It was at Ayers' house that Obama's state Senate candidacy was launched in 1995; Obama continued to serve on a nonprofit board with Ayers after the Times article appeared.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/the_rules_change_for_obama.html

Must read, more importantly for those who are still undecided.

Did McCain just blame Bush for screw ups in Irak?

He usually attributes setbacks in Irak to the failed "Rumsfeld Strategy." And does not mention Bush....ever.

But today he added GWB to the mix, i.e., the Rumsfeld/Bush Strategy screwed things up.. So it looks like he is now distancing himself from Bush and Rumsfeld.

I believe that the Wednesday night debate, moderated by ABC, has succeeded in lowering the level of political discussion to new lows. And this has nothing to do with whom I favor. This has to do with an intelligent presentation and discussion of issues relevant to the future of our nation. For example, the debates managed to make the Ayres issue one of McCain's prime talking points on this Sunday's "This Week".
Oh, by the way, I didn't see any of this Sunday's round table participants on "This Week" wearing a lapel flag pin. Should the question be asked whether the participants love America or are proud to be Anerican? I don't think so, but that was one of the questions raised at Wednesday's debates.

To Jack: For your information the undecided are not interested on "Ayers issue". They have different issues to ponder, which will make their life better, of which will drive them to make their final decision.

Character of a President is very important. Obama's links to his pastor, Resko, Ayers, Farakhan and many more radical people should make people think twice is this the person whom we want to be our president.

Vote for anyone except OBAMA

Peace - I am sure you will not vote for someone who has links with the people who cuase 911. Will you?

Ayers set bombs and attacked the Pentagon, the Capitol and other public buildings. Obama has ties with him and I am sure lot of Americans will not vote for the same reason for Obama.

A great show today! I thought that the interview with Sen.McCain had the perfect tone and was extremely informative. AS usual, the round table group was worth hearing. The new set and graphics are a welcome update, as well.

One last thought about the ABC-moderated debate which came to me watching Mr. Stephanopolous' interview today. I think the overall problem with the line of questioning followed by Mr.S and Mr.Gibson at the debate was that they used great (and inportant)'interview' questions. However, in a debate a moderator is supposed to 'moderate' the discussion so that the topics compare and contrast the candidates rather than confront the candidate as a devil's advocate. Today's interview with Sen.McCain simply shows how useful that technique is when used by a skilled interviewer like Mr.Stephanopoulos in the proper setting.

Wow George. You blew the debate and then tried to justify it somehow. You and your roundtable circled the wagons instead of admitting to trivilizing the debate process.

I watched the debate and I was shaking my head in dismay at the poort effort on your part for the first hour -- like most the country.

Admit you messed up and move on.

All this coverage of the Pennsylvania primary and no one in the media -- I mean no one, local or national -- is mentioning that in this state registered independents canNOT vote in the primary -- conservative estimates that that's 30% of the electorate -- so how are they figured into "who won/who lost/who would carry PA in November?"

The moderator, George , is trying to appear as if his conduct at least week's debate was not deplorable. The elderly and disconnected gang that appeared on his program this morning did not do much to dispell my thoughts that these talking heads are far removed from reality.

When was the last time any one of these folk talked to a person making under 30K? May be they should spend more time talking to the mail-room clerk. There has been much talk about elitism of late and, not just this network, but others as well, appear so out of touch with main street. They pontificate about what the average voter might be thinking but have no sense of what an average voter looks like.

What has become distressing is the fact that networks and cable stations have begun to manufacture news. For instance, voters who look and think like me, do not care about a lapel pin. It does not alay the fear about job loss or feeding one's family.

Finally, George worked for the Clintons and any appearance that he was taking sides casts the network in a bad light. And every body that have I have spoken to thought he was doing everything he could to help Hillary.

Karl - Do not cry becoz Obama got cornered.

We need to know about a person's character before making him/her a president. Obama's character is flawed and it got out during the debate.

Vote anyone except OBAMA. Cannot afford to have Radical people in white house.

Since Obama admitted he would raise the cap on social security, the internet is buzzing about his raising taxes on people making more than $100K. Problem is, the example of a fire fighter + a teacher paying more taxes is wrong.

The cap is per person, not per household. Unless the firefighter and the teacher each make >100K, their taxes are not going up with this one.

My husband hits the cap every year. Even HE thinks it is unfair. So regressive.

Agree with "Greg in Canada", and then some!

George, why the wagon-circling about the debate on today's show?

That debate moderation job you and Charlie Gibson did was simply put the single worst and most embarrassing moment in debate leadership I've ever seen -- and I am a habitual debate watcher. I'd rank it worse than the job Gwen Ifill did a few years back. Thankfully for her you've now outpaced her in "worst", as I hold her in high regard as a journalist for PBS's News Hour.

To have the entire first half and them some up just on questions of a stupid and needless nature, you guys should be ashamed.

Why not try to raise the level of political discourse? Why not cover some policy issues and then throw a question at the end asking either if they'd like to comment on the petty stuff?

Sadly, you took that debate to a new low in American journalism with the incessant and petty line of questioning to both candidates right out the gate, and never let up.

Say you blew it, and move on.

If you don't somehow get why you blew it, then spend some time reading the criticisms of your "performance".

And boy oh boy you must know by now they are out there.

Good point, Paul. George Will made several egregious mis-statements about Obama's positions and things he said (or didn't say) in the debate. George S. didn't "moderate" McCain at all. He let him ramble and dissemble and filibuster. The show lived down to my recently lowered expectations.

After watching This Week, it is clear to me that the Roundtable members never contemplated that the freedom trilogy of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" encompassed the possible election of an African-American male to the Presidency of the United States. The words of some, like the Roundtable members, reflect an escalating dread, as this prospect emerges. Their disparaging comments about and characterizations of Sen. Obama illustrate an animus toward this prosepct they are no longer able or willing to suppress. Had I been unable to see the faces on the television screen, I would have sworn I was listening to FOX, not ABC.
On a related note, the recent democratic debate moderated by Gibson and Stephanopoulos represents the ultimate abdication of professional responsibility and is irreconcilably at odds with ABC's professed allegiance to the highest journalistic standards. ABC should be ashamed. Asking Sen. Obama whether Rev. Wright loves America was an absurd triviality. Someone who had no knowledge of the U.S., and whose first introduction to America was the recent ABC-hosted debate, would wrongly conclude from the first hour of the debate that there were few substantive problems in our country that required the attention of the two remaining Democratic candidates for the presidency. Most Americans easily recognized this strange irony, with two notable exceptions, Gibson and Stephanopoulos.
ABC News, you owe the American people an apology. This Week, you do too.

I have to agree with the consensus opinion on the recent debates hosted by George Stephanapolis & Charles Gibson. It was pot shot city. The truth is it got us no closer to finding out who could best represent America as our President. These debates are important but ABC and other news agencies only scratch the surface of the important issues. No effort is made to ask questions that will require in depth answers.

Instead of creating endless soundbite moments when the real election is finally here in the fall why not stage entire debates with one issue at a time discussed. One entire 2 hour debate on the economy, one on environmental issues, one on Security issues which would include our role in Iraq, how we deal with Iran, where the candidates stand on the issue of constitutional protections vs. the needs of our law enforcement and intelligence communities. These debates could be moderated by Charles Gibson or George S. but also have a panel of experts that would provide instant 'fact checking.' This would be the only way to put the candidates on the spot to present a clear and well detailed plan of action for their time at the White House. These endless superficial soundbite moments and trivial questions are pointless and do not advance our ability to pick the best candidate for the job.

I meant "Good point txdemo." Each individual needs to break the $100k mark for the payroll tax change. And George Will SURELY knows that! Shame on him.

This week this Sunday GS and others seemed to say that the blowup over the debate was just Obama supporters and MoveOn.org. Are you sure? In my informal office poll which included supporters of each of the candidates, everyone, and I mean everyone, thought that the worst performance of the debate was on the part of the moderators. Face it. I like Charlie and George, but they should go to school on this. People are tired of the flag lapel pin type of political bull.

I think the ABC debate was a good one. We need to know about candidates's character before making them presidents. Obama has a flawed one and it came out clear in the debate.

Moreover Obama also did fair well in the later part of the debate when issues related to Economy, Iraq and others were asked.

Overall Obama failed in the debate.

Since for some reason the ABC site will not allow me to post the following remarks on Wednesday's debate I am posting them here.

I am pleased to weigh in on this sideshow. (I won't even call it a debate.) From the very first "question" that wasn't even a question to the very end it was obvious that ABC News had some ulterior motives here (or they need to seriously get control of their "talent"). The fact that this fiasco was carried out in Philadelphia with the articles of the Constitution being read during the segment intros is sickening. The entire thing was more like an entertainment news segment with lots of questions posed in a way to capture "gotcha" moments. I mean really, "Do you think Reverend Wright is as much a patriot as yourself?" What?! I am amazed that nobody at ABC took the time to consider that in the interest of keeping the debate fair and balanced having George Stephanopolous as one of the moderators posed more than a minor conflict of interest. But my biggest beef rests solely with Charlie Gibson. Any middle schooler knows that a debate consists of a question posed to one of the participants, a specific time allotted for the individual's response, time alotted for rebuttal, and then (at the unbiased discretion of the moderator) perhaps a follow up question is asked or the individual is permitted to clarify their position. In NO WAY is the moderator given the leeway to interrupt the participants during their allotted response time. (I count this happening at least 15 times on the official transcript, and unfortunately for you, George, you are responsible for at least two such interruptions.) Certainly the moderator is NOT permitted to attempt to chide, cajole, or reframe the respondent's answers to reach said moderator's pre-determined answer. I lost count of how many times this technique was used! Charlie, you need to stick to interviewing starlets and pop stars. You did more to ruin the face of journalism than that fellow who plagiarized his reports in the New York Times. If you send me your address, I will gift wrap a copy of Robert's Rules of Order for you. I cannot believe you squandered an opportunity to have a serious discussion on such important topics as the war in Iraq and the testimony of Gen. Petraeous, the economy, the fact that 25% of New Orleans citizens are homeless years after Hurricane Katrina, nuclear weapons and Iran, China and Tibet, our country's educational and health care systems, taxes, poverty, foreign relations, etc., in favor of lapel pins, dated and tenuous relationships to political outsiders, relatively minor political gaffes and more when what the country deserves is to know what these people THINK not how they respond to "truth or dare" style questions.