how hard is too hard?

Whose fault is it the debate went so badly for Obama?

Hillary Clinton's, right? Being as how she has such an obligation to make him look good, she shouldn't have answered the questions given to her. She should have just kept her mouth shut and taken care of her boy.

Because on land it's much preferred for ladies not to say a word, right?




Better to just stay silent and hope big daddy will come and wave his pitchfork and give you what you want, in the end. Just check out the statistics on women and poverty and you see how well that works - but you don't hear 'em, do you?


Jay Cost, Obama Takes the Bait

Gibson then gave it over to Clinton for a response. She hit Obama, but not terribly hard...

...Now, let's get real. That's not too hard. I mean, Obama really stepped in it with those "bitter" comments, and he should expect to pay. He should have let this be the last word. Let his people do the serious pushback, but get the debate off this subject. Take this hit - it wasn't that bad! - and just move on.

For their part, Gibson and Stephanopoulos seemed satisfied. They moved on to a tough question for Clinton. Stephanopoulos asked: "Senator Clinton, when Bill Richardson called you to say he was endorsing Barack Obama, you told him that Senator Obama can't win. I'm not going to ask you about that conversation. I know you don't want to talk about it. But a simple yes-or-no question: Do you think Senator Obama can beat John McCain or not?"

Stephanopoulos boxed Clinton in here. Either she says something that she can't say in public, or she looks two-faced. She chose the latter, thus yielding a free point for Obama.

They then turn it over to Obama for a rebuttal, which would have been a great opportunity to talk up his electability. What did he do? He returned to the "bitter" comments.

Cost also mentions the frontrunner status issue:

Like many, I thought the questions at last night's debate were tough and sometimes a little small.

That being said, I disagree with the suggestion that this is a new feature to these debates. Hardly. This is par for the course. I recall the debate on October 30, 2007 - hosted by MSNBC - that focused relentlessly on Clinton. When the focus was off Clinton, the questions were weak.

What connects these debates? Both were focused on the frontrunner. In October, Clinton was in the lead. So, she took the heat.

Dogpile on Hillary is all right. Dogpile on Obama, not so much. But, ultimately, it isn't ABC's fault, or Clinton's fault, that Obama decided to spend a lot of time elaborating what he meant. If Obama's fans are mad because the first forty minutes of the debate was spent on fluff, maybe they should redirect their anger at Obama for not knowing when to shut up.