Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Democratic Debate Sparks Viewers' Own Angry Debate
Things may have gotten nasty on Wednesday night in Philadelphia, but Barack Obama saw the "gotcha" tenor of the Democratic presidential debate as a preview of what is in store for the general election campaign. And thousands of viewers, for their part, considered it an outrage.
For nearly an hour, the 10.7 million viewers of the most watched debate in this election cycle did not hear a single question about the economy, Iraq or healthcare. Instead, they heard ABC newsmen Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, the moderators, revisit controversies about Obama's former pastor, Obama's failure to wear flag lapel pins, and his casual association with a '60s radical.
In a town hall meeting in Raleigh, N.C., on Thursday, Obama sounded a cautionary note to supporters: "That was the rollout of the Republican campaign in November," he said. "They will try to focus on these issues that don't have anything to do with how you're paying your bills at the end of the month."
New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, too, was grilled -- albeit less intensely -- about her discredited tale of landing under sniper fire in Bosnia in 1996 and whether she is trustworthy and honest.
Many who watched were livid.
"Great job, ABC," wrote one indignant viewer, in a posting on the network's website. "You managed to bury any signs of intelligent life under a mountain of pointless goo. What does any of last night's debate have to do with the price of bread (or gas), Iraq, Bin Laden, judicial appointments, public education, the mortgage crisis . . . oh, never mind. Let's all focus on lapel pins."
Democratic strategist Bob Shrum, who ran John F. Kerry's presidential campaign in 2004, said Obama should have shot back, "Where's your flag pin?" (Neither of the moderators or candidates wore one.)
Thursday morning, Stephanopoulos said that he and Gibson had decided to focus on what he called "electability questions" in the first half of the debate. "I think the questions we asked were tough and fair and appropriate and relevant," said Stephanopoulos, a senior advisor to former President Bill Clinton in his first term.
"The questions we asked are what the campaigns are debating every single day and are being debated in the political world every day. The question of who is the most electable Democrat is at the core of it."
By 8 p.m. Thursday, the ABC News website had received nearly 19,000 comments, most of them attacking the tenor of the debate and the moderators. One called Stephanopolous "George Stupidopolous."
"I will never, in my life, ever watch anything on ABC ever again. Goodbye," wrote one. "The debate last night was pathetic!"
Although vastly outnumbered, a few praised the debate for forcing Obama, in particular, to answer tough questions. "We really need to know more about Mr. Obama," wrote one viewer. "The questions about Rev. Wright and William Ayers" -- the former Weather Underground activist who was on the board of a charity with Obama -- "were right on target."
The debate was panned by some television critics. Tom Shales of the Washington Post accused the moderators of turning in
They dwelt, he added, "entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already had been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news."
Some pundits approved. New York Times political columnist David Brooks wrote on his blog: "I understand the complaints, but I thought the questions were excellent. The journalist's job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities. Almost every question tonight did that."
Bruce Gronbeck, a professor of communications studies at the University of Iowa, said that these kinds of questions, coming before the Democrats have settled on a nominee, might prove helpful to the party's candidate in the long run. "If you handle them well, the media may not cover them as enthusiastically and the public becomes inured as well," he said. "JFK got the religion issue out of the way, in essence, early and then could shine in the debates and in September and October when it counted."
Obama on Thursday pledged to counterattack, if necessary, in the general election. "If the Republicans come at me," he said, "I will come right back at them."
In a conference call with reporters Thursday, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said the campaign was comfortable with the way the debate had gone. "There is something good about candidates being asked to answer tough questions," he said. "It provides the public more information and insight. Certainly in the case of Sen. Obama, there has not been as much information being made available to the public. Last night was important and instructive."
But a strong Clinton supporter, Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell, suggested that the moderators had gone too far. "I think Sen. Clinton did a marvelous job, a much better job on the substantive issues," he told a Philadelphia reporter. "But the first 45 minutes was 'gotcha' issues, and it was Sen. Obama's misfortune that most of them except for Bosnia were asked of him."
An outtake from the end of the debate, which appeared on the Huffington Post website, showed Gibson being heckled by audience members as the program went to a final commercial break. "The crowd is turning on me," he said with a thin smile.
But ABC News spokesman Jeffrey Schneider, who was in the hall, said he believed some in the audience were angry that they had to sit through yet more commercials before being allowed to leave the venue.
Thursday evening, Gibson, without mentioning his connection to the contentious debate, introduced a segment on the ABC evening news about it.
"Both candidates were back campaigning today," he said. "Both showed last night they could take a political punch. But many of the blows today were being aimed at the debate itself and the questions asked."
In the report that followed, ABC correspondent David Wright said that Sen. Clinton "steered clear of the debate."
Her husband, he added, did not.
"They've been beating up on her for 15 months," the former president said in a clip from the campaign trail. "I didn't hear her whining when he said she was untruthful in Iowa, or called her the senator from Punjab. And you know they said some pretty rough things about me too. But you know, this is a contact sport. If you don't want to play, keep your uniform off."
© 2008 Los Angeles Times
96 Comments so far
Show All"The journalist's job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities."
google: 2000 election, 2004 election, iraq war, mission accomplished, library tower, NIE, nspd 51, shall i continue?
Bill Clinton, your wife has too whined frequently, about the "vast right-wing conspiracy," about not being some litle Tammy Winette standing by her man, and about Obama getting too easy treatment from the media in February. But I guess after all that sniper fire in Bosnia, she's used to it by now.
Bill Clinton says "this is a contact sport." My money goes on Obama with a TKO in Round 5.
My response to this anal charade of a debate driven by media whores was to delete ABC from my TV programming and to immediately send money to Obama '08.
Hilary was in her Fox/DC element, and Obama, in contrast to Stephanopoulus, Gibson and HRC, looked like Gulliver in the land of the Lilliputians. I never thought, as a former, albeit reluctant, Clinton apologist, that I could see Hillary so diminished personally, ethiccally and politically. But there it was for all to see. Definitely NOT Presidential.
Peace All
So Stephanopoulos thinks that his questions were "appropriate and relevant"? That just goes to show how inappropriate and irrelevant HE is. I've said it since he was giving the same unfair treatment to Kucinich in the "debates" (remember when they actually allowed Kucinich to stand on the stage at the debates?)--what the hell is Stephanopoulos doing as the moderator of a debate that includes the wife of his former employer? The conflict of interest is so self-evident that nobody can fail to notice it. It's just one more sign of how brazenly the corporate media has shown their contempt for the American public (along with their fellow media whores defending them). They don't even try to put up any fake facade of journalistic credibility anymore.
ABC = Already Been Chosen
As in, "The next president has Already Been Chosen" by a major television network.
And you still think it's safe to watch your television?
This just in from the Government Ministry of Truth (MSNBCABCCBSFOX):
War is peace.
Ignorance is strength.
Slavery is freedom.
A vote for the Democrats will win.
Gisbon is lucky nobody had any tomatoes or eggs at the ready.
The miserable flack should just move over TO "FOX NEWS along with his buddy, the former consultant to the 1992 Clinton campaign. There are some of the same at PBS and NPR too, who have internalized the inside the Beltway assumptions (making big bucks doing it)of official sources. Take Steve and Cokie Roberts or Mara Liasson and look into their hobnobbing with the Washington (read Bush Regime)insiders. Eric Alterman's WHAT LIBERAL MEDIA gives chapter and verse on all the so-called august journalist who give cover for the Bush Regime. Its all great fun to them, but ideas and elections do have consequences. Their bank accounts are doing great, but what do they think about the shredding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? In 2000 they looked the other way instead of digging into the real George W. Bush, his corrupt business deals (especially Arbusto Energy), his associates and actions as the Governor of Texas, and Karl Rove. Hell, all they had to do was talk to James Moore and Wayne Slater, who had been covering these two scoundrels for years.
I'm not an Obama supporter, but his treatment at the hands of ABC's political hacks is almost enough to get me to vote for him. On the other hand, I could never vote for Hillary or McCain.
ABC News blog will block anyone who doesn't kiss up to the right-wing fascists. They will allow a few blogs and that's it.
The media whores should be ashamed of themselves, asking silly questions and wasting everyone's time. I think Obama is much too nice to the bullies, one of whom is Hillary Clinton.
ABC has just joined Fox as part of the Republican media propoganda machine. Shame, shame, shame.
And conservatives tell us that the media leans left. Not hardly.
Leonard Peltier - President - 2008. The ONLY proper person to sit in the Oval Office. Falsely imprisoned by the FBI as a result of their systematic black ops against the people at the Oglala Sioux indigenous persons death camp, aka 'reservation' at Wounded Knee. Mumia would do as well, they could trade alternate months as POTUS and VPOTUS. Consider the peace on the airways. No blather. No trivia. Nobody from MSM would even interview them or even acknowledge we have a President for 4 years.
Here is my vision of a "perfect" debate involving the 3 candidates:
Questions for Hillary Clinton: "Mrs Clinton, you claim you can best represent the interests of blue-collar, working class voters. How do you reconcile this with the fact that you served on the board of directors of Walmart for 6 years and worked for the Rose law firm for several more years? The Rose law firm is well known for representing large corporations and the establishment and being very anti-union. No one ever recalls you bringing up the issue of worker compensation while you were a director there. So tell us Mrs Clinton, what has changed since your Walmart/Rose law firm days?
Also, Mrs Clinton, your story about "ducking sniper fire" in Bosnia seems to confirm in the minds of many voters what they have long believed about you: That you are pathologically dishonest, and unfit to be president due to this. As if this wasn't enough, you claim your vote for the Iraq war was for "stepped up diplomacy". How do you expect to get away with lying so much, or do you believe we are that stupid?"
Questions for John McCain: "You are the favorite of the Bush administration. Indeed, Bush's focus now is in ensuring that you win this election to continue his policies. You have received the endorsement of and are being actively helped by a president considered to be among the worst in American history. The vast majority of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, and Bush's approval ratings are similar to Nixon's during the Watergate scandal. You voted to authorize a war and a remain a huge supporter of a war most Americans now consider to be a mistake. What, exactly, would make your administration different from Bush's?
You are also favored by many leading neo-conservatives, the people who supported Bush, who lead us into the Iraq war, who favor preemptive war and a militaristic foreign policy. America is growing increasingly war-weary; how do you sell yourself to Americans who have good reason to believe you would like to start more wars?
Furthermore, you actively sought the endorsement of the very controversial preacher, John Hagee. Hagee is very pro-war, as if this "war on terror" is a religious crusade. He favors bombing Iran. He is very anti-Muslim. He is very anti-Catholic. He is anti-gay and claimed hurricane Katrina was God's punishment to New Orleans for allowing homosexuality. Why would you actively seek the endorsement of a preacher who holds very controversial, hateful positions on a number of issues?"
Questions for Obama: "Please give us specifics on what you mean by "change", and "hope".
Since the issues are not important, let's have a bit of trivia:
The Crown Royal whiskey that Clinton downed in Chicago is made in only one place in the world - Gimli Manitoba (the largest Icelandic settlement outside of Iceland). Clinton shares her fondness for Crown Royal with Norman Breakey, the inventer of the paint roller.
Strange how no one could find an American whiskey as tasty as our Crown Royal:
Quotes from "Clinton's Crown Royal a shot heard around the world" by: Randy Boswell (today's WPG Free Press, p.A2
Photos and video scenes of Clinton sipping, sipping and then tossing down her glass of Canuck whisky -- that's whisky with no 'e' north of the border -- have proliferated this week on the Internet.
And various pundits have commented on the "geographic irony" of her beverage selection, as a Chicago Tribune columnist put it.
Under the headline, 'Hillary Clinton Drinks to NAFTA?', Los Angeles Times blogger Andrew Malcolm wryly observed that "Crown Royal whisky was first distilled in 1939 to commemorate the visit of King George VI and his wife Elizabeth -- wait for it -- to Canada. It's a Canadian whisky... so thank goodness for the North American Free Trade Agreement, which Sen. Clinton quietly opposed but publicly supported when her husband made it one of his administration's grand achievements, but now she says needs to be changed because not every voter benefited in the states she's visiting." ...
"Canada and the U.S. have a rich tradition of sharing great things," he said. "Crown Royal is a great example of that. It's one of those unique brands that actually traverses all demographic groups -- people like it no matter how much money they have or what their job is."
vaudree, since we're into deep issues here politically, bet Hillary would LOVE your Canadian cider. It's yummy and packs quite a punch! I make sure I buy it whenever I'm in BC.
The November election will be undoubtably the most miserable, down right dirty election in the history of the United States. Never mind that the real issues facing the people of this country are not being dealt with, never mind that common sense and reason have left the building, as long as the MSM continues to entertain us and nobody dies it will be just fine. Every moderator since the debates, or what is passed off as debates, has made a fool of himself with the idiotic questions that bear no revelence to the state of the union. TV has been off and will continue so until real journalism returns. Maybe forever.
the more bill clinton opens his mouth, the more he sounds like his wife. she should have left him way back when over the pig lewinsky affair. but wait, she couldn't possibly run for president had she divorced him. better to just swallow it, pardon the pun, hillarious.
perhaps it bears repeating, but when the moderators are nothing more than glorified media whores, it's time to put the working class on stage with the candidates. then let's hear some white collar answers to some blue collar questions.
the debate was a debacle, and abc has no business in the news business.
The people speaking out here make up a fraction of the American electorate. Most are somewhat thoughtful about where America is going. My friends it is going straight to hell! The unfortunate part is that a country and a people once thought as one of the bastions of hope and future possibility has become the dregs of what a promising civilization can be.
The parallel to the Roman empire is clear as described by many erudite people. One person above wanted to ask Obama what he meant by "hope and change". I would reply that to that person that anyone understanding the media as many have come to do, must also recognize that from the start Obama has wished to distance himself from this absurd collection of people who are simply in the employ of big money to make more money and to continue to dumbing-down of the population so that it functions as a herd of compliant consumers.
The true issues of this world are based in the energy industry, the reason we exist on this planet and its purpose are a subject that needs as much vetting as the people who run for office, that should be the job of the media. Obama has worked for people that is clear, truthful, and undeniable. He has not joined the corporations nor does he back them. His money has been made from his work and intellect.
His mission has been people, his hope is to help the American people through his intellect to regain their lost status in the world and to help rebuild America through consultation with the people and the international community. His hope is that he can convey these messages to the American people. You will begin to see a more aggressive combative man opposing the Republicans, his detractors, and people who will not deal with the issues. The debate crystalized for him what he must do! In that sense it was useful.
His hope is that Americans will give him the chance to employ his vision for America and that the Congress will get behind this vision for a New America. The growth in technology allowed him to transcend campaign reform and and raise, what should be an unnecessary amount of money to mount a campaign in the USA. However the future will require less if Americans are smart enough to see that indeed there is a real agent for change in our midst.
It is necessary for those here to understand what is at stake, as Obama calls it a "defining moment" in America's history. It will be the most defining ever experienced because survival of the human race hangs in the balance. There is no one else that will be able to muster the strength and the courage to deal with the likes of ABC and the corporate control of the American people. I doubt whether he will succeed but it is the only chance for hope and change as so many who write here would want!
Who has a vested interest in putting McCain in office? Whopays George and Charles? To expect anything resembling integrity from these whores is just stupid.
I find Canadian whisky tastes best if partaken whilst wearing a Made in China flag lapel pin. Mmm, mmm!
The networks use public airwaves. Their use of them is a privilege that can be revoked.
One of the things that Hillary is accomplishing for her base (the wealthy) is to minimize the amount of money available to Democratic senate and congressional campaigns, and thus limit Democratic congressional victories in November.
If in spite of the efforts of the media, the Republicans, and Hillary, (was that redundant?) if we do manage to take a few seats, we ought to review some of those licenses.
A jounalists job is to bring to light truth, evidence, sometimes even theories, that- in doing so- will affect the public interest- allowing the public to defend itself. Journalist SHOULD be the truth seekers on behalf of the electorate... not opinion makers on 'electability'. David Brooks can go suck an egg.
Of course, none of this matters if there is no difference between the candidates. Kinda like high school.
Who cares about this?! There's still no choice. All the presidential candidates that the media acknowledge are members of the Council on Foreign Relations. The CFR wants to be (or is already) the ruling elite, and citizens will all be wage slaves in tenements.
These people, McCain, Clinton, and Obama, will not represent us or turn back any New World Order proclomations. They will continue the neo-con tyranny.
Search up CFR, PNAC, and Bohemian Club. Don't vote for any of these people anyway, enjoyable debate or not. They're all liars and megalomaniacs.
Mike Gravel stated and repeated that US troops died in vain in Viet Nam and are dying in vain again in Iraq. He's no longer invited to debates.
Ron Paul has spoken publicly against the (illegal, unconstitutional, private corporation) "Federal" Reserve Bank, which manufactures poverty and steals wages calculatedly. He's no longer invited to debates.
Vote for the politicians who don't belong to these private committees, which have their own agendas that diverge from the good of the people of this nation. Nothing that our representatives do should or can be secret, if we are to have the society that our forefathers dreamed of, and tried to leave as a legacy.
dustinchicago-
a journalists job is to report news in a manner that will attract people to read his or her newspaper.
a journalists vocation is to "bring to light truth, evidence, sometimes even theories, that- in doing so- will affect the public interest- allowing the public to defend itself"
Sadly, most journalists see their occupation as a job, rather than a vocation :(
http://rebelconservative.blogspot.com
"Ron Paul... is no longer invited to debates." Why would Ron Paul be invited to Democratic Party debate? He is a Republican.
For those who think that all major channels are the same, there is one exception: Countdown with
Keith Olberman. Keith leaves no stone unturned in letting viewers know that Bush-Chaney are
nothing short of criminals. If you hate FOX news, you'll love Countdown. It's on MSNBC.
Please inform me. When will there be a debate - an honest, unbiased discussion rather than a patty-cake game with gossip and stupid, absurd matters such as wearing a pin. Are there no honest journalists left? I just listened to NPR defend the last so-called debate and in the process trivialize the non-media voters (probably hand-picked by the moderators) who asked questions. Their guest went on to say the debates are very biased toward Obama, and those of us who criticize them are (to paraphrase) just a bunch of Obama-loving stooges. Outrageous! Bitter, indeed!
This was an extremely pathetic excuse for a debate. It was a right wing gang bang. Questions form Shawn Hannity, lapel pins, 1960s activists. Our nation is in a crisis and this is the type of nonsense Gibson and Stephenopolous decided to ask?
I wrote ABC about the trash they aired last the other night and I urge everyone to give them a piece of your mind.
http://abc.go.com/site/contactus.html?lid=ABCCOMGlobalFooter&lpos=CONTACT
What has been left unsaid regarding this debate was that ABC were paying back the Clinton's for the legislative favors (1996 Telecommunications Act & 1998 Digital Millennium Act [colloquially known as the Disney Copyright Act]) that Bill & Hilary did for them during their prior tenure in the White House. So in exchange, Disney had its' subsidiary, ABC, sandbagged Obama for 45 minutes. Considering the massive profits they engendered from the two aforementioned pieces of legislation, 45 minutes of national airtime was a cheap pay-off of a favor owed.
Charlie Gibson was supposed to ask questions and moderate, not be part of the debate, otherwise he should run for president himself.
And George Stephanopolous asking Hillary questions? Where did he spend most of his time in politics? With the Clintons.
ABC should recuse itself from any further debates.
Everyone knows ABC News is just another Clinton News Network. Obama should've had the sense to see what was coming, and refused to participate.
Did he really expect that he wasn't going to be dogged by Stephanopoulos?
Goebbels sez has an excellent point. I don't wear a lapel pin, but if an American company made them, HERE, with materials made HERE, by people who live HERE--legally-- I would wear one every day to celebrate!
Mr. and Mrs. Clinton will hopefully retire quietly and live out their lives in one of their mansions.
I can dream, can't I?
obama handled everything pretty well......and stayed above the fray with class......
I am encouraged to see that predominately, Americans are outraged.
The media whores have evaded the most important questions to their purported obligation for 35 years by my accounting, because that's when I started asking about it:
How is it possible even to maintain a circulation without inherently and irreversibly multiplying debt in proportion to the circulation, if to maintain the circulation we must re-borrow whatever we must pay against principal and interest obligations as subsequent sums of debt, increased so much as periodic interest?
Terms such as "electable," are a complete evasion of the matters at hand. We need a president who can answer the question I just asked; and if no one in the "mainstream" media can ask the question, then these people need to lose their licenses to deceive, disinform, and mislead us.
I have the answer to that question -- in fact I've had it ready for 40 years... in case Mr. Charles Gibson or Mr. George Stephanopoulos or anyone else is interested.
But the question remains, why do they continue to evade that question?
(even if the answer is rhetorical.)
Because the people who own the corporation these "men" work for would not own that corporation if there were a truly representative government, or mathematically perfected economy.
McCain, Clinton and Obama are not change. Those three are establishment elitests.
Wall Street gives as much money to Mr. Obama as to Mrs. Clinton. Do you really think those two are anything but elitest shills?
Good luck.
My2sence: Many of those little American Flags that are given away free and even some American flags
you buy at cheap department stores are made in china.
From Canada, a prediction: John McCain will be your next President and your country is headed down the toilet. We don't believe in you any more.
Thanks hyehopes, I just wrote to ABC:
The "debate" was not presidential; it was more like a junior high school lunchroom, with the two bullies in charge. They taunted both candidates but let the "girl" join in them in verbal assault on the "colored kid." I am surprised that the two hosts did not throw mashed potatoes at the candidates and belch at them when they answered their inane questions.
Do not ever attempt to do a program that is important to our country again, you are not up to the task; you do our nation a disservice; your lack of respect for the future of our country is appalling.
Bring back the League of Women Voters to run a debate as it should be conducted: With in-depth questions about issues, timed responses, timed rebuttals, and a 100% objective organization running the debate.
In general, give us some real reporters; not Barbie dolls and Ken dolls who flirt and make jokes back and forth. Give us people we can trust to give us the news straight; not puppets following the corporate political and social agendas, trying to goad guests into making "sound bite" statements. I don't want any more of your Jerry Springer type hosts or "newscasters". Give us the news, not a "show." Give us people who are reporting what is going on in the world and the country, rather than people who are desperate to create hype around a story, any story. Retire the "infotainment" model.
Could we please act like, and be treated as, adults?
This debacle of a debate would not have been necessary if the Democratic party had united behind one candidate.
Valuable time could be spent slamming the Republicans, each and every day, instead of this Democratic circular firing squad.
I call again, as I have since January, for the Democratic party to unite against the greater enemy.
ABC = Owned by Disney = Endorsing Hillary
NBC = Owned by GE = Endorsing Obama
FOX = Owned by Murdoch = Endorsing McCain
GE + Disney + Murdoch = The Ruling Oligarchy (or a good portion there of)
And the sad thing is, all three will be quite content with whoever Diebold elects.
Bring back Dan Rather, I left cbs for abc,
back to Katie I guess..what choice do we have?
What a bunch of Flunkies..they forgot to mention
the other fable, lesbians, homosexuals,
and the Religious Crowd..all diversionary
tactics to keep us in the dark, and to help them stay away from the real issues..like the loss of 3,000,000 industrial jobs, and the importation of illegal immigrants to lower our standard of living in the job market, Hillary and Nafta, and her support of it and her
support of moving jobs to India that Stephenopoulos does not mention..
Would someone stuff a cigar or something in Bill Clinton's mouth?
|this is a contact sport. If you don't want to play, keep your uniform off." - Bill Clinton
IS THAT WHAT HE TOLD MONICA LEWINSKY?
Part 1: Public Relations
Part 2: Marketing
Personally found part 2 even worse than part 1 because it pretended to be a talk about substantive issues.
Loved that comedic magisterial guy with the long nose and the bi-focal glasses. His youngun mini-me was also a priceless stooge. Can you send 'em up North here. I want to know if our leader Stephen Harper "is in bed with the Nazis" or whether the opposition leader Stephan Dion knows how "to shoot his gun"?!! Sorry, we got no black leaders here to (character) assasinate... but lots of injuns!!
Senator Clinton's false, negative attacks are exactly the kind of say-anything, do-anything politics that the American people are tired of.
That's why polls show that the majority of Americans think she's running the most negative campaign, and 58% of voters do not find her honest or trustworthy.
Barack Obama wants to end the politics of division and distraction in Washington so we can bring about real change for ordinary Americans.
The stakes are too high to play the same old games. More than 1.3 million supporters have responded to Barack's message of change, and with your help we can reach 1.5 million by May 6th.
www.barackobama.com/match
I have only one word for ABC NEWS, in general, and Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, in particular: SHAME!
SHAME on you for ganging up on Obama!
controversies about Obama's former pastor, Obama's failure to wear flag lapel pins, and his casual association with a '60s radical.
US corporate media:
Garbage (capital) in,
Garbage (distractions) out.