Two Highlights From the Debate

Each side in the Dem debate had a moment of discomfort (actually, Obama had a lot of them), but these two kind of stood out from what I've been reading. First, Obama equates his relationship with a terrorist to his relationship with a current U.S. Senator (from Campaign Spot):

Steph asks about William Ayers. I can't believe how tough the questions are!

Obama after complaining about "manufactured issues," says, "this is what I'm talking about... He lives in my neighborhood, he's a professor of English. Not someone I've accepted endorsement of, it's not someone I exchange ideas with on a regular basis... (!) He did detestable acts when I was eight years old."

I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, a man who has suggested the death penalty may be appropriate for those who perform abortions.

Did he just compare Tom Coburn to William Ayers? My reaction does not comport with NR's standards for decency.

So, Obama thinks Sen. Coburn, who is a doctor who has delivered hundreds of kids, is the moral equivilent of a terrorist who tried to kill innocent people. That one's gonna be hard to explain when Obama returns to the Senate. If a Republican made that comment the Dems would be calling for censure.

The other "moment" was Hillary's and it's getting front page treatment on AOL: The admission that Obama could beat McCain. The Hillary-hating lefties at DailyKos were quite enamored at this AP report:

Hillary Rodham Clinton said emphatically Wednesday night that Barack Obama can win the White House this fall, undercutting her efforts to deny him the Democratic presidential nomination by suggesting he would lead the party to defeat.

"Yes, yes, yes," she said when pressed about Obama's electability during a campaign debate six days before the Pennsylvania primary.

This comment from the Head Kos pretty accurately spells out the trouble that Clinton probably bought herself with that comment:

Yeah ... oops.

So if she admits Obama can win, why should the supers overturn the will of the primary electorate?

Kos is rarely right about anything, but he's probably right about that one, though I think everybody understands that she pretty much had to say he could win or risk the ire of Democrats everywhere. I imagine that in private her surrogates are still going to promote the theme that Obama can't beat McCain thanks to all the baggage he has.

One of the more interesting stories from last night is the vitriol with which the lefty blogs are attacking ABC and moderators Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. For instance, Kos has this poll up:

Last night Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos were...

Atrocious 38%

Cuddly 0%

Totally hungover 0%

Out of touch with what Americans care about 21%

Fox News clones 16%

Boyish and frisky 0%

Just doing what their corporate superiors told them to do: "Destroy!" 21%

Of course, Kos' idea of an appropriate Dem debate question is "George Bush and Dick Cheney should be impeached. Should the trial start today or tomorrow?"

During the Republican debates many conservatives were just as disgusted with the questions that seemed to ignore more important issues in favor of Dem talking points. The Dems got a taste of what Republicans had to deal with in the early primaries and they don't like it.

I think both sides will regret some of their answers from last night, and I'd be surprised if Obama agrees to another debate unless he thinks he can have better control of the questions.

UPDATE: A commenter at MichelleMalkin.com adds this:

“Talk about bitter. So are all of these lefties going to turn to God, guns and prejudice now?”