Final debate thoughts

Posted: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:08 PM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: Democratic debates

From NBC's Chuck Todd
This was not a good debate for Obama, period. But it wasn't a great debate for Clinton either. Of course, that may not matter to Team Clinton. In a twp-way debate, it's not about which candidate narrowly wins -- but which candidate gets pummeled in the post-debate reviews. And Obama will get pummeled because well he did get pummeled, a little bit by Clinton and a little bit by the moderators.

In the first 40 minutes of the debate, most of the questioning was on Obama's negatives (except for a lone Bosnia-sniper question to Clinton) and that's what helped create what was a near disastrous performance by Obama in those first 40 minutes. He was weak in a lot of his answers on his personal negatives. (Did he really compare Tom Coburn to a one-time '60s radical/terrorist?) Clinton, meanwhile, piled on, particularly (and surprisingly, actually) on Ayers. While I'm not sure if Clinton's piling on ever is good for her in the long run -- see her current poll standing -- it created some post-debate issues for Obama. Many news organizations will feel compelled to do Ayers stories in the next few days. While some may question the fairness and relevancy of the Ayers issue, it's not going to be good for Obama.

This debate is going to lead a lot of Obama supporters to ratchet up the calls on Clinton to either withdraw or tone down the attacks. Clinton supporters will point to this debate as proof that he's not yet ready for the general, that's why she should stay in, and that's why superdelegates should overturn the winner of pledged delegates.

Overall, with the spotlight on him very bright, Obama didn't step up. He got rattled early on and never picked his game back up. Clinton wasn't very warm (outside of he first few minutes), but she didn't have the spotlight on her very bright. And as we've noted in "First Thoughts" quite a few times, whenever the spotlight is on one candidate, the other seems to benefit. Tonight, the spotlight was on Obama, and for a short period of time, I expect Clinton to benefit. But the question is whether she can sustain any benefit since as the negativity goes on, she pays a bigger price than Obama. Let's see what the PA Dem voting public decides in six days. A big Clinton victory and this debate will be seen as an important turning point, a narrow victory (less than five points) and she could find herself facing more calls to get out.

Could tonight's true winner be John McCain? We're betting that's the unanimous pundit scoring tonight.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

President Obama and Vice President ????? Find out HERE!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPev5sEdTjg

Mary Kansas (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:10 PM)

Can anyone explain why the debate was not televised? Why do I have to listen to the words of commentators rather than actually listening to the debate. If it was televised, it was not on ABC, MSNBC or any other station that I could find here in Arizona. This really ticks me off. Don't tell me what they said.. please allow me to listen to it.

Carol in Arizona (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:13 PM)

Two lousy candidates arguing about how bad each other are. Not a pretty sight.

Jarret Newcome, Dallas Texas (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:13 PM)

Chuck, your analysis is embarassing. The entire debate was embarassing. Obama made the moderators look stupid because they are stupid.

Voters are angry and we agree with Obama that issues should be discussed. You might think character assassination is acceptable but the voters don't.

Pete, chicago (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:13 PM)

"We're betting that's the unanimous pundit scoring tonight."

And isn't that what's really important?

In all seriousness, Obama looked bad. In all fairness, Gibson and Stephanopoulous attacked him for almost the entire first hour. You will mention that, right?

Alex Tucker, Chattanooga, TN (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:14 PM)

george stephanopoulos was a clinton advisor. this debate was bogus before it even began.

adam/nyc (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:14 PM)

Look at the ABC message board for the debate - 5000 entries throughout the entire debate talking about how biased the moderators were being. If people are going to do stories about Ayers they should also do stories about the bias of this debate.

Shawn Goddard, Burlington, VT (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:15 PM)

Well I think it's about time the media asked Obama some tough questions. Daily Kos and Keith Olbermann might not like it, but it's something that was long overdue.

James, San Diego, CA (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:15 PM)

The democratic "DEBATE" from PA this evening is a joke! The first 75 minutes of this travesty has been committed to attacks on Barack Obama, with no in depth questioning of Hillary Clinton. The moderators are so blatantly biased for Hillary Clinton it sickens me! The question on her Bosnia lies was wishy-washy at best with no follow up of any consequence. There have been no questions on Clinton's character issues, lies, Mark Penn, or Nafta. The ABC network should be embarrassed and ashamed!

jayman, cottage grove, mn (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:15 PM)

Would a person who hadnt followed the primary so far tuned in to this debate they would have had NO idea what anyone was talking about for the first half.

What a sham...this election is about seriously important issues and our beloved media is COMPLETELY focused on the scuttlebutt about each candidate rather than the substance of the issues??

A pox on all the media's houses.

G Davis (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:15 PM)

The final thought is how pathetic Charlie and George were as moderators. Why don't you address this!?

I shared my thoughts with ABC News feedback:
http://abcnews.go.com/Site/page?id=3271346

Randy E (SC) (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:15 PM)

Yes, John McCain is the one to benefit from this debate. How could they let 45+ minutes go by without a debate on policies? Clinton's attack mode and negative attitude, together with the media obsession with gaffes, gotchas, and politics, are driving the primary season and the Democratic party into the ground.

sally (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:15 PM)

THE LOSER OF THIS DEBATE WAS ABC

For moderating the worst debate of the ENTIRE CAMPAIGN.

George Stephanopolus deserves to be tarred and feathered for that vomit-inducing attack on Obama.

Stephanopolus and Gibson, additionally, both deserve to be flogged for the worst example of political journalism in the past DECADE of national television broadcasting.

Harrier, Waco, Texas (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:15 PM)

Well, a clear loss for ABC. And a clear win for McCain (more fodder for them to use).

As for Clinton and Obama, I think its interesting to note that in the First Read right up this morning, just about everything you mentioned as ground to cover was negative for Clinton. Only Bosnia got covered as negative for her. It sounds like ABC and Gibson decided to throw him under the bus. Thank you ABC NEWS, aren't there rules about campaigning for one candidate versus the other. What a joke.

In terms of winners and losers, I don't think you can even score it, as there wasn't one debate. There was some softball questioning of Clinton (almost pandering to her) and then hardball for Obama. They both had some good moments and some classically weak moments. Obama did look more on the defensive (who could blame him) but was clearly still standing at the end. Boy, no body can say that he won't be ready for McCain. Look at what he does alone, think of how strong he'll be once he has a unified Dem. party behind him.

Lisa, in New Britain, CT Yes We Can! (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:16 PM)

I believe ALL members of the DNC won when both Senator Clinton and Sen. Obama both agreed to support the Democratic nominee. Now if they would just agree to the same ticket....

Two Winners (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:16 PM)

That was the point Chuck Todd. News Media, including MsNBC, CNN, and others need to vett NEOPHYTE candidates.

When you give candidate pillows and don't ask tough questions that they will have from the other party. Everyone is on trouble.

Looking at Anderson Coopers view, how much is Obama getting paid for this? Sean Hannity of Fox was right. Clintons were right. We all need to vet our candidates so that we have the strongest and tested person who can handle the PERCEPTIONS (not just hope) of what they will do. They have to be able to PROVE what they can deal with the FACADE OFF.

Objective Analysis (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:16 PM)

Chuck, your bias toward Obama makes me angry, and tonite Clinton hit it out of the Park and you still only grudgingly give her the creds. She makes sense, she has the guts and the experience, she needs to win.

Julie K. Smith, Arroyo Grande, CA (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:16 PM)

The first half of the debate was a barrage of questions directed specifically at Obama - not a debate. Then Gibson apologizes to Clinton for not having a balance of time. Interesting. By far the least productive debate of this entire election. The real issues were rushed through because we had to listen to the National Enquirer issues first.

Cindy Kansas City (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:16 PM)

My impression was that the debate was an attempt at an ambush on the part of ABC and Team Clinton. The Ayres question alone is very suspicious.

Peter W (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:16 PM)

Whell now that we have brought up Pardons, what of the 11 FALN Terrorists that Bill Clinton pardoned that certainly helped Sen Clinton win New York?

Here is a WSJ article on the issue:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120277819085260827.html

This is a credibility, trust and national security question.

Katy in Michigan (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:16 PM)

What a worthless debate! 90 minutes to probe into policy positions and what do we get? Questions that any simple tabloid reporter would ask. Based on the questions asked, ABC News apparently wanted more drama than actually discussing voter concerns. How long did it take to ask the first question on the economy? Nearly an HOUR! The number one issue to voters and it doesn't come up for nearly an HOUR. ABC News is definitely not where I will ever go again for information. Absolutely worthless...

Bob in WA (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:16 PM)

This debate was the worst we have seen yet. ABC should be embarrassed and the voters of PA should be outraged. A clear Obama hit job. I thank Tim R. and Chris M. for their quality coverage.

Jeff in Pennsylvania (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:17 PM)

Chuck, I'd love to see you post a link to the video of your chat with Keith Olbermann right after the debate. I didn't realize the post debate coverage had started (I thought it was still the Hardball rerun). I think you're very even-handed on all this stuff, despite a lot of the posts I read on here claiming that you lean one direction or another. Thanks for all your insight.

Marihelen TX (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:17 PM)

I call on Chuck and company to again bring up the "Srcew 'Em" comment by HRC back in 1995 about middle white class Americans. Do not just bring it up in First Read, but bring it up in MSNBC video, Hardball, Countdown and ultimately, TODAY and the NBC Nightly News.

Ismael, Weslaco Tx (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:18 PM)

The debate didn't discuss any real issues. I was on the ABC blog and people are furious. There was no discussion about real issues. The rising price everything this worthless war. They were no better that FIXED news.

Shavez , Baltimore (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:18 PM)

This wasn't a DEBATE it was an ABC NEWS hatchet job for HILLARY CLINTON to marginalize Barack Obama.
RACIST, BIGOTED and UNBALANCED. NO QUESTIONS TO HER
about COLUMBIAN NAFTA deals, "fellowship" cell cult, Ireland lies, Mark Penn LIES, GIBSON and GEORGE PILED on Barack Obama. PERIOD

HILLARY CLINTON is a LIAR and ABC NEWS let her LIE again and again. IT WAS DISGUSTINGLY CLEAR WHO THEY FAVORED.

Frannie (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:18 PM)

I agree, McCain won this debate...which means America is the ultimate loser. Obama was totally shaken by the hostile moderators and Hillary just confirmed my opinion of her as the vilest politican outside of Bush I've ever seen. (I still like Bill, but her? No way.) I'm depressed and going to bed.

Amy B Portland, Me (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:18 PM)

Yes the spotlight was basically only on Obama and hopefully that will be noted by the news media across the country. With all the Clinton gaffes it is amazing she got off scott free! I think Obama's supporters need to boycott ABC! This was a very unfair lopsided debate! Who knows maybe the Clintons or their supporters paid ABC to pounce all over Obama and forget all the issues Hillary has had?

Sheri, AZ (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:18 PM)

I don't think anyone would do well if they were getting piled on by the moderators and Clinton, and the mods were getting their questions supplied to them by the rightwing.
Also, if any of you are on any boards you better do background checks or you may be acussed by association.

diane (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:18 PM)

Chuck, you are way off tonight, man. I won't let you borrow any more of the lines I blog--"even 'change you can Xerox' was out of touch." Look at the polls--your polls ARE telling you what voters really think. Read your own blog--people are not reacting to the answers of the candidates but the questions.

James (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:19 PM)

There's a story out that workers that handle pig brains are getting ill. How does either Hillary's or Obama's health plan deal with this issue?

Pete Staark, Provo Utah (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:19 PM)

I felt moderators were not civil to the candidates,especially Barack, they were not letting him finish his sentences and interjecting during his response.
Overall, I feel Barack look more thoughtful and presidential. He was honest and refreshing whereas Hillary looked pugnacious and mean.

Also, Why ABC was focussing on Clinton supporters, Was George S. on rolls of Clinton.

Sam69,Richmond Virginia (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:19 PM)

IN MY OPINION THE REASON WHY THE MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATIC DELEGATES AND SUPER DELEGATES HAVE NOT RALLIED BEHIND SENATOR CLINTON IS BECAUSE THEY THINK….SENATOR OBAMA- IF NOMINATED WILL EASILY BEAT SENATOR MCCAIN, SO THEY ARE HEDGING THEIR BETS. THEY THINK THAT WITH THE ECONOMY AND THE INTERNATIONAL CRISIS IN THE SHAPE THAT IT IS IN, COMBINED WITH HIS AGE---THAT HE WILL BE AN EASY TARGET COME NOV. THUS THEY FEEL WITH SENATOR OBAMA’S APPEAL TO THE YOUNGER VOTER AND THE AFRICAN AMERICAN VOTER, THE DEMOCRATIC S HAVE A TREMENDOUS CHANCE OF TAKING THE WHITE HOUSE IN 08. I BELIEVE, THERE REASONING IS FLAWED…FIRST, LIKE IT OR NOT, THE REPUBLICANS WILL RALLY BEHIND SENATOR MCCAIN, EVEN WITH MIS-GIVING’S. SECOND, THOUGH IT MAY “APPEAR” THAT THE REPUBLICANS DON’T CARE IF THEY LOOSE THE WHITE HOUSE IN 08, DON’T BET THE FARM ON IT….I DON’T DOUBT FOR A MOMENT THAT THERE ARE SO VERY MANY SECRETS, SECRET DEALS AND HAPPENINGS THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE OVER THE PAST 8 YEARS….UNKNOWN TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, AND THE REPUBLICANS ARE IN NO WAY GOING TO RISK THESE BEING EXPOSED. SENATOR MCCAIN, KNOWS GOING INTO THIS, AS DOES THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, THAT HE, IF ELECTED WILL SERVE A ONE YEAR TERM, SIMPLY BECAUSE OF HIS AGE IF NOTHING ELSE. THUS A STRONG, APPEALING VICE-PRESIDENTIAL RUNNING MATE WILL ALLOW THE PARTY TO POSITION ITSELF FOR THE 0-12 ELECTIONS. FOLKS, YOU HAVE SEEN IN THE PAST HOW THE REPUBLICANS WIN ELECTIONS…THIS SCENARIO IS NOT UNREALISTIC. IN ORDER FOR SENATOR OBAMA TO BEAT SENATOR MCCAIN, HE WILL NOT ONLY NEED ALL HIS EXISTING SUPPORT, BUT THE SUPPORT OF ALL OF SENATOR CLINTONS FOLKS, ALONG WITH A MAJORITY OF THE SO-CALLED REAGAN DEMOCRATS AND INDEPENDENTS….A MIGHTY TASK TO ASSUME. I SAY THIS NOT BECAUSE I AM AGAINST SENATOR OBAMA, I SAY THIS BECAUSE I BELIEVE THIS IS THE REPUBLICAN GAME-PLAN. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, SENATOR OBAMA IS INTELLIGENT, ABLE, AND SINCERE….BUT HE BRINGS THE REV WRIGHT ALONG WITH HIM, AND THE “ILL-PLACED” COMMENT OF HIS WIFE ABOUT “FINALLY BEING PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN” AND THE REPUBLICANS WILL POUND HIM TO DEATH ON THIS ISSUE AND OTHER ISSUES. PLUS THE FACT THAT HIS RESUME’ IS SHORT ON EXPERIENCE. WHILE SENATOR CLINTON HAS HER FAULTS, SHE HAS BEEN EXPOSED TO THE REPUBLICAN ATTACK MACHINE MOST ALL HER LIFE AND I BELIEVE SHE IS IN A BETTER POSITION TO HANDLE THE ONSLAUGHT OF THE ENTIRE REPUBLICAN PARTY COME NOVEMBER…
THE DEBATE SHOWED THAT OBAMA CAN NOT HOLD THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY TOGETHER---IF HE IS THE NOMINEE, MCCAIN WILL BEAT HIM IN NOV.

KATHY (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:20 PM)

Mr Todd.

I disagree with your assessment that Obama was weak in his answers regarding the negativity he has endured in the last 6-8 weeks of his campaign. He held Hillary and the moderators to task on the divisive and attack type politics that Hillary Clinton and the media have portrayed. Both candidates basically performed well..., neither one of them hit it out of the park. The real losers in the debate were the moderators. Why was George even allowed to be a moderator given his relationship with the Clintons? ABC should be ashamed of this debacle.

TD (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:20 PM)

MSNBC should fire Chuck Todd and all americans should boycott ABC. This wasn't a debate it was a joke. Let's talk about the real issues which is what Obama has tried to do all along.

S Wolf (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:20 PM)

Rattled? You would be rattled too if you stand ready, willing and able to discus issues and solutions not gutter politics. Everyone keeps saying that the gutter issues (which I will not dignify by listing) will be re-introduced by the GOP. Then let them. The Dems should focus on the issues Americans want to discuss - high gas prices, the housing crisis, the war in Iraq, social security, and a host of other topics the next president will face. This debate was a disgrace. I am ashamed of charlie and george.

Bitter Beltwaylady (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:20 PM)

Chuck what are you basing your assumption that Obama didn't do well tonight? Are you not reading the comments on your blog? Listen to the Dem's talk radio tomorrow and if you still feel that Obama sucked during the debate then more power to you. But this was a very poor attempt by ABC tonight and their moderators.

Richard, Chicago (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:21 PM)

You don't understand the voting public, Mr. Todd. You are now too political to comment on the issues. The debate was not a true debate; the commentators did a poor job with questions of lapel pins and distant associations (the distracting issues of politics), cutting off answers before the candidates were finished; the tone of the debate from the commentators was skeptical and somewhat scathing, like 'really, is that the answer you have, really'? The fourth estate did poorly tonight, and now I have to include you. The American people are so much smarter, thank God. Watch and see.

Dr. Darla Wilshire (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:21 PM)

Chuck, you are ridiculous!!! Fineman called this a 5 on 1 and that's correct! And still he did well in responding to questions that typify this "silly season". You should be fileting ABC news, not bashing Obama for ratings.

Rita, Chicago, Illinois (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:21 PM)

I just sent a complaint to ABC about the debate and the server crashed-Service Unavailable. That means too many users are complaining. ABC is taking some heat.

A Charles, LA, CA (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:22 PM)

Completely disagree. See this is more MSM "group think." Let's act like our opinions really matter - no, they don't. The only reason you matter is because you get to spin and filter information however you choose, and ABC News took advantage of that position tonight.

MSM does not speak for the general public. I'm sure you're right that the MSM will use this as an excuse now to do articles on Ayers, and waste more time on ridiculous, attenuated relationships that Obama has with other people. It's interesting that despite Clinton's bad relationship with MSM, they have avoided really doing any articles investigating all of the insidious relationships - far less attenuated ones - of which she is a part.

But of course MSM outlets protect one another, and give each other undue creedence by actually following the trash job that ABC News did tonight by doing what you all are inclined to believe they will do: follow up with trying to drudge up trash on Obama that just isn't there. MSM will never exceed expectations and actually do the right thing, which is to focus on issues; but then again, they are big corporations that want to make money, so we cannot expect them not to take advantage of their ability to appear as real journalists while acting as tabloids.

MK, Baltimore, MD (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:22 PM)

I think you are disappointed when you stated that Obama became rattled and didn't step up. Obama simply refused to play dirty politics. Obama was restrained from knocking her when he could, trying to keep the moderators on ISSUES, not personalities. Kudos to Obama.

Linda, Indiana (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:22 PM)

I don't know what debate you were watching but, the one I saw the first 40min go to Obama. In my opinion he handled all the attacks quite well. I finally thought he put to rest all "bitter", JW distractions. So I think you got it wrong on the first 40 min. Now HRC showed she was about politics as usual. A desperate politician who will do and say what ever it takes to win and if she can't have it nobody will!!!

Jackson, DC (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:22 PM)

Obama calms me--when Hillary started talking, my cat started throwing up.

James (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:22 PM)

the story is going to be the moderaters... it was absolutely the most biased situation we have seen.

that will be the story...

dl (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:23 PM)

Agreed; the gap showed.

JD (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:23 PM)

I watched the whole debate and noticed a Clinton Friendly, Obama hostile environment. Considering this i rate his performance a little better than you Chuck.
It seems like you have based your pick of loser based on which dog was surrounded by a barking snarling pack of other dogs. I'll base my pick of winner on which out numbered dog kept his feet and walked out with his tail high and his ears up.

Gary Schear, Bozeman Montana (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:23 PM)

I live in Colorado, so I was reading this blog in the hour before the debate actually started, and was expecting something totally different than what I saw when it aired. I usually am aligned with Chuck Todd, but tonight I'm just not sure what debate he was watching.

Obama spoke honestly and from the heart, and seemed to directly engage the audience, while Clinton looked everywhere except the camera and played games - trying to attack and simultaneously pretend she was not. I thought she seemed true to her negative image, while he seemed direct and honestly faced the questions being posed.

All in all, I think Obama's message is important - we need to look past silly issues like whether you once served on the same board of directors as someone who once said something offensive (or even whether your husband pardoned those same type of people), and focus on the real issues in this campaign. That message is right on point.

Karen in Denver, Colorado (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:23 PM)

Flag pins! Are you kidding?

Mark R., South Montrose, PA (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:24 PM)

This came from another blog:
"Let's continue to chase away the best and brightest and suck up to entrenched power. ABC should be ashamed at this horrible 90 minutes of shock TV. If the purpose was to show how tough the moderators are, they did not. Obama prevails when this is parsed. Time to shower."

I realize that the longer this primary goes on and the more drama it creates the more viewers will have, hence higher ratings. But COME ON, show some integrity and some respect for Americans and acknowledge the skew in the way this debate was moderated!!

Disappointed! (Sent Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:24 PM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=905215