Thursday, April 17, 2008
Last night's debate
I literally forgot to turn on the television for last night's debate, so if any of you have cogent observations please spew them into the comments. I do note that Memeorandum's roll up of blog reactions indicates that the lefties really hated the questioning from the ABC News team, which must mean that both candidates faired badly.
MORE: Andrew Sullivan's take seems like bad news for the donks:
It was a lifeless, exhausted, drained and dreary Obama we saw tonight. I've seen it before when he is tired, but this was his worst performance yet on national television. He seemed crushed and unable to react. This is big-time politics and he's up against the Clinton wood-chipper. But there is no disguising the fact that he wilted, painfully. Clinton has exposed herself in this campaign as one of the worst shells of a cynical pol in American politics. She doesn't just return us to the Morris-Rove era, she represents a new height for it. If she somehow wins, it will be a triumph of the old politics in an age when that is exactly what this country cannot afford. But Obama has also shown a failure to be resilient in this grueling process....
And so this was indeed a huge night for the Republicans, and the first real indicator to me that Clinton is gaining in her fundamental goal at this point: the election of John McCain against Barack Obama. How else will she rescue the Democrats from hope?
Help me understand what happened: Release the hounds.
17 Comments:
By 
, at
Thu Apr 17, 08:01:00 AM:
Obama was asked about Bill Ayers and responded "Lets not sit and argue over who killed who."
Okay not quite, but almost. Some money clips on hotair. There were some tough questions (or "distractions" according to Obama). Stuff about Wright and Ayers, but also Tuzla I think.
Hillary goes into detail in her attacks on Obama, pointing out Ayers killed people (except she went for the more passive "people died"), mentioning Wright's ties to Farrakhan and Hamas, etc.
The consensus seems to be that Obama was very weak defending himself, though I only saw isolated clips, so I couldn't judge his overall posture for the debate. But as I said, his main counter was the "This is a distraction" thing. Hard to say if it will sell.
All in all, though, quite delicious.
By , at
Thu Apr 17, 10:19:00 AM:
After O'Bamas display last night... anyone voting for him has the iq of a door nob
By 
Khaki Elephant, at
Thu Apr 17, 12:28:00 PM:
We witnessed Obama under pressure and without a script -- at times he sounded a bit like Shaggy meeting that sailor ghost without a scooby snack.
By SR, at
Thu Apr 17, 12:36:00 PM:
This morning, Democrat "strategist" on Fox claims that Obama and the Dems will really make hay when they talk about solutions to the war, and the economy.
I wonder, just what are these "solutions?" Higher taxes, cut and run, yeah, that'll work.
By , at
Thu Apr 17, 01:56:00 PM:
At this point the only thing that can win the presidency for either Democrat candidate is total incompetence from the GOP. Which could happen, if the past is any guide to future performance.
By , at
Thu Apr 17, 02:02:00 PM:
Strangely, Obama criticized Carter's meeting with Hamas last night. I wonder why Hamas doesn't rate with Obama...
By , at
Thu Apr 17, 02:12:00 PM:
If your guy can't stand the heat, demand a remodeled kitchen.
By , at
Thu Apr 17, 03:58:00 PM:
It was actually a very refreshing debate, because for the first time the moderators actually showed a spine. Charles Gibson was outstanding and I personally loved the fact that conservative "conventional wisdom" came to the fore on capital gains taxes. Charlie hammered Barack about raising those taxes and pinpointing the fact that it would hurt the economy. Charlie would also push back on the point about how cutting taxes is actually good for tax revenue (at that point I was thinking that Art Laffer sneaked into Charlie's seat.)
I thought Hillary was very focused and generally did a good job. If you have been watching these debates she has been taking on tougher questions all along, so she seemed less dazed. The other thing she did very well was that for every answer she tied it back to the people of Pennsylvania, while Barack continued to use Chicago as his reference point.
Where Barack did find his legs (or at least in my eyes) was when he got back on message of bridging the divide in Washington D.C. Both of the candidates were asked if they would seek G.W.'s guidance if they were to take over and Barack said that he would first seek George H.W. Bush first since he did such a good job in his foreign relations and managing both sides of the aisle as well as the many international concerns so well.
The reality is, I dont think it really matters how bad Barack looked. At the end of the day, those people behind him are in it all the way. Where he may have hurt himself is with the "independent" or "undecided" person (whoever they suspposedly are?) The Left has their rock star, the person as Chris Mathews says "they fall in love with" and it is Barack. Hell, Mathews talks openly about the "tingle he had run-up his leg" when Barack spoke (I sure hope it wasn't his middle leg...)
By , at
Thu Apr 17, 04:06:00 PM:
Best debate report.
Andrew
By , at
Thu Apr 17, 04:34:00 PM:
How much any of these debates leads to the forming of opnions and the casting of votes is anybody's guess.
A majority of the electorate is not pay much attention to most of the fine grain details of the primary campaigns in either party.
They won't focus in until October 15 or October 20 next fall, about 2 weeks before the general election.
I frankly don't see the Obama freight train being derailed, and he goes on to get the Dem nomination, barring some incredible turn of events. But it's anybody's guess as to what the majority of people will actually think and how they will vote until sometime next October.
-David
By Christopher Chambers, at
Thu Apr 17, 09:49:00 PM:
Did they even get to any real issues regarding the nation until about an hour in??? The soap opera questions are fair to stir ratings,sure, but man that does NOT a debate make. Good Lord even Pat Buchanan bemoaned that.
And that first anonymous comment--all and all quite "delicious?" Is that real? if so, what kind of anti-social scumbag are you. I guess you have to be "anonymous" for frankly I'm sure your family (and co-workers) would be embarassed...
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Thu Apr 17, 09:58:00 PM:
Chris, you have frequently voiced similar comments of enjoyment when it is conservatives (you believe) making the mistakes. There are some basic and quite simple standards of honest discourse you seem unable to rise to.
I started posting in annoyance but am concluding in sadness. I really think you are unable to see yourself with any clarity. Your doors are all locked from the inside.
By , at
Fri Apr 18, 01:12:00 AM:
I simply couldn't believe that no one brought up the issue of Bill Clinton taking $800,000 grand to help support the Colombian free-trade pact, which Hillary ridiculously poses as a mere spousal disagreement rather than a case of peddling influence. The whole thing stinks to high heaven, but more importantly, illustrates perfectly why it may not be a good idea to have an ex-President for a spouse.
I thought Barack made Hillary's antics look disgraceful, but wished he had found some way to bring up the Colombia connection.
By , at
Fri Apr 18, 07:43:00 AM:
AVI,
You forgot to mention that he usually adds an intelligent pejorative such as "dickhead" to his measured responses. A true master of his craft.
By , at
Fri Apr 18, 09:26:00 AM:
One thing to remember is that this is a Democratic primary. The two candidates are as alike as Tweedledum and Tweedledee on real policy issues such as education (whatever the union says), trade protectionism (whatever the unions say), protection of our telecommunications companies (whatever the trial lawyers say), the economy (tax the rich, feed the poor, 'till there are no rich no more), or gun control (a ban on law-abiding citizens having soi-disant assault weapons). All these are pretty far left positions. So, how are Democratic voters supposed to make their decisions except on issues of character or race/gender?
JLW III
By , at
Fri Apr 18, 10:28:00 AM:
I forgot to mention, that's Charlie Gibson '65.
JLW III '67
By , at
Sat Apr 19, 08:46:00 PM:
I'm the first anonymous commenter.
No, Chistopher Chambers, the comment wasn't real, it was a fake comment.
Seriously, I am truly ashamed of my previous delight in the infighting on the left. Particularly since the left has, over the years, developed such a reputation for decency, fair play, even handedness, and just out and out compassion towards their political opponents. You have shamed me sir. I stand chastened and ashamed.
That is why I remain anonymous. The guilt and the pain are just too much. How could I face my friends and family after saying such mean, cruel things about such a delightful political party?
