Obama voiced dissatisfaction with the current format of the debate, claiming that the moderator focused on trivial issues for far too long. He had a valid point: In the most recent outing, the moderator claimed that the economy was the number one issue on peoples’ minds, yet didn’t frame a question about it until nearly an hour in.
Here’s the thing: Never identify a problem without posing a solution. Obama made the mistake of doing just that, and Clinton–hewing to her claim of being a problem solver–immediately presented one. She suggested a free-form, no-moderator debate, similar to the Lincoln-Douglas debates.
Obama turned down the notion in short order. No surprise there: A front-runner, generally speaking, has nothing to gain from a debate and everything to lose. Unfortunately, it brings a truth into focus: There’s going to be any number of times when a world leader is in a challenging face-to-face and there’s no play book to follow. Obama puts forward the notion that he can win over ferocious opponents of the United States or bridge the gap between parties with his oratory and personal charm, but he balks at facing Clinton in a free-for-all?
Interestingly, the “West Wing” comparisons continue. In the seventh season debate episode, Santos faced Vinick in a debate and that time it was Vinick who suggested that debate rules be tossed aside. In that situation, Santos took him up on it. He welcomed it. As Obama should have.
PAD
• 
Obama doesn’t need to debate anymore with another Democrat at this point. He needs a clear field to go one on one with McCain. This whole mess has destroyed my opinion of the Clintons, since they and their supporters would rather destroy the Democratic party and their presidential hopes this year than actually do the best thing for the country. It’s just downright sickening. All a debate does right now is give Hillary another podium to stand on and make Obama appear unelectible. She’s doing the Republicans work for them, which is so messed up I cant even fathom it. I never figured aside from every Democratic nominee having a dead høøkër in their trunk, that a Republican would stand a chance of getting the White House this Fall, but she is screwing things up so bad with her negative campaigning I think McCain would win, especially if she is the nominee. I’m just waiting for her to announce turncoat Lieberman as her VP, since they we’re so buddy-buddy green lighting every Bush constitution smothering law he pushed through over the last 7 years. Clinton and her supporters are a viral stomach flu for the Democratic party that needs to be flushed down the çráppër.
Obama doesn’t need to debate anymore with another Democrat at this point. He needs a clear field to go one on one with McCain.
The point is, Obama stepped in this one himself. He shouldn’t have complained about the debate format because it opened the door for Clinton to present a solution to the complaint. A solution that he now balks at. So he bìŧçhëd about the moderators, but wants to steer clear of a confrontation with no moderator.
PAD
Obama also has nothing to gain by sticking his face in an electric fan. If Hillary challenged him to stick his face in a fan and he refused, would that similarly indicate President Obama couldn’t make the tough, face-endangering decisions? Or would it just indicate that he wasn’t going to manipulated by his political opponents into doing something stupid (like, say, voting for authorization to invade Iraq)?
But PAD, all a debate allows her is a place to push herself that she doesn’t have to foot the bill for. She’s bleeding money in this campaign, Obama has had plenty of the Grassroot support that she’s lacking from. I actually would like to see Obama agree to do this in a way, because I dont think she would be open to debate with someone as together and un-puppeted like he is. She seems prone to putting her foot in her mouth, and a truly open debate would give her an opportunity to break that last straw that would take her out of the debate for the nomination. I have alot of confidence in Obama because for all this negative campaigning, he has never gone after blood like all the scandels she was involved with. He’s stayed on the high road, and thats what people are seeing. She goes into a open themed debate with no Mod, she would kill herself. But Obama really doesn’t need another forum. It’s so late, people just want this b.s. domne with so we can debate real PRESIDENTIAL issues.
Obama does look kind of like a wimp, but Hillary looks like the schoolyard bully so many of us are familiar with. Unless Obama is prepared to turn around and give her the proverbial punch in the face he needs to then there is no point. Bashing Hillary only sends his negatives up and goes against his campaign message. It’s a no win.
Obama does look kind of like a wimp, but Hillary looks like the schoolyard bully so many of us are familiar with. Unless Obama is prepared to turn around and give her the proverbial punch in the face he needs to then there is no point. Bashing Hillary only sends his negatives up and goes against his campaign message. It’s a no win.
Obama also has nothing to gain by sticking his face in an electric fan. If Hillary challenged him to stick his face in a fan and he refused, would that similarly indicate President Obama couldn’t make the tough, face-endangering decisions
Reductio ad absurdum, Bill, and not a particularly good one.
PAD
This whole mess has destroyed my opinion of the Clintons, since they and their supporters would rather destroy the Democratic party and their presidential hopes this year than actually do the best thing for the country.
Something the “vast, right-wing conspiracy” recognized back in the 1990s: the Clintons are about the Clintons first, the country second.
I just hate that where I first seen two good candidates, I see an Honest guy who honestly does want the best for his country is getting every piece of dirt that Clinton Supporters and Republicans can dredge up thrown at him, and a dishonest, flip-flopping, cooperate minded lawyer who really is confirming ALOT of people said by attacking him like a Karl Rove style Republican just so she gets the knod. I have heard some pretty wacked out reasons people are supporting Hillary (“Because she’s a woman, and it’s time” and “things we’re better when the Clintons ran the country”) but no one wants to admit or remember the bullcrap that went on the last 4 years that brought Washington to a halt. This country needs some serious issues addressed quickly, promptly, and with a new mindset. Whats going on now isn’t working.What Hillary brings is not going to fix the problems because they still have deals with old friends and grudges to settle. We need someone fresh in that seat at this point in our History. We also need to make sure we clean out Congress and the Senate this year too. We need a fresh path because things are finally so bad everyone can see it. Global Warming, the Iraq War Quagmire, Gas prices, our Economy. It needs a fresh method of attack, because these are issues NO ONE has experience dealing with.
Ya know, I saw Kathy and Keith have a very small debate regarding the Adipose yesterday. It’s hardly worth mentioning but the discussions in her Doctor Who reviews always leave me smiling. And I learn alot about a genre that existed long before I knew. (1976 baby)
The point is…I’ve always wondered about the personalities of Presidents. I know they can’t say “I like Pepsi, hate Mountain Dew”. They can’t promote their preference for Target over K-Mart. Or Reebox over Nike. But wouldn’t it be nice if they did? Theoretically speaking.
Rather than debates, they need to start making a series of “15 Things You May Not Know” essays, and politics aren’t allowed. I want to know how many t-ball games they watched during the summer. Or how many ballet recitals they missed. And and how they spend family vacations, and how they juggled finances during the first five years of marriage. And if their veterinarian knows them by name.
Debate what’s cuter, Tribbles or Adipose. Ya know? Heaven knows that’ll tell us more about their real character than anything else.
Well, my suggestion for a debate would be for both of ’em to return to the Googleplex, where they’ve been individually (although Clinton didn’t answer individual questions from Googlers, just got interviewed by the CEO who did have some Googler questions) for a debate, with questions supplied the way we’d previously set up such.
Namely, for several days beforehand, Googlers submitted questions, which got voted up or down by any Googler who wanted to participate. A few hours beforehand, yours truly (who gets brought back for this, since I’m no longer there), and my usual cohort on this, do an edit pass over the top ranked questions for brevity, relevance, and possibly combining questions that are all about the same general topic.
Trust me, while perhaps a bit techie-slanted, you’ll get a darn good set of questions about the issues. Drop any number of Googlers in as the moderator, and they’ll be happy to point out when someone hasn’t answered the question or the like.
Obama puts forward the notion that he can win over ferocious opponents of the United States or bridge the gap between parties with his oratory and personal charm, but he balks at facing Clinton in a free-for-all?
Remember, Ths Shrub boasted of how he was going to charm world leaders and persuade them with his personal charm…
Posted by Peter David
The point is, Obama stepped in this one himself. He shouldn’t have complained about the debate format because it opened the door for Clinton to present a solution to the complaint. A solution that he now balks at. So he bìŧçhëd about the moderators, but wants to steer clear of a confrontation with no moderator.
Exactly. Obama’s biggest problem all along has been that either he (or his policy wonks) have tended to shoot off their mouths in places where you can count on it that it *will* get quoted … and haven’t yet managed to handle the resulting problems well.
(And, of course, another of his biggest problems comes under the rubric of “With friends like these…” You might want to check out this piece on Huffington Post: Obama’s Ayers Issue
Assuming he wins the nomination, when he’s up against the Republicans, it won’t be pretty if (when) he does it again.
This follows my personal theory that Hillary has answers (whether I, or anyone like them or not) And Obama doesn’t. I know what Hillary’s platform is. Obama: sorry, but “change” is not a platform. The only time I ever see Obama give any semblance of a platform is when he repeats something Hillary just said.
I believe one of the main reasons Obama would be fearful of this type of confrontation is because it would expose the fact he he says alot, but alot of nothing. And in this type of confrontation, Hillary could pressure him to give answers to questions he just does not have answers for. I don’t think his charisma would save the day for him in a situation like this.
Obama is a wonderful speaker when he is prepared and has it all layed out. Ask him to improvise and make up answers on the fly and he sounds like he could be related to our current president. I think there has to be a part of him that has to know this type of debate would expose his weaknesses.
What platform does Hil have? “Things were better during the Clinton years so vote for me?” No Thanks. Politicians propose all kinds of crap, but they don’t have the money to pay for jack and we Americans don’t know anything about how what equals what in terms of affording things.
I agree. Obama’s certainly more style than substance, but that’s what American’s usually want. Gore talked about putting the surplus in a ‘lockbox” and was mocked. Bush wanted to return integrity and look what that got us. Picking presidents is just a roll of the dice because no one knows what conflicts arise in the years following. People vote on the basis of what will heal the pain of the previous administration. Bush has had the worse judgement about everything and lies. Obama doesn’t seem that way. Hillary for all her rhetoric is still a Clinton and that means she’s going to cause friction no matter what.
Ya know, (and sorry for being crude), Obama, who ought to have known by now how Hillary would react) is in the position of the guy who whipped it out to show how manly he was and got shot down by the woman who said “Use it or put it away, son.”
Or perhaps fears finding himself in the situation as the deer hunter who, standing on a railroad bridge to relieve himself, remarked “Boy – that water’s cold!”
And his buddy said “Yeah – and it’s *deep*, too.”
Basically, nevwe issue a challenge – even an implicit one – to a tenacious opponent who has nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Unless you’re ready (and, preferably, able) to back it up.
By the way, just to reiterate: I voted for Obama in the primary. And I still think Hillary is unelectable.
PAD
nivek said:
“We also need to make sure we clean out Congress and the Senate this year too. We need a fresh path …”
That’s precisely how we got into this mess in the first place. The Republican right wing started promoting the idea of term limits for elected officials, while simultaneously screaming that it was the entrenched office holders who were holding the country back. This was back in the late 80s, and into the early 90s. Then the Republicans took control of the House. Then control of the Senate. Suddenly those term limits don’t look so good to the Republicans.
The reason this worked so well was that most voters think their elected officials are okay, but they think the ones in the next city or state are corrupt, so they agreed with term limits in order to get rid of the officials who were bad, not realizing it would hurt them in the long run.
We don’t need a ‘clean sweep’. we need for the public to be made aware of the foibles of our elected officials, whether they be Dem. or Repub., so that the people of any voting district can make a better decision for their district.
Re: an open debate—
I really wasn’t paying much attention to the radio this morning (or was it yesterday…they all run together), but I thought I heard the comment that Obama had offered this type of debate earlier in the campaign, but the Clinton camp said no.
I’m just waiting for her to announce turncoat Lieberman as her VP
Nonsense. I figure McCain’s already got Lieberman lined up for that spot, or at least a Cabinet post. Why on Earth would Lieberman want to be in a Democratic administration? And what Democrat with an ounce of sense (which I give Hillary that much credit for, at least) would want him?
TWL
Something that confuses me, and I am being completely genuine when I ask this…
I know the Clintons obviously had issues when Bill was in office, between Monica and all the wonderful pardons Bill gave out before he left; But for the most part, I thought the Clinton presidency was considered not only a successful one, but a very popular one (with the people.) Now I was only 16 when Bill was elected in 92, and I really cant say I was much into politics So I admit to not knowing much of what went on. And I also know/hear how very polarizing Hillary is. So my question is this: Were the Clintons popular back then? If so, what caused such a dramatic shift in many peoples view of them? Or is it just Obama’s relative newness in the world of politics clashing with a possible dynasty causing a backlash against them?
To me it seems the way people, and especially alot of democrats are reacting to Hillary is in stark contrast to their time in White House, and also her bid for senate.
Lieberman was right next to Hillary in her early years on the Senate. She has to pay people back, and having him as a V.P. will show how she is willing to cross the Republicon line.
Michael T said:
“…all the wonderful pardons Bill gave out…”
“Were the Clintons popular back then? If so, what caused such a dramatic shift in many peoples view of them?”
All Presidents hand out pardons, especially so in their last year. Keep an eye out around Christmas. I only recall 1 of Clinton’s pardons as being especially contentious (I don’t remember for sure the name…was it Rich?).
The Clintons were VERY popular while he was in office, but Hillary less so. A mistake was made when Bill let Hillary be the front person on the National Health Care ideas, not because she wasn’t qualified to do that, but because it was the First Lady doing it. The First Lady is supposed to re-decorate the White House, hold luncheons, and escort wives of foreign dignitaries. You know, wimmen’s stuff (he said sarcastically).
Personally, I think Hillary’s refusal to bow out simply allows the Obama campaign opportunities to react to criticism that would normally float around as whisper campaigns, saving them from deliberating the risk of legitimizing reactionary scare-campaigns. And I even think that was true of the debate no one else liked. But I see no inconsistency in saying “that last debate sucked” and “I will abstain from debating Hillary and simply take my 50%+ of the party delegates.” Maybe he just doesn’t want to debate Hillary because doing so only gives his validation of her candidacy — adding fuel to the resurgence she needs — with no benefit to him.
I would have agreed with you up until Iowa, when Obama forced Edwards to take a clearer, but more radical, position. And change was enough of a platform for the governator, only he phrased it as a pledge to open Gray Davis’s books. For candidates who don’t owe anything to any special interests, I don’t see why change can’t be finessed as a platform.
Peter DavID: 00By the way, just to reiterate: I voted for Obama in the primary. And I still think Hillary is unelectable.
Luigi Novi: Peter, have to come to a more firm belief as to whether Obama is electable or unelectable since your 1.2.07 blog entry? Just curious.
If you were Obama, would you want to spend any more time in the same room with that woman than you already have?
PAD,
I know you have told why before, so I am not looking for your reasons. I just find it interesting that most of the political news I read says the opposite — that Obama is not electable in the general election. I personally think you might be right, that Hillary will have the harder sell.
If the Republicans had put up a decent candidate, I think he/she could have easily won. I think McCain will lose more of the Repbulican base than he will pick up moderates. So at the end of the day, I think even Hillary can win. Heaven forbid we have to endure that scenario.
Iowa Jim
Lieberman was right next to Hillary in her early years on the Senate.
Lieberman also called for Bill’s censure, and is widely considered as one of the reasons the 2000 election was close enough to steal. A lot of Democrats do not like him in the slightest. I’m not a gigantic Hillary fan, but if she’s the nominee I’d likely vote for her … unless she does something so intensely stupid as to bring Lieberman along as VP. Not a chance in hëll I’d waste my vote on him again.
TWL
I know you have told why before, so I am not looking for your reasons. I just find it interesting that most of the political news I read says the opposite — that Obama is not electable in the general election.
Oh, I don’t think he is, either. I think McCain is going to win. But of the two, I think Obama has the better shot. I don’t think that McCain sparks a lot of excitement among many Republicans, but I’m convinced that Hillary will bring out the GOP vote against her.
PAD
I have a question… if this situation was between (for argument’s sake) Obama and Edwards, Obama had the lead in delegate count and it was a near impossibility for Edwards to grab the nomination, wouldn’t someone have stepped up and called for Edwards to concede?
Aside from the fact that Hillary was a first lady and seemingly wants to take credit for every good thing that happened during her husband’s presidency while distancing herself from every bad decision made during the same period, aside from the fact she set the issue of health care back a decade with her failed attempt to ‘fix’ the problem, aside from the vast ‘right wing conspiracy’ that plots against her in an effort to thwart her aims, aside from the assumption at the outset she was to be the Democrat’s anointed candidate at the beginning of the ’08 presidential campaign and events have since proved that to hardly be the case, at what point does party unity take precedence over personal gain?
I still haven’t made up my mind about November and I can’t profess to being registered Democrat but, I have to admit to a certain fascination watching this play itself out.
I have heard all kinds of speculation, even to the effect that this is an intentional stratagem on the part of Hillary’s camp to insure Obama is so weakened by the nominating process he stands little chance of winning the general election thereby guaranteeing HRC will have another shot at the nomination in 2012.
What I have to wonder at this point is why someone in the DNC leadership doesn’t find a way to broker a peace between the two campaigns if only to strengthen the effort in the general election. I don’t know if it would mean a cabinet post or what but it sure seems that bringing this all down to the wire isn’t doing the Democrats much good… and I’m not even a Democrat!
I only recall 1 of Clinton’s pardons as being especially contentious (I don’t remember for sure the name…was it Rich?).
There were also some members of a terrorist organization pardoned, which has made it difficult for Hillary to get too much mileage out of the Ayers controversy.
I just find it interesting that most of the political news I read says the opposite — that Obama is not electable in the general election.
Really? I wouldn’t bet on that. He’s going to raise far far more money than McCain can, for one thing (though Pennsylvania proved that isn’t the only thing that matters).
If Obama can keep some of his nuttier supporters under control I’d give him a definite edge. His Fox News appearence, where he dissed some of the far left netroots, gives me the impression that he is smart enough to keep them at arm’s length. I still don’t know why he doesn’t just say that some of the wackos he’s been linked to are just the price one pays for being a politician in Chicago–everyone would understand.
mister pj–I think a lot of the democratic leadership is sacred of the Clintons. If she wins, somehow…it’ll be like the end of the Godfather…with more blood. Payback will be sweet. On paper it seems unlikely but nobody has gotten rich betting against Bill and Hill yet.
For the record, I voted for Hilary in the Texas primary, but I consider both Hil and Obama unelectable. I have seen to many personal attacks between the two in the last few weeks. What’s worse Hilary’s attack paint Obama as inexperienced and Obama’s paint her(rightly so) as a nut.
Hilary’s weaknesses
1. She polarizes the Cons
2. She isn’t Bill
3. She is easily rattled
Obama’s weakness
1. 0 experience. This is his true weakness. He will be wiped out by the Cons if he gets the nomination. They will use everything in their power to play Wright’s comments over and over, emphasize the war on terror exposing his naivete over defense, and when he is speaking from the hip, he has the charisma of cardboard(see his WWE speech).
Any chance these two had on working thinkings out ended weeks ago. As Democrats, we are efed. our candidates made the Cons jobs easy.
Might as well get ready for Bush lite.
or,
write-in
MALCOLM REYNOLDS FOR PRESIDENT!!!
To all Browncoats out there.
If so, what caused such a dramatic shift in many peoples view of them?
Much of my backlash (which may mean very little, seeing as how I’m several years younger than you) is that I don’t want to see the White House continue to be held by the same two families as it has been for my entire life to date – if you include Bush Sr’s days as VP under Reagan.
When you look at Obama’s rise, it truly is meteoric. He came from nowhere, and will likely be the Democratic nominee.
When you look at Hilary Clinton’s rise… well, it really comes across to me as nothing more than a power grab, that being a Senator from New York was nothing but a step she had to have in building the stairway to the top job. This wouldn’t be so bad, if her husband already hadn’t been President for 8 years.
Just last week or so, she was giving a speech and she mentioned, with emphasis, that not enough is being said about gender in this race for the White House.
And yet, I want to scream at her for being a numbskull, because if people aren’t talking about gender, that’s a GOOD thing – it means (hopefully) that people simply aren’t looking at Clinton and going “well, she’s a woman, and I can’t vote for a woman”.
On top of that, Bill goes and drags up race… again. They’re going for every dirty trick, more so since they’re quickly running out of time and have probably already lost the nomination. As somebody else said, they seem to be more than willing to hand this election over to the Republicans if it means they’d get Obama out of the way. It just disgusts me, and it’s not the type of ‘leader’ I want in the White House.
I wish that Clinton had suggested the moderatorless debate long ago. It’s exactly the kind of debate I’ve wanted to see, while the most recent one was the kind of garbage that really should be avoided.
I get Obama’s reason for not wanting to debate. I even think his explanation (excuse, if you’re less forgiving) is decent, that after 21 debates time is better spent on other things. In the end, Hillary wants to debate because it is her strength and he wants to spend time on speeches because that is his strength. Both sides seem reasonable to me.
However, there is one thing about Clinton in all this that is driving me nuts. She’s claiming a moral superiority that she doesn’t deserve. She’s bashed Obama repeated for “complaining about the tough questions.” First, he didn’t complain about tough questions, he complained about garbage questions. Many, many people have agreed with him that the moderators wasted everyone’s time with a lot of dumb questions.
Second, *she* complained about a debate awhile back. She complained that she was getting asked the first question more often, something that wasn’t nearly as obvious or as significant as what Obama was complaining about.
So Clinton complained about debates, but now she’s harassing Obama for complaining about debates. That’s the kind of stuff that is driving me nuts about the Clintons in this campaign.
mister_pj, several Democrats *have* come forward and asked for Hillary to concede. However, Hillary not only refused, she used it to rally her supporters, claiming that she was the underdog and they were trying to bully her out. Obama then said, “She has the right to stay in as long as she wants,” which ended the calls for her to quit and also ended her rallying cry.
Spurious whitterings from abroad here, but I can’t see why Hilary is still in the game. She just has too much baggage and seems – from coverage here – to be running because she feels she has the right to be crowned… Most odd.
Having said that, Obama should have taken her on in the free format debate.
I’d also suggest the West Wing parallels are way past ‘interesting’ and homing in fast on downright creepy…
Cheers.
Well, it’s obvious that way too many people root for Obama without recognizing that, until after Super Tuesday, none of his “detriments” were known to the mass public.
I’d also point out that (to all those who insist on pointing out the “number of states won”) of the 26 states which Obama “won”, 12 of them were in CAUCUS states. Now, while caucuses are a legitimate form of grass-roots democracy in action, it also is the least representative in terms of voting (I’d point out that about a decade or so ago, Lani Guinier suggested that the election process operate under a similar system but was roundly thrashed by critics as being “one man, many votes”). Most of the caucus states actually allow a caucus-goer to vote TWICE–you support your first choice, and if he (or she) fails to achieve a certain threshold, you get to support your second choice (you don’t get that chance in a Presidential primary). Of those caucus states, five have been EXCLUSIVELY Republican in the November election since 1980 (Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota); I honestly don’t see Obama (or Clinton) picking up any of those states in November (admittedly, their combined Electoral Vote count is a meager 21). Two of Obama’s other caucus wins came in states which went to the GOP in 2004 (Colorado and Iowa, 16 combined Electoral Votes). All totaled, Obama’s won in 7 caucus states which went to the GOP in 2004 (out of 12). His other five wins were in states considered safer for the Democratic nominee–DC (3 EV, 7/7 Democratic wins), Hawai’i (4 EV, 6/7), Maine (4 EV, 4/7), Minnesota (10 EV, 7/7), and Washington (11 EV, 5/7). Hillary’s 2 caucus wins were in Nevada and New Mexico. Notably, both states went to the GOP in 2004 and have leaned more to the GOP overall; interestingly, the two times that Nevada went to the Democrats, and two of the three times that New Mexico went to the Democrats, the name “Clinton” headed the Democratic ticket (the third time for New Mexico was in 2000 when Gore headed the ticket). (While New Mexico and Nevada will be considered “battleground states” in this election, the Democrats will have to hope that history DOESN’T repeat itself to secure those states’ 10 EVs with Obama at the top. And, Obama has been having trouble with Hispanics in the primary states, and both states have substantial Hispanic populations, and there’s been some analysis which indicates Mike Richardson may not be enough to tilt the Hispanic vote to Obama in November.)
I would further like to suggest that some of the big Obama supporters here ask themselves if they approve of the not-so-subtle misogyny that’s shown up in the media. I know Olberman has “apologized” for his recent “metaphor” but does anyone think the comment was EVER acceptable? (A Kentucky Republican used the word “boy” in a second-hand reference to Obama and the Obama supporters just blew up. But Olberman can suggest “somebody who can take Hillary into a room and only he come out” and it’s JUST a “metaphor”. The Republican apologized the next day; Olberman took two full days before he offered his half-hearted apology, emphasizing the “metaphorical” nature of the statement.)
Also, I have to admit having some confusion at how so many Obama supporters have only recently become upset with the media which has given Obama a major pass in this campaign. When the media was schmoozing at the idea of “President Obama”, the people who’d been decrying the mainstream media’s softball attitude towards BushCo were acting as if the media had finally “come to their senses”. Now, when Obama starts getting unfavorable press treatment, it all becomes Hillary’s fault.
I’d also like to remind “nivek” that Joe Lieberman was Obama’s Senatorial mentor and that Obama helped Lieberman raise money for Lieberman’s 2006 Connecticut primary campaign and did not endorse Lamont until AFTER Lamont won the Democratic Primary (the Obama supporters certainly don’t hesitate to bring up Hillary’s supporting Lieberman until Lamont’s win, but the fact remains that Hillary was one of the first public figures to openly state that she would endorse the DEMOCRATIC nominee, whoever it was; as with Obama, the tendency in any Congressional primary campaign is for Representatives and Senators to support their sitting colleague, and NOT his/her opponent–very rarely will a Congressperson oppose a colleague no matter their personal or political differences). As Tim Lynch pointed out, Hillary would NEVER put Lieberman on the ticket; even the harshest Clinton critics note that you don’t cross the Clintons and expect favors from them. (It’s a bit interesting to note that a couple of Obama’s leading advisors–namely Ðìçk Morris and the supposedly-neutral Donna Brazile–were also advisors or aides to Bill Clinton and made major goofs that were embarrassing to Clinton and resigned their positions, only to turn against the Clintons later. Who’s to say that they won’t make similar mistakes with regards to Obama and wind up turning on him as well? There’s a well-known saying about leopards and spots that seems to apply.) Incidentally, Lieberman has already announced that he will be attending the Republican Convention this year (my personal feeling is that McCain will be announcing Lieberman as his VP choice).
I thought I could support Obama come November, but I am now quite willing to consider a third-party candidate even if it means a write-in vote since Alabama has an unbelievably ridiculous requirement for third parties to get on the ballot; once you’ve received enough support on a petition–a percentage based on the number of total votes cast in the previous election FOR THE POST IN QUESTION (a third-party trying to run a candidate for a mayoral position needs submit far fewer names on a petition than it would a candidate for governor or President)–you then have to get a minimum percentage of the total vote in order to automatically qualify in the next election cycle (failure to reach that percentage means the next election requires that a new petition be submitted). I’m still incredibly ticked off at Obama’s use of Donnie McClurkin last year. That issue alone prevented my considering him back on Super Tuesday.
After the last debate, and before Clinton made her offer, Obama pretty much said “no more debates”. With that in mind, I think he has the standing to say “I said no more, and I meant no more”.
He had the nomination won before Pennsylvania anyway, and should really be focusing on acting like it and campaigning solely against McCain. And even though Clinton is out of it by now, if thinks she’s going to win it and wishes to continue, she should be doing the same.
Wildcat
I do not know what I’d do if someone dragged Lieberman into this. I cannot in good conscience vote for a republican, but I couldn’t vote for such a self-centered and openly spineless candidate, either. I’m so sorry I worked on his 2000 campaign.
Yes, Hillary can come across as a bully (and I won’t dispute she’s a natural ***ch), but I think she needs to. The male bias is still strong in politics, and there are still an unbelievable number of people who feel a woman is too weak to rule. She must be able to show she can rip the throat out of an opponent without running off to cry in the closet. How can she play nuclear-stakes poker with a nation where women are mere property and it is legal to beat them to death for a crime committed not even by them, but a family member, if she can’t? How would she ever be taken seriously? She MUST remain absolutely cut-throat and ruthless to be able to be taken seriously in such Presidential situations. She didn’t get this far baking cookies and arranging flowers. Can you imagine Laura Bush trying to be powerful?
This is not necessarily an endorsement of Billary – I’m still undecided.
As Obama should have.
As an Obama supporter, I agree with this statement.
Have you guys checked out Obama’s website? There is a copious amount of substance and policy to be found there.
Let’s try this again:
This follows my personal theory that Hillary has answers (whether I, or anyone like them or not) And Obama doesn’t. I know what Hillary’s platform is. Obama: sorry, but “change” is not a platform. The only time I ever see Obama give any semblance of a platform is when he repeats something Hillary just said.
I agree. Obama’s certainly more style than substance, but that’s what American’s usually want.
Have you guys checked out Obama’s website? There is a copious amount of substance and policy to be found there.
I just can’t imagine, short of a major meltdown or some incredibly bad revelation of corruption, that the Democrats can possibly deny Obama the nomination–they have to go back to their constituents and I would not want to be in their shoes if they were perceived, quite correctly, as having denied the nomination to a black man who followed the rules and won.
It’s true that more Obama supporters say they will support Hillary than there are Hillary supporters who say they will support Obama but the Obama supporters are saying that with the belief that he will win. If they see him being shafted…it won’t be pretty. Hillary minus support from the black community equals McCain as president and probably a better than deserved showing by the republicans in the senate and house. It would be suicidal.
The Democratic party has done some nutty things in the past but it’s hard to imagine them doing this.
Something that confuses me, and I am being completely genuine when I ask this…
I know the Clintons obviously had issues when Bill was in office, between Monica and all the wonderful pardons Bill gave out before he left; But for the most part, I thought the Clinton presidency was considered not only a successful one, but a very popular one (with the people.) Now I was only 16 when Bill was elected in 92, and I really cant say I was much into politics So I admit to not knowing much of what went on. And I also know/hear how very polarizing Hillary is. So my question is this: Were the Clintons popular back then? If so, what caused such a dramatic shift in many peoples view of them? Or is it just Obama’s relative newness in the world of politics clashing with a possible dynasty causing a backlash against them?
The Clinton Administratin was very popular. The fact that Bill handily survived his impeachment and left office with high numbers are a testament to the man’s skill.
Hillary however, was never as popular or personable as her husband. From what I understand of her, she’s a great behind-the-scenes politician, but a poor front-and-center one.
The fact she never was as charismatic as Slick Willie doesn’t help her, nor is the perception that her campaign is using Bush/Rove-style tactics and reasoning. For many, the idea that she is adopting the means of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy to acheive her goals and defeat Obama is anathema.
PAD,
If Obama refused such an offer from McCain, you’d be right and Obama would be an idiot. I’d love to see that kind of debate with the Republican nominee. In fact, Obama should challenge McCain right now.
But against Clinton? What’s the point except to further Clinton’s own agenda?
Hillary minus support from the black community equals McCain as president and probably a better than deserved showing by the republicans in the senate and house. It would be suicidal.
Moreso than usual. McCain has recently been visiting and campaigning in traditionally Democratic, black communities. If Obama is perceived to have unfairly lost the nomination by African-Americans, McCain will be there to welcome a generation of black voters into “the party of Lincoln”.
JosephW– You make valid points but the rules shouldn’t be changed now. Obama is likely to have won by the rules that they all agreed to–if the Clintons wanted some other formula to be use they had the stroke to make those rules at the beginning. It isn’t his fault that he played the game better.
As for Olberman, it’s a little late for those on the left to complain about his recklessness; that’s what he does. It was ok when he went after the “right” targets but now that he’s going after someone they might support he’s suddenly crossing a line? It would be like a long-time Rush Limbaugh listener suddenly complaining about him being a blowhard just because of what he says about McCain.
Well, it’s obvious that way too many people root for Obama without recognizing that, until after Super Tuesday, none of his “detriments” were known to the mass public.
I don’t know if it was obvious, but it’s becoming clearer what Obama’s potential detriments are. I suspect that, despite her claims of being “fully vetted”, there are a good number of detriments that Hillary’s campaign has that aren’t publicly known either.
I’d also point out that (to all those who insist on pointing out the “number of states won”) of the 26 states which Obama “won” . . . .
[snip for brevity]
Success of failure in a primary election doesn’t directly translate into the same in a general election. Is it reasonable to assume that because Clinton won Texas against Obama, that she’d win it against McCain?
And to reiterate Bill’s comment, it’s silly to argue about winning under rules different than the original ones both parties agreed to play by. “We’d be winning this football game if we were playing basketball” is an interesting intellectual exercise, but that’s it – it should have no bearing in the real world.
I would further like to suggest that some of the big Obama supporters here ask themselves if they approve of the not-so-subtle misogyny that’s shown up in the media. I know Olberman has “apologized” for his recent “metaphor” but does anyone think the comment was EVER acceptable? (A Kentucky Republican used the word “boy” in a second-hand reference to Obama and the Obama supporters just blew up. But Olberman can suggest “somebody who can take Hillary into a room and only he come out” and it’s JUST a “metaphor”. The Republican apologized the next day; Olberman took two full days before he offered his half-hearted apology, emphasizing the “metaphorical” nature of the statement.)
I can easily believe that Olbermann’s comment was not intended as misogynistic. The idea of “two men enter, one man leaves” isn’t new — the fact that one of the “men” is a woman *is* new, and another, potentially controversial, signal was accidentally sent. The same thing with an anti-Obama ad that that Clinton campaign broadcast earlier this year: The accusation was that the ad was racist because it made Obama’s skin darker and “blacker” in order to scare of white voters. The more likely reason is that attack ads frequently use darkened/desaturated images of opponents to make them appear sinister; the fact that this opponent is black accidentally sent another, potentially controversial, signal.
The “boy” reference is something else. I could believe that a much older person could have made that comment as a snipe on Obama’s youth. However, Rep. Davis is only three years older than Obama and as a consequence, his comment smacks of Deep South racist attitudes. (I cannot imagine Davis having referred to Sen. Edwards as “boy” for instance.)
Also, I have to admit having some confusion at how so many Obama supporters have only recently become upset with the media which has given Obama a major pass in this campaign. When the media was schmoozing at the idea of “President Obama”, the people who’d been decrying the mainstream media’s softball attitude towards BushCo were acting as if the media had finally “come to their senses”. Now, when Obama starts getting unfavorable press treatment, it all becomes Hillary’s fault.
I haven’t gotten this impression at all. Would you please elaborate?
I’m still incredibly ticked off at Obama’s use of Donnie McClurkin last year. That issue alone prevented my considering him back on Super Tuesday.
That was an unfortunate misstep on the part of the Obama campaign, but Obama’s subsequent, unreserved, and occasionally extemporary statements against homophobia and for homosexual inclusion more than makes up for it in my mind.
Wildcat said Obama had previously stated that he didn’t want to do any more debates. If this is correct, then I agree that Obama should go with a “I said no more debates and I meant it” sort of statement.
But when there next is a debate (whether between Clinton and Obama or between one of them and McCain during the general election) I would very much like to see a real debate, not the crap we have nowadays with the one minute response by Candidate A; the 30 second rebuttal by Candidate B and, if I remember right, the final rebuttal to the rebuttal by Candidate A.
I would much rather see the type of debate depicted between Santos and Vinick in The West Wing and/or a Lincoln-Douglass type of debate. To the best of my knowledge, the only significant difference is that the former had a moderator who asked the questions and/or kept the candidates from straying into irrelevant topics.
Anyway, those, to me, are real debates, not this one minute answer/30 second rebuttal nonsense. My own personal experience with debates from high school (and college?) is that you take a side of a particular issue, and argue your case. Your opponent then argues his or her case. You reply with various statistics that “prove” you’re right; your opponent then does the same for his or her argument; and so on, until each presents the concluding argument.
Alternatively, person A says his/her piece, citing relevant stats; then person B does likewise. The problem with that, of course, is that it lets the first speaker set the tone. If an issue has various permutations and you expect the debate to focus on points A, C and F and your opponent, who goes first, hits points B, F and G, you’d have to toss out a lot of what you’d planned to say.
Anyway, both scenarios are better than forcing you to limit your reply to either one minute or 30 seconds. If there must be a time limit, then both the original reply and the rebuttal should be the same length.
A friend of mine twice ran for elected office. He was in his second campaign when the West Wing debate episode aired. I asked if he’d be willing to have such a debate. He said yes. For the record, were I running for office, so would I.
Interestingly enough, I asked the same question of a gubernatorial candidate. He pretty much evaded the question, saying neither of the two candidates’ “people” would okay it. Sorry, but that’s ridiculous. The candidates don’t need their handlers’ permission.
Obama said he and Clinton have had 21 debates (I assume some had included the now-dropped-out other Democratic candidates). I don’t suppose any of them were “real” debates as I’ve described above? More’s the pity.
Question: When did Obama complain the moderator focused on trivial issues for far too long? During the debate in question or afterwards? To my way of thinking, one should raise that point during the debate, when you can still do something about it. For example:
“With all due respect Mr. Muggs– may I call you J. Fred?– I don’t believe the American people are all that interested in that issue. I believe– and I think Senator Bedfellow would agree– that they’d rather hear our thoughts and ideas concerning the wars, the mortgage crisis, and the skyrocketing cost of gasoline.”
Something like that. If the other candidate agrees with that argument, the moderator would hopefully move on to more relevant topics.
Finally, speaking of great debates, let’s not forget one of the best: W.C. Fields Vs. Charlie McCarthy.
Rick
From what you’ve said, you wouldn’t think someone with zero prior public service experience was governor of California.
This only seems to demonstrate how race should be broken as the glass ceiling to the white house before gender. Bush got ~9% of the black vote in his elections, whereas he split the women vote more evenly. Why break first the glass ceiling half of those who would benefit from it shelter in the first place? Even of the half of married women who vote differently from their husbands, half of them portray themselves to their husbands as voting the same. Until feminists can actually sell feminism to women, making Hillary the party nominee doesn’t seem more productive than subsidizing unapologetic addicts.
With Limbaugh there was no obvious beneficiary of his criticism of McCain — other than McCain himself in the eyes of moderates.
Respectfully, I must disagree, PAD. His complaint, if I’m not mistaken was: “After 20+ debates, these are the questions you’re going to ask us? Flag pins?” So, I think Obama wasn’t yelling for better debates in the future, it was more a critique of the process and asking newspeople to get their act together.
I am for Obama, but I am NOT anti-Clinton. It seems it’s like a Yankees vs Mets or Pacino vs DeNiro debate; you can only like one. But I don’t feel that way. For me, no more debates. My mind’s set. I’d rather hear what they have to say on issues opposed to hearing them throw mud at each other.