The War Room has an important post on this point. The 'substance' portion of the debate was, except for one 'quick question' on the trivial issue of gas prices, set up with perfect fidelity to flatter Right Wing talking points. In other words, devoid of substance.

I find that remarkable. Of the notable disasters, the capital gains tax badgering by Charlie Gibson- which he was utterly and unforgivably wrong about, not least about the revenue implication, but certainly also about the '100 million' americans that own stock- was only the most despicable. The gun question was a play on that favorable Republican talking point, the Iraq question was a way to turn that HUGELY negative issue toward Republicans by making it seem like the Democrats are irresponsible, there were NO substantive questions about the economy- taxes and a tax pledge were pushed instead- and on down the line. In short, every line Republican would use frame policy issues was toed, every issue that they would want to bury was buried and every issue they would have highlighted was pushed. I am utterly flabbergasted by how despicable last night's debate was.

First of all, Senator Clinton got panned in that debate last night too and not just over Bosnia- see my last post. Secondly, Senator Clinton has never been subject to anything like that. I don't recall any McDougal or Rose Law Firm or Cattle Future questions, not to mention trivial past path crossings with persons on the radical fringe. Most importantly by far, the difference now is that the primary is all but over. One need only look at the Intrade numbers or the poll momentum in spite of incessant negative coverage of Obama for a quick confirmation. So the difference now is that this hit job is being done on the presumptive nominee of our party. Indeed, the Right is positively gleeful over the whole thing and in full fledged praise of ABC. Do you recall that happening in past debates? No, and with good reason. Russert's badgering of Clinton, gotcha, unfair and inane though it was, was not on the same order of magnitude of media activism as last night's debacle.

@Denning- this is a very good point too. All of the substance questions were atrocious, which was the insult to the injury. Just shocking.

He's a unreconstructed supply sider. Apparently.

...but also of a piece with the entirety of that elaborate hit job not just on Obama, but on the entirety of the 'out-of-touch' Left. I especially liked your 'substance' post yesterday. Lest it be forgotten that the most 'electable' Democrat is the one least like a Democrat, we had probing questions about taxes with dear ol' Charlie posing as supply-side inquisitor, we had assertions about Iranian nuclear ambitions not supported by our intelligence community, we had persistence over guns and Obama's memo on the subject, and yada yada yada.

Of course, we as a party share responsibility. If it wasn't for the split in the party, we would see through this stuff. This morning's latest anti-Obama column from Paul Krugman underscores this point. You would think he would take issue with the flag pin and Ayers 'patriotism' questions, or with the ridiculous way the issues were framed by the GOP... I mean ABC moderators, but instead he sees fit to be the umpteenth person to pile on over the 'bitter' remarks. The counterpoint to this is the number of Obama supporters that have indulged in the worst kind of Hillary hatred, (which goes beyond even strident criticism), or swallowing right wing slanders. In many ways, we are paying the price for our own sins.

So you take no issue with the fact that this was raised, nor how it was raised?

Also, can you explain what relevance there is to Obama's patently trivial association with Ayers- a University of Illinois professor who worked in a high profile role for the mayor of the second largest city in the United States?

I know some posters don't want to be taken seriously, but I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Also gleefully defended ABC yesterday- he is pulling for McCain overtly, and got very animated with elation when the report came out that he'd won California over Romney- and used George H W Bush's touring of a flag factory in his race against Dukakis as an example of showmanship he thinks is a good thing. I was flabbergasted at that telling remark. He's an intelligent guy though, so it's really not easy to put your finger on why he's so obtuse.

The only thing I can think of is that he's a champion of the Republican party that's totally out of step with his party. In the flap between him and Limbaugh over McCain, it was pretty clear that Limbaugh had very little knowledge of him and didn't so much not think highly of him as think him irrelevant. He's a man without a constituency- what's the psychology of that I wonder? I don't know, but fantasy will be no small part of it.