Sorry guys, I just listened to it. He did not answer her questions, but talked over her in what sounded like an evasive fashion. Yes, her starting premise was biased, but he could have addressed that in the context of answering the question directly.
I saw the whole 18 minutes too. For a novice in politics he did good. Mad-Cow knows how to work the pejoratives, especially the satellite delay; this is why it sounded like he did not answer her questions, but talked over her in what sounded like an evasive fashion.
Sure he could have done better in stating that what Mad-Cow was doing was taking things out of context, and that his writings 15+ years ago where hypothesis, but he did a good job in emphasizing that it is about the issues of his opponent's' votes in congress.
You're absolutely correct, from a debating point of view. But she wasn't there to debate fairly - she brought her usual snarky condescending leading questions to score media points, so he responded with humor and scorn.
It wasn't an intellectual excercise, but it was good theater.
As much as I like him, I agree with you. He didn’t do a very good job of handling her questions about quotes from his ‘newsletter’.