On Thursday Obama complained about the tough grilling he got from ABC moderators. In response Hillary said that if you cannot stand the heat, you should get out of the kitchen. Obama campaign immediately jumped on Clinton saying that she is hypocritical having complained herself in earlier debates. An anchor woman from MSNBC mocked Clinton on this. Another example of the media's anti-Clinton bias.

True, Clinton complained, but not regarding tough questions, but rather about getting the first questions always. There is a difference. But the media does not care about these differences. Some months back when Hillary talked about ceilings and barriers she referenced JFK ( for being the first Catholic to run for president), CNN immediately pounced on Hillary saying that she is comparing herself to JFK.

is out of touch, off-base & juvenile whining. The only reason that anyone in the media is paying any attention to it at all (because the questions & the tone were quite legitimate to any objective observer) ... is because of the thousands of professionally orchestrated, well-organized complaints put together (and written!) by the ultra-liberals of moveon.org.

I think a better parallel between Obama's supporters' (and campaign's) debate gripes and past Clinton complaints is to compare them to Clinton's outside-debate grousing that she was being hard-hit by the media while Obama was getting a "free pass" from the press.

However, the parallel still exists between debate gripes because both have now complained about unfair treatment at debates (Clinton: always getting the first question; Obama: having several past gaffes, flaps, and potential scandals brought up). I personally think it's worse to have unpleasant things brought up about one's past than it is to answer questions first, but I guess it's debatable (nyuk nyuk).

I don't know how the questions were legitimate to the objective observer? If we're trying to determine who's made the fewest slip-ups during the campaign, then sure, but if we're trying to tease out policy differences then I don't see how anyone could have been satisfied by the debate.

While watching the debate, I wanted to see it in it's simplest form.. a male against a female, a white against a black With that in mind (this is my call) male trumps female but white trumps black so looking at the debate and race in it's simplest terms as I said I would.. it amounts to sexism against racism your call ?

Of course, policy issues are important & should have been given more time to be addressed, more fully. However, people WANT TO KNOW about the character-related questions posed in the first 45 minutes of the program. Obama's numbers have gone down in the five-six days since that debate aired, appreciably, especially nationally. Apparently quite a few viewers/potential voters had not been previously aware of (Rev) WrightGate, as well as BitterGate and found out more about Obama by watching the ABC-News debate. (Hard as that may seem for Slate readers to acknowledge...)

His performance Tuesday evening was abysmal, as so many of the previously favorable to him media 'pundits' observed on the weekend talk shows. Sam Donaldson was particularly damning and realistic Sunday morning on Stephanopoulos' program; Cokie Roberts is coming around as well. Clinton's performance was excellent, just about everyone agrees (except the "bitter" whiner-members of moveon.org). Thanks for your reply.

Are you asking me who I think "won" that debate? I think she did. But I don't think her doing so had anything to do with either her race or her gender. Do you? (I would have to agree with you that, at least this year, this first year of these two historic candidacies, male seems to be "Trump"ing (a la The Donald)

female -- as to whether white trumps black, that remains to be seen.

Onandaga:

Of course, policy issues are important & should have been given more time to be addressed, more fully. However, people WANT TO KNOW about the character-related questions posed in the first 45 minutes of the program.

Wrong. The inane questions about trivial "gaffes" and ethereal associations not only are not 'character related' they are also not issue related, which is what should be explored. How a candidate would address our common problems and what they have done legislatively in the past is far more useful information that the obiously biased antics of Stephanapholous who avoided actually useful lines of questioning.

The gaffes are NOT trivial, the questions were NOT inane, and an intimate 20-year personal & spiritual relationship is not "ethereal." Wrong on all counts! As for St's "obviously biased antics," clearly you have not been following hm throughout the primary/caucus campaign. If anything, he has shown clear & consistent bias AGAINST the Clintons, both of them, and toward Obama. Let me guess: you are member of moveon.org, correct?