I think people only are talking about those issues because the media is. If it wasn't given more than a passing mention, maybe it wouldn't become quite so salient. And debates are supposed to be on a higher level anyway. They aren't playgrounds, where candidates throw rocks at each other (and moderators do the same). We're supposed to be hearing substantive policy issues here.

The general consensus can be found here.

I thought ABC chose to roll in the mud with the divisive old school politicians, including political pundits and corporate MSM who have helped shape that beast. I thought Obama weathered the storm, showed his distaste for the same ol' political games and I imagine that us bitter voters out here in the real world will respond with increased donations and supporters (Obama has gained nearly 40,000 new donors in the last 24 hours). Obama's lack of Washington insider persona is a net plus for him. We are tired of the way politics has been played for the last 3 decades and we're ready for change. Notice how many incumbents have lost their seats in the last 2 years. Both Hillary and McCain are the "incumbents" in this race and if they loose their campaigns against the "insurgent" they may just want to watch their Senate seats the next go round as well. It's the ground game stupid.

Yes, this is what is being discussed and we need to know who these candidates are, don't we?

I agree with Tane's comments on this one. Those of us who pay attention can define what is old and who is new. I've spent 20+ years watching the Democrats becoming as institutional and corporate as the other side. To be honest I've never been a fan of the DLC though Bill did a fair job. It will take a wedge and a very big hammer to convince me of a tangible difference between Clinton and McCain. Obama is not beholding therefore we just might see a change of direction. Wait a minute....ABC is a corporate entity, could there be a connection. Now please excuse me...I have to send another check to the Obama Campaign. Peace

I think the moderators of last nights debate were disgraceful. The George and Charlie show turned my stomach. I wanted to hear about the economy, gas prices, health care, etc. Instead, nothing but childish questions that have nothing to do with the crucial issues confronting the United States today.

I don't care if he wears a lapel pin or not. It is a non-issue and should be shelved. Please people,
grow up!

ABC just lost my respect regarding any news program they have on air. Disgusting exhibition.

Voters don't mind questions but the questions for over 1/2 hour were obviously one-sided and it appeared that Hillary stood by smirking as if she had been made aware of everything beforehand. Foul. Okay, we all are aware that Stephanopolous worked for Bill Clinton - big conflict of interest.

I am disgusted by the debate last night. It was a "political lynching" of Sen. Barack Obama. The obvious conflict of interest with George Stephanopaulos as a commentator with his well known history with the Clintons shows that the debate was set-up to be an attack on Sen. Obama. I've lost a lot of respect for ABC for wasting my time with 52 mins. of mud slinging. Digging for more information on Sen. Clinton's hallucinations and Sen. Obama's relationships with other people is not hleping me to pay my gas bill.

yes abc was the loser at last night's debate. i am sick and tired of the rev wright thing, let wright speak for himself, i wish the conservative media would stop trying to put the words of other people into obama's mouth. george s. don't let shaun hanity the lapping boy of rush limbaugh
put silly questions into your mouth.

I don't know about anyone else but last night's debate made me realize how exhausted this primary has made me. Would all other independents like myself please vote for Obama and get this thing over with! This is becoming so painful to watch. By the time real issues get any air, we'll all be too exhausted to even care and just go about our lives trying to keep gas in our car, $5 at a time. I am so ready for a breath of fresh air in Washington--I even pray over it yesterday with the Pope and I'm not Catholic!!!!

It just amazes me that everytime you anticipate that one will get some resolution to this "run for the white house." some crap comes up. namely, ABC news. Last night ranked right up there with the "Flavor of Love Reunion show", "I Love New York" and all of the other reality shows. Quite frankly, I thought whoever made the Gibson and Stephenopolus masks for O'Reilly and Hannity did a wonderful job. I felt like we got the short end of the stick though, because they didn't leave enough time at the end for Ashton Kutscher to come out and tell us we got punk'd. Next debate, let's have Martha Stewart moderate and we can watch Cindy McCain and Rachel Ray go at it over who came up with the best recipe for White House Cinnamon Buns. Oh wait, Bill Clinton already won for that one.

J

I am a proud registered N.H. Independent voter. I agree with Washington Post TV critic Tom Shales 100%. I have watched beginning to end, every Republican and Democratic Debate this election Primary season. Some were better than others. But, this ABC Debate was an abomination! I kept hoping the questions would get better...but, they didn't. As a "Good Morning America" viewer, I am flabbergasted! Finally, I changed the channel to MS-NBC. Is the NRA laying the foundation to run ads on ABC and is ABC planning on cashing in on the "Cash Cow"? I watched entire Clinton interview and the entire Obama interview. I also watched the beginning of the John McCain interview, but, McCain never really says anything...just: I want to thank...; I respect...; I've known him for a long time...; He's my friend...; I love this country. I love America... And, that's about it for substance from John McCain. So I shut off the TV and put on some CDs. Listening to John McCain is like listening to President George W. Bush (heard the 1st Bush speech, you've heard them all)...except sometimes McCain uses compound/complex sentences. I don't recollect President G. W. Bush ever using anything but a simple sentence. (Phillips/Andover graduate? Yale graduate?) Americans are losing their jobs or taking salary losses. Americans are losing their homes. Americans are losing their retirement investments. Americans are hurting when it comes to health care. Americans are losing their sons & daughters in Iraq. Americans are making hard financial choices. Banks are bankrupting Americans--except they got Congress to change the bankruptcy laws. All the while the CEOs of Stock Market companies are voting themselves, by benefit of huge paid stock options, higher salaries and more stock options...and when these CEOs run their company into the ground, they move on to another. And all ABC is interested in is flag pins and Obama's pastor? Which brings me to another point...Churches like Obama's have local control. Hillary is Methodist...the control, the interpretation of "The Discipline" is from the top, down. And Hillary probably didn't point out she was Methodist when she downed those drinks with the guys! But, this country has many more serious issues than these. And, we're all in this together. The ABC Debate, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopolis were so disappointing! I expected better. (Please update your Spellcheck)

I didn't see the debate, and I really haven't even read to much about the reaction to it. I will say, though, that in politics today these "non-issues" are really as important as The Issues, and we as a people are partly to blame for that. Truth is, that people are still talking about Reverend Wright and still talking about Bosnian snipers because, let's be honest, we care about that stuff too. Just wander into any political discussion here on the 'Vine and you'll see it. Personally I don't think we've had a President elected soley on their stance on The Issues of the Day in at least the last 20 years.

To quote Murrow, "Cassius was right: 'The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.'"

George was asking the question as if Reverend Wright was running for president. They might as well have the debate at fox news and have the so called journalists there have their night with Obama. The debate was a joke. Nothing new learned, which is what would be considered a failure for a debate.

Hi,
I'd like to say that I LIKED the ABC debate. Whether Obama says questions pertaining to his character are irrelevant or not, I believe they are important. A candidates integrity and character are important factors for choosing who is to be the President of this country. It matters to me who he associates with. His explanations are not sufficient for me, and merely saying that he now disassociates himself from certain past relationships doesn't wash with me. I want to make sure we wouldn't be having Nation of Islam parties at the White House should be become President!! He is who is he, and his true character is being revealed. He is not presidential material. Of course Obama would rather not discuss these things; they are uncomfortable for him. We have heard debates on the major issues before, and I believe we heard enough in this debate to see where the candidates stand.
I applaud ABC for finally having a debate where Obama is called out to explain himself. Hillary did a fine job, speaking succinctly and confidently about the issues. I'm fine with the fact that she pushed Obama a bit on his flimsy excuses for his associations and behavior. Someone has to!! The press certainly isn't. For awhile I was on the fence about who to vote for. Now I'm clearly voting for Hillary.

The higher road, of course. But under the current system I'm not holding my breath.

Keith Olbermann is the only Murrowesque/Cronkite-like personage on commercial TV these days. The rest of them are just circus performers and trained seals. Expected better from Georgie Stephanopoulos. But sooner or later--in general--money and power corrupt. (Of course there are always exceptions. But not many...)

-- GP

====

Awful debate, political setup, Hillary was pandering to the Super Delegates on this one. Hmmm no new ones for Billary... People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. ABC should be renamed FOX news. Hillary/Lieberman ticket for the future??

If you want to even call this a debate,it was the worse that I have ever seen. George and Charlie spent too much time on affiliation of the candidates rather than on the issues facing our country.

Let's be honest here, we know absolutely nothing about Senator Obama.
All of a sudden he could possibly be our President. Our PRESIDENT!
You bet I want to know about his associates, and that includes the Reverend
of his church and why he stayed.....and why he's denying ever hearing or having knowledge of Reverend Wright's views (which many times are ugly
and frankly frightening). I WANT to vote for Senator Obama; but we need
to put our knowledge ahead of our fascination. This is a critical time in our
country's history. More than ever, we should WANT to know as much as possible
about a candidate's character, his or her leanings, associates with whom he or she
is comfortable, and their judgment. Like I said, we know nothing about this man. Senator
Obama certainly knows he's been unknown to most of us, and he should, therefore, not be reluctant to answer ANY question we may have. He should KNOW that.

The ABC rationale was "this was topics that had come up since the last debate" and needed to be covered. So, the Penn/Bill/Columbia question, the bear-stearns bail out, the Petraeus hearings, the acknowledgement we are in a recession, the Clinton foundation donations and potential conflicts of interest, Bill and China, etc these all evidently are too trivial to merit questions in the debate, but a "flag" and patriotism is so vital to decisions in PA perhaps? that the woman who asked it did not bring out the long history of economic disaster including her as wage earner losing her job because her company went over seas, 8 years to get disability after her husband's mining accident, lack of a safety net for their situation now because of welfare reform under the Clintons were ignored--thereby proving Obama's mangled (as he puts it) statement in SF. I can't believe that anyone would think of this as responsible journalism on the George and Charlie's part as apparently David Brook's does in his NY Times columns and on MacNeil Lehrer. He echoes Clinton's gravely disappointed "reluctant" tone that these "questions need to be addressed" because of the electibility questions the Republicans will raise this fall. Pretty overt trying to twist the public discourse into the "old politics" that continue to be so divisive. Obama never said it would be "easy"

I loved the debate. I have heard enough of the issues. Barack has been treated with kid gloves this entire campaign. I really don't care what the questions were - I needed to see him respond when the going was really tough. And, as much as I am attracted to his words, I just don't think he has the right stuff. Hillary can keep her head under severe stress, which is constant in the job. As long as Barack is surrounded by Obamamaniacs, he looks great. But, sadly, that is not what the job requires.

Charles, When you learned that George was going to use information he got from Sean Hannity in the debate why didn't you walk of the set? You are a man of character and integrity why don't you admit that what the two of you did on wednesday night was wrong. Millions of people trusted you, the main stream media, to question the candidates on the economic, social and political issues that matter to them and the country and you delivered the worse kind of tabloid journalism. If the two of you have any dignity left you would apologize for your behavior. When you ask the candidates why they error, misspeak, or mishandle you expect them to show class and apologize. Why not show some class and do what you would ask and expect them to do in a similar situation.David

It's about time Obama was scrutinized, even though these issues were not breaking news. Obama consistently scripts his response and doesn't respond to questions he can't control. Even thought he should have been prepared to answer these questions, it was important to see his uncanned response. If these issues were plaguing Clinton, the media would have not only been all over it, but they probably would have uncovered it themselves before the New Hampshire primary. Did the press manufacture the origins of Obama's momentum by piling on Clinton instead of applying objective scrutiny to Obama? I think so.

Ay ay ay, look, presidential debates are supposed to be about substantive issues. Period. The fact that the MSM is inundating the waves with gossip now means to you that the debates should do same?
Very sad, very very sad.