Dueling Live Bloggers

Could two bloggers be so simultaneously opposite?

Tonight's Contestants: Jim Geraghty in red & Andrew Sullivan in blue.

(Note: this is not a debate between them, just synchronous snips from their respective live-blogging posts on the Clinton-Obama Philly debate. My emphasis is bolded.)

GERAGHTY: Hillary cites her Scranton upbringing, her father, and her grandfather. Says Obama expressed a "fundamental understanding" of the role of religion in people's lives, in good times and bad . She gently stings at him on guns and religion. Says she can see why people would be "taken aback and offended" by the remarks.

SULLIVAN: Because she's shameless, she's doing better. The appropriation of small-town life as part of her autobiography was a particularly brilliant.

Gibson asks Hillary about her "he would not have been my pastor." He asks her if the 8,000 members of that church should have gotten up....Wow. She describes Wright, "in his first sermon after 9/11, to blame America for the attacks, would have been unacceptable to me... You get to choose your pastor, you don't get to choose your family, but you get to choose your pastor." Zing.

On Wright, again her shamelessness helps her. His affect is total exhaustion, alas, as if being pummeled with every Rovian tactic has beaten the life out of him. And he is being pummeled by the ABC hosts as well. One reason I like the guy is that he is still human; politics hasn't killed his soul.

Obama gets into the "why don't we talk about the real issues" dodge....So far, neither one is handling questions about gaffes well. But I think Obama's lack of reaction when Hillary brought up Wright's 9/11 comments is going to really sting. So far, the focus groups agree, I'm told.

So far, neither Gibson nor Stephanopoulos have asked a single policy-related question. They seem utterly uninterested in foreign or domestic policy. After the past eight years, we have had half an hour with nothing but process questions. Gibson and Stephanopoulos are clearly part of the problem in this election and part of what has to be reformed.

Steph asks about William Ayers. I can't believe how tough the questions are!...Did he just compare Tom Coburn to William Ayers? My reaction does not comport with NR's standards for decency....Hillary notes Obama served on the Woods Foundation with Ayers. Notes that he set bombs and killed people. Wow, she brought her sharp stilettos tonight....Obama notes Bill Clinton pardoned members of the Weather Underground. Zing....They go to commercial. So far, while Obama gets in a good shot here and there, Hillary is pummeling him. I can't believe how much she brought her A-game of nasty....Team McCain should not hope for Hillary. This woman will make any charge against anybody in order to win.

I'm just pointing out that we are now almost halfway through this debate and ABC News has not asked a single policy question. It's pure Rove, sustained and hyped and sustained by Stephanopoulos and Gibson. It's what they know; it's easy; and it will generate ratings. It is not journalism....I have to say I am actually shocked at the appallingly poor quality of the questions: the worst of the campaign so far. Pure MSM process bullshit. Again: it's now halfway through and there has not been a single question on the economy, foreign policy, healthcare, terrorism, Iraq or any other actual policy issue in this campaign. How much longer can ABC News avoid the actual policy issues in this election?

Fifty-some minutes in, and there's blood on the mat already. How long until Obama supporters complain that former Clinton aide George Stephanopolous is biased against their guy?...I'm loving this debate. It's all new stuff; we haven't heard the millionth version of, "my health care plan is universal and your plan isn't."

They're actually asking a question about the war. Remember that?

*sigh* Well, it couldn't be all fun back-and-forth. Now we're into "I'll get the troops out of Iraq, and my opponent won't."

Clinton will disappoint her neoconservative supporters by such a strong, unequivocal commitment to withdrawal from Iraq. She is, of course, lying. But she does it so well. They both seem exhausted at this point. But she has the capacity to run on fumes. This is all she lives for. Obama seems off-balance and drained. All I'm learning from this debate so far is that both need a rest and that ABC News is utterly out of touch with their viewers.

Hillary laughs heartily at McCain's comment about "they're going to raise your taxes, and they have the aud-ic-i-ty, the audacity, to hope you don't mind!"...With her laugh, she triggered a thousand primal screams on liberal blogs.

My prediction is that many, many viewers will be furious at ABC News. Even on the substantive issues, which they have finally begin to discuss, the questions are all of the "gotcha" variety. The biggest winner so far is the GOP. The biggest loser: ABC News.

I don't trust either, but I'm rather surprised that they both were willing to be pinned down in the equivalent of "read my lips, no new taxes."...Wow. Charlie Gibson notes that when the capital gains taxes were cut under both Clinton and Bush, revenues went up.

The longest section on policy so far, in the age of terror, debt, and torture ... is about the capital gains tax. And Gibson is clearly trying to get both of them to say something that can subsequently be turned into a gaffe or a GOP talking point. There have been almost no clear, substantive policy questions designed to elicit real information.

These are the GREATEST DEBATE QUESTIONS EVER.

It's a huge night for the Republicans. If McCain went up against either of these two in the form they have shown tonight, he'd win. Obama's performance is the worst in months. But, given the quality of the questions, you can see why.

Different planets.

(h/t: Karl at Protein Wisdom (via HotAir) for alerting me to the sully freak-out)

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit. How upset are liberals over this debate? DEFCON BAZILLION.

Comments

[Jeff]

At least there was no "show of hands" questions :)

[Ferg]

I loved Sullivan's complaint about the dreaded "neocons"? Heck, I remember when he WAS one, back in the bad old days of 2002/2003...

[M. Simon]

It's a huge night for the Republicans. If McCain went up against either of these two in the form they have shown tonight, he'd win. Obama's performance is the worst in months. But, given the quality of the questions, you can see why.

So Sully is saying that the Dems are not ready to deal with the Rs. I do believe for once in a very long time the man is right (or would that be correct).

[Jim]

How is it that when the Democrat candidates are making each other look bad, liberals like Sullivan automatically blame "Republican (Rove) tactics"?

What, the candidates themselves could NEVER be so shallow and nasty? Face it: they are. Sheesh.

[Wildmonk]

Jim - RE: Democrat's making each other look bad = blame Republican tactics.

Remember the rule of thumb: the Left is never wrong and never responsible for any problems - it is always the fault of those evil Republicans.

Think I'm exaggerating? Think back to the butterfly ballot in Florida: designed by a Democrat in a Democrat district with Democrat poll station staff. But *still* proof of how evil Republicans conspired to steal the election.

[Tim]

Sullivan, as Abu Ghraib demonstrated, has a certain fascination with dark-skinned males. No wonder Hitchens thought Sullivan was "wanting to have Obama's baby." By the way, let's end this pretension that Sullivan is some sort of "conservative." It's nothing but an act, and he's yet another leftist who knows nothing about American government or history, military history, or Catholic theology. I wondered how one man could combine such vast quantities of nothingness, and then I found out he had a PhD in Government from Harvard. Eureka!

[Freedom Fighter]

I find it funny that Sullivan was whining about the lack of questions on policies all night. But when the candidates are asked about them, he didn't want to hear a thing Hillary had to say. What a joke.

[Peg C.]

Tough to read the red without the blue, and I don't ever read Sully anymore. Oh well. Maybe I'll find Geraghty's summation elsewhere...

[Bill D]

The fact that someone can make a comment like this "Sullivan, as Abu Ghraib demonstrated, has a certain fascination with dark-skinned males." and nobody says anything about it says alot about this blog.

yet another blog that makes me embarassed to say I'm conservative.

[Tim]

I find it incomprehensible that someone can ignore Sullivan's 24/7/365 Abu Ghraib columns. Go read them. As Ann Coulter pointed out, what happened at Abu Ghraib was exactly the same stuff Sullivan had been found to have ordered up at internet porn sites. The man is very sick, has obsessions galore (gay marriage, anyone?), has been totally vicious in his comments about anyone and everyone (he called Coulter a "drag queen"), and does not merit treatment with kid gloves.

[Cuffy Meigs]

The fact that someone can make a comment like this "Sullivan, as Abu Ghraib demonstrated, has a certain fascination with dark-skinned males." and nobody says anything about it says alot about this blog.

yet another blog that makes me embarassed to say I'm conservative.

He shouldn't have said that --- happy?

[S. Weasel]

That was a clever idea, Cuffy, cutting two liveblog streams together. Reading a liveblog after the fact is usually a snoozefest.

[Cuffy Meigs]

Thanks, Stoaty. I was reading both last night and the contrast couldn't be more stark, so I pulled the juicy bits and lined 'em up. Wish I had a better format than red/blue, but I'm too lazy to improve.

[ajacksonian]

Agree with S.W. above... pure genius to intercut this way!

Apparently Barack thought he was coming to a cream pie throwing contest and Hillary was waiting for him in a Mixed Martial Arts Octagon match-up. Pass the popcorn, if you have to watch a trainwreck you might as well sit back and enjoy the view...

[eddiebear]

I just love the freak out the left is having over this. They continually get upset that the MSM dares-DARES!!11!1-to ask a question of the Messiah! Just looka the threats Olbermann and Kos are making against ABC.

[Mike M]

Sullivan's comments are actually embarrassing. He was once a reasonably smart guy. He should realize that concerns about presidential canididates' character are not a distraction, they are one of the most central issues in a presidential election

As Hitchens once pointed out, all victorious presidential candidates change their policy positions once they are in office. It would indeed be stupid and irresponsible not to, as Samantha Powers unhelpfully observed. But they cannot change their character.

We know that HRC will lie shamelessly, that's a given. But we need to know what BHO's long personal associations with Rev Wright, and many people like Bill Ayers, say about him.

BHO claims he has dealt with Rev Wright by dissociating himself from unspecific "controversial" statements. But he has not even once seriosuly addressed their content.

One assume he does not himself beleive that the US created AIDS, and did so in order to commit genocide, but he has never addressed this issue.

Would he appoint people in his administration who hold this belief, or think it is a reasonable hypothesis?

BHO says "obviously" he does not believe these "controversial" claims, yet Kristoff in the NYT cites statistics suggesting 30% of african americans give this claim some credibility. So all that is obvious is that he finds the whole issue annoying and wants it to go away.

But it is one of the most central questions in this particular election. Does BHO refuse to recognise any enemies on the left? Will every such claim, no matter how hateful and ignorant, receive respectful hearing in his administration? And how will they respond when Admedinedaj or Chavez make those charges?

Would he be the first defender of the United States, or one of our accusers?

[steveegg]

Damn, but that's beautiful.

[Kent]

Who cares about their policies? Those are simply designed to garner votes from their target constituencies and will not survive the election intact. And anybody who can bring themselves to sit through yet another debate is surely sufficiently motivated to visit the candidates' web sites to read their policy statements.

It is their characters and their core beliefs that really matter, that will really determine what they try to do once in office.

[Denny, Alaska]

Well, there you have it: 'tis all a Roveian plot. I'm glad I didn't watch.