YOU WACKOS ON BOTH SIDES ARE OVERREACTING

[datopbanana]

The first half was a hit job but it utterly failed and made Clinton look bad in the process.

The second half was the typical debate between Obama and Clinton with Clinton doing a bit better as usual.


It didn't change anything.

[scheming daemons]

1. How is SNL going to spoof this debate? It's tough to spoof something that was already a parody of

itself....

[anonymous171]

7. It will be their original pro-hillary sketch inverted.

[WA98296]

2. How could she not do well with the questions in advance?

[datopbanana]

3. She usually does better in debates but it doesn't mean anything in terms of winning votes

[Autumn]

5. Do you have a link for that? n/t

[emilyg]

10. Unless you have proof - shut up.

[babylonsister]

4. You wackos? I agree with your premise, but your intro stinks. nt

[depakid]

6. Some of us "whackos" remember when we had at least a semi-responsible media

and some of our outrage is directed at the fact that not only isn't that remotely true anymore, the quest for the bottom is reaching epic proportions, as evidenced yet again tonight.

ABC sat back and insulted every single person who bothered to tune in (something I rarely do anymore- and which is almost ALWAYS a mistake).

[EFerrari]

8. There are no wackos on DU.

We're just enthusiastic.

:rofl:

[TheDonkey]

9. That how I see it. Clinton was very desperate looking in the first half, Obama bumbled in the 2nd

He needs to tighten his questions on taxes and social security imo. Those were his weakest moments.

Hillary on the other hand flamed out at the start clinging to every old controversy and looking extremely pitiful in the process. She also could not give a very good response to her Bosnia sniper lie other than "oooooops"

[melody]

11. No, I think the actual supporters have the right to express themselves

No one is "overreacting" except someone who is overreacting by suggesting others have no right to express themselves
the way they wish.

The only truly nasty ones here are trolls.

[datopbanana]

13. There were definitely wackos overreacting . I'll let you decide fall in that group or not.

[melody]

15. I'll let you decide fall?

lol ... I think that's an overreaction because you're typo'ing.

Calm down, my friend. The "wackos" have the same right you do to react.

[datopbanana]

17. you're right. so quit repressing my right to overreact to those overreacting

:0

[melody]

20. You ever hear the term "circular logic"? lol

Have your last word and let's end this silliness.

[gcomeau]

12. Completely missing the point.

Who cares if the hit job failed... that it was attempted at all by what were supposed to be objective and unbiased moderators of a respectable national debate, people who are supposed to be displaying some degree of journalistic integrity, is outrageous and unconscionable.

[datopbanana]

14. You're right. I was referring to the people who were claiming this doomed Obama or turned Hillary's

campaign around.

[quakerboy]

16. You know, I rember back in '04

when we wished for the old days and motivated nonpartisan groups moderating debates, rather than the MSM and pundits. Thats been a problem for a while. What will we do about that, and when?

[bklyncowgirl]

18. I listened to it on c-span this morning--I think you're right

Clinton won on points. Obama may have won on emotion. I'm thinking that the unallied voters might prefer the guy who kept trying to get the conversation back on things like health care and Iraq but that's just me.

On second hearing, Obama survived the attack and got in a few shots of his own. Clinton did very well on specifics when the conversation changed to issues.

Not much new here except for the low intellectual tone of the debate as set by the moderators.

[indimuse]

19. Obama FAILED!

Big Fail!

[melody]

21. Who are you people? All these supposed Clinton supporters I've never seen before?

And your image failed in your signature, btw.