talking about, take time to think about what they're saying and say it clearly, than someone that says anything just to get the population on their side without any sincerity in their words."

This, IRIE, is what writers do. They think it out and clearly put into words what gets their audience to see their side. Sincerity has little to do with it, for the writer. Let's use "Are you still beating your wife?" Cleverly written. "Fair and balanced" Cleverly written. Clever writing keeps the audience from feeling the sprout of a next question.

I am not foolishly thinking what I write to you will alter your opinion of Senator Obama. I am telling you how I think.

Remember the Repubs way of talking about those WMDs? They wrote out in those famous talking points exactly what all should say. This was so the when, the how many, the what is the exact proof of the WMDs questions would not even germinate in most minds.

It is not as important an issue to know when, from whom, or how Senator Obama found out about the hateful comments Rev. Wright directed toward our country, but Obama's words only say he was not in the church.

So off subject, IRIE, please bear with me. In Senator Obama's speech addressing race, he said his own white grandmother's words made him cringe. He did not add, as did words of his black grandmother. His speech was well worded to direct his audience to feel empathy for him as the grandchild. Long after the fact, I speculated, I have not done a survey, white people felt hurt with him. I speculated, no survey, black people felt some version of that is how white people are. I wondered, no survey, how many people thought what I thought as he said it, "Did his grandmother use the ethnic slurs for ethnic-Hawaiians and ethnic-Japanese who were his friends or did she us the "N-"word to cause this cringe? Did she speak with resentment of being called the Hawaiian ethnic-Euro slur by those people and that made him cringe?" I wondered what exactly is it is he is speaking of that made him cringe? Maybe no one in his extensive audience cares, that is other than me.

The current Repubs make me skeptical of "talking points." Taking time to write it out to say exactly what you want your listeners to hear you say, well you have lived with the current administration as long as I have, IRIE. And you are correct "That's what great writers always do!" They use words to focus your thoughts on what it is they want you to focus your thoughts on.

Here are a few things I would like to know more about, most amount to not a hill of beans. How large was Senator Obama's student loan that he didn't pay it off until 15+ years after he graduated? (I feel this would help many kids before they get into such huge debt. Not many of them are going to be able to pay it off with best selling books.) How did he bring rival factions together while a community organizer? (I am not the best read on his activities while a community organizer.) How different does he find Hawaii and Illinois? (I live in the mid-west, but an from the east. I experience differences that I describe to friends with, It is as if I live in another country.) What are experiences that turned him around, made him different from the young person who went off to college in California? (Small things, big things, middle sized things that put us on different paths happen to all of us.) Who were his mentors? Did he have mentors? Is he a self-made person?

Switch of topic. Senator Clinton's been a public figure for quite some time. People who like her as well as those who don't let the world know more than anyone ever wanted to know about her. It is not her doing, other that her being a public figure. She makes valid points that are often obscured by this "public figureness." I will repeat, I find her a person I would be glad to work with.

Oh man, I think I didn't got my point across as clearly as I should have, but I shall try again, for the sake of helping each other understanding our perspectives.

I meant, Obama is more of a writer than a speaker. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, is there? For example, what you and I are writing to each other back and forth, I'm sure we're both putting time into structuring our thoughts, building from a single point and developing it, and then expanding on it. Well, suffice it to say some people have that easier than others, sometimes we're stronger in writing than in verbally expressing ourselves, or the other way around. It doesn't not mean that we're slow or anything, or less competent, or that we're trying to direct people into thinking our way, it's a question of comfort and/or DNA I suppose.

When watching the Democratic Debate, I noticed several occasions where Obama was fighting real hard to put what he'd say in writing into speech. I'm not saying he's handicapped or nothing of that sort, but it's just one of my observations. Pay attention next time he's in a debate, you'll notice that as well. He's like writing, editing, formulating, structuring, proof-reading his answers to the questions, as fast, clearly and eloquently as he possibly could, which is why he got stumped on several questions: HE TOOK TO MUCH TIME TO THINK THAN TO TALK! If I was his adviser, I'd tell him: JUST LET IT OUT, Speak from your Soul and Just Let your Thoughts Roll!

However, that's just my POV, you, of course, are entitled to your opinion, and that's what makes America such a wonderful place to be. In the end, what you and I are hoping for, is a President capable of taking America out of the depth of Paranoia that Bush has sunk us in, be a servant of the people, defend our security, promote our democratic virtues in a peaceful way across the globe, and last but not least, be a great representative of the American people to the world... because Bush sure messed that up for us! We differ in choice of candidate, but I'm sure we'll agree there.

That, my friend, is the Bottom Line!

Nothing wrong with being more of a writer than a speaker.

"sometimes we're stronger in writing than in verbally expressing ourselves, or the other way around. It doesn't not mean that we're slow or anything, or less competent, or that we're trying to direct people into thinking our way, it's a question of comfort and/or DNA I suppose. "

For the most part, I agree with this statement.

In a political campaign, candidates are "trying to direct people into thinking (their) way.

I have watched all televised debates, some I watched when re-telecast, and some I have seen snippets of repeated to prove the point of some pundit or other.

I interpret his taking "too much time to think that to talk" as a search for a talking point. I do not like the Repubs approach to giving me information, and do not like Obama's use of talking points. To me, the talking point approach is rudeness. I feel the person doing this is telling me to move on for this talking point is all they are going to say on the matter and I deserve to hear no more than they tell me. Be satisfied with it.

I do not in anyway feel all my questions must be answered. The current Press Secretary and the most recent ones who came before were dismissive of reporters. I didn't like it.
I don't like it that Obama is dismissive of questions he does not want to answer. His gesture of bushing off his shoulders annoyed me. I felt it was the gesture of someone who was not of the people, and a young person's gesture. Again, this is my reaction. I am sure I am a minority of one.

"I'm sure we're both putting time into structuring our thoughts, building from a single point and developing it, and then expanding on it."

No, I don't. I do check the spelling. Were I doing what you suggested, I would not feel I am being conversational. You may have guessed, I am a talker who is a poor speller. Thanks for not correcting my grammar. Also, I type at a quick rate because I do not think about my spelling if there is a way to spell check easily.

I interpret his taking "too much time to think that to talk" as a search for a talking point. I do not like the Repubs approach to giving me information, and do not like Obama's use of talking points. To me, the talking point approach is rudeness. I feel the person doing this is telling me to move on for this talking point is all they are going to say on the matter and I deserve to hear no more than they tell me. Be satisfied with it.

Is it possible for you to point out which specific places in the debate, as well as the question asked and Obama's answers, where he used them as talking points? I know it could be a long endeavor, so if you do not have to find for it, I'm not going to hold it against you. I just thought it could be beneficial to our discussion if we could both analyzed those specific moments of the debate where you considered Obama used as talking points. Perhaps, it may give me more insight into your perspective of Obama's way of debating and even win me over to the Clinton side... Who knows, the Primaries aren't over yet, right? Anything is still possible.

By the way, I've also observed in Obama's way of expressing his thoughts and views, in a debate setting, is that he's somewhat of a perfectionist, always doing his best to choose the right words and structure his arguments/responses as best as possible. Trust me, perfectionism is a good trait to have, because you're constantly striving to better yourself, as long as you don't turn it into an obsession. Maybe that's why I can relate to Obama and feel like he's the right candidate for the Presidential job, I know what he's going through!

By the way, don't fret over your grammar and spelling (you're doing great, trust me), as long as the points you're making are coming across as you want them to (which I believe they are), and I understand them correctly (which I hope I am), than it's all good. As for:

"I'm sure we're both putting time into structuring our thoughts, building from a single point and developing it, and then expanding on it."

No, I don't. I do check the spelling. Were I doing what you suggested, I would not feel I am being conversational.

Maybe you do not realize it, but our minds works wonders, even subconsciously. You do put some time to structure your thoughts, perhaps not after you've written them down, but as you think about them when they are in the process of flowing down into your typing/writing you do. If you didn't put any time in organizing your thoughts, everything you'd write would sound like gibberish... which it doesn't. And since I clearly comprehend everything you're saying, I can only deduct that some time is put into formulating your ideas clearly, whether your realize it or not. In the event you didn't put ANY TIME WHATSOEVER to build and develop your points, yet I'm able to grasp everything you are saying, who knows, you might be a genius and not even know about it! OR, you could just be one of the people that just say the first things that pop out of their minds. From observing of your commentary thus far, it's probably safe to say that you're all of the above ;-)

That, my friend, is the Bottom Line! (and yes, I do say that every time).

You're right, Obama didn't ignore the "unimportant" questions. Obama directly addressed the questions, speaking his mind about how asinine they were.

Anybody here remember what Ron Paul did in the debates? (of course you don't)

If he said or did anything significant, he'd still be running. And that's not to knock on Ron Paul or his campaign either, I commend his efforts, but somehow more people are drawn to what Sen. Obama says, because it sticks with the people.

The media and the Party didn't want Paul that is why he is not a contender. He would have done a lot of changes that the present powers to be could not have continued to make money on. Its all about money.

The same could be said about Dennis Kucinich.

OK..Stop playing Robert Johnson, we know who you are. Man you have an awful big chip on your shoulders, with Barack Obama written all over it.

You're a billionaire now...and you still are allowing the Clinton machine to run you like you're their hound-dog, go figure.

Come on man, you can do better...

"because he verbally masturbates a vision thing"

First of all, "WHAT?!" to that first part of your response. I'd actually like to pass that on to Obama so that he could get a good laugh, do it ABC style.. "Senator Obama, do you verbally masturbate a vision thing?..."

Anyways, Obama doesn't stress slavery and repeatedly tried to ignore the race issue at the start of the race. That's impossible though and any well-read American that is aware of this country's rocky past and present understands why... "There is still a strong sense of divide between minorities and the rest of society." To ignore that fact is pure ignorance and detrimental to the progress we have made to try and close that gap. Obama's main drive in his campaign is that he wants to unite everyone - and he is the well-read and aware American I'm speaking of.

He has addressed slavery and racism recently when called to by the American people. More often, he addresses the divide as a whole - regardless of race or skin color. In fact, the only time I've ever heard him speak of slavery was when he was asked if any of his ancestors were slaves.

...and because he's black, he's getting a free pass because everyone is afraid to say what they think..

And Hillary isn't getting a free pass because she's a woman? Come on, the gender or race of this thing isn't relevant anymore. There are more people coming out to vote or caucus this primary than ever before. If either the race or the gender was relevant no-one would leave their homes.

he's struggling because he verbally masturbates a vision thing when in fact he knows nothing, has done nothing and because he's black, he's getting a free pass because everyone is afraid to say what they think and what they feel for fear of Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson showing up. I don't feel sorry for any of these "poor me" propagandists.....Buy some Big Girl pantiesand put them on.

Talk about going back to the Civil Rights era with that statement... what a flash back. There's many reasons why Sen. Obama is where he is at. Namely, because so many African-American fought their way through the oppressive and segregated system they were subjected to, like Martin Luther King for example, and through their selfless efforts, through the police brutality unleashed unto them, they made it possible for us to be at this point... where a man of 'colored' skin is running for the Highest Office in the Land. Alas, that's what the American Dream is all about: Land of the Free, Home of the Brave, a Country rich with opportunities if you're willing to strive hard enough for them. If it wasn't for the sacrifices and the bravery of Civil Rights Activists, none of this would even be possible.

That's... The Bottom Line!

...and because he's black, he's getting a free pass because everyone is afraid to say what they think..

Free pass my @$$!! The next time your coworker's actions four decades ago causes questions about your suitability for a promotion, or the next time your Pastor's sinfulness reflects on you, then we can talk about a free pass.

Anybody running for POTUS will be thoroughly vetted, that comes w/ the territory, but with this candidate in particular, we have all sunk to a new level of incredulity. And whether any of this affects our ability to climb out of the economic or diplomatic mess we're in has yet to be proven. Like my grandma used to say, "You're focusing on the wrong thing."

Bob,
So true!

Bob,

True, true and true, all the way through. I honestly think that the mainstream American media has gone bonkers. Most of them --if not all-- are biased. Where does one turn to for critical, objective and fair analysis of current events??? Even Newsvine is now under the ownership of MSNBC.