An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
How Bad Was Last Night’s Debate For Obama?
The highly perceptive columnist/blogger Dick Polman, who is not hyping any candidate, says it was this bad.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
14 Responses to “How Bad Was Last Night’s Debate For Obama?”
Charlie and George's performance was even worse. It wasn't a debate so much as an attempted swiftboating. What about his fellow “journalists” and by journalism- no mention of Stephenopoulous recusing himself from it for his former relationship?This buddy-buddy buying donuts philosophy of the MSM needs to stop, and stop now.
What about Iraq? What about the economy?National security? No we'll focus on the pithy rumor-pandering. Sad, really.
“Clinton then took the opportunity to remind those culturally-conservative Pennsylvanians that Wright had delivered a sermon, right after 9/11, essentially blaming America for the terrorist attacks. “
And what, no mention of Falwell and Robertson's neo-Fascistic remarks that we “deserved 9-11 because of gays et al”
Guess you took a sip of the RetCon juice.
No hat tip for you.
Highly perceptive my left foot Joe. I'm dissapointed.
“What about his fellow “journalists” and by journalism- no mention of Stephenopoulous recusing himself from it for his former relationship?”
George S., unlike Carville, does not have to recuse himself because of his book that he wrote about life in the Clinton White House.
It is EXTREMELY unflattering to both Clintons in many respects!
Unlike you, his fellow journalists know of this tense relationship between the Clintons and Stephanopolous. Hence, he can't be considered “in the tank”.
It is truly remarkable the sense of …”betrayal”…that Obama supporters feel at journalists asking Obama some hard questions.
Clinton has stood up to tough questions. As has McCain (see NYT smear re: alleged adultery with lobbyist).
The sense I gather is that: Obama should not be questioned. It is the job of journalists to question(smear) Republicans…or closet neocons/neofascists like HRC…Obama is beyond questioning.
They weren't “hard” questions, they we're “gotcha” politics meant to divert attention from real issues.
Regardless of Stephanopoulis' book, he still had a conflict/axe to grind as an ex-employee. Do the words conflict of interest/impartiality mean a damn thing anymore? Apparently, the networks don't think so. And so is confabulating with Sean Hannity for “taking notes”. GS should be fired.
“The sense I gather is that: Obama should not be questioned. It is the job of journalists to question(smear) Republicans…or closet neocons/neofascists like HRC…Obama is beyond questioning.”
Then you keep drinking that anti-Obama Kool Aid put out by people in the MSM ( because the MSM always needs a new “tag” or “hook” for a candidate to put in the Banner line), amigo. Because if you actually took the time to look at his positions you'd realize that you were sippin at the NeoCon talking points fountain, and you might actually learn something about him and turn the other page.
He's not perfect, he's no prophet, he's just a guy like a lot of us that wants to change the status quo, because the status quo equals stag-nation.
“The sense I gather is that: Obama should not be questioned. It is the job of journalists to question(smear) Republicans…or closet neocons/neofascists like HRC…Obama is beyond questioning.”
I obviously can't speak for anyone else, but my sense isn't that Obama shouldn't be questioned, it's more How many times does he need to address these points? And why, during a presidential campaign debate, of all places, do we focus on these “gotcha” issues and not more substantial policy questions?
I have no problem with either candidate being asked tough questions, but when they've given their response, in some cases multiple times in different forums, then bringing those questions up again and again…that just strikes me as not only unfair, but doing us all a disservice.
PWT:
I'm one of the TMV moderators. I'm reposting your comment below without the first paragraph “vulgarity” (for lack of a better word):
Comment by PWT: This was a GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY for Mr. Obama. He had a chance on national television to address all concerns that swing voters may have about him in a short 45 minute period of time. Had he been adequately prepared, he could have dispelled voters' fears about his relationship with Rev. Wright, about his understanding of middle-class rural voters' concerns, about his patriotism and about his association with Mr. Ayres.
Only a fool would not expect at least one, if not all, of these issues to be raised. Imagine, if Mr. Obama had addressed these issues in a straightforward manner, how well he would have been positioned to face Mr. McCain in November having only to address policy issues.
T-Steel, thanks, sometimes my 'vulgarity' gets the better of me. I am, after all, Poor White Trash.
No problem PWT. We just try to keep it clean in the comments. That said, I pretty much agree with your comment. I wanted Senator Obama to come out like he did with the “Annie Oakley” references to Senator Clinton. Instead he looked weary and unprepared. Maybe he is weary. Maybe he's hates this style of politics. Either way, he just didn't look good and Senator Clinton looked right at home. But we'll see what the voters say.
Hillary was most definitely playing to the Superdelegates, not the viewers.
Pandering, I dare say. I never even knew about “Superdelegates” before this election cycle- makes you wonder what else they don't teach you about what goes on behind the curtains in DC. Maybe Obama was having an aneurysm trying to deal with the stupidity of the “Charlie and George dog and pony show.” I dunno. Personally I think this has gone on long enough- Dems are going to have to hit the ground running or JMcC is going to turtle the race.
I don't mind that Obama had to field more of the “tough” questions from the moderators. That's expected when you're the front-runner. That's why I think Hillary would have received the same treatment if the situations had been reversed.
The problem is that ABC News chose petty questions. The “does Wright love America as much as you?” question is the only proof I need of that.
[...] (The Daily Dish); skippy the bush kangaroo; The Reaction; Crooks and Liars; The Left Coaster; The Moderate Voice (Our good friend, Joe Gandelman) Bookmark: Tags: 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, Civil Liberties, [...]
I tend to agree with this point of view from The Carpetbagger Report
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/1…
Oh, no. More, post-debate, hyperventilation!
[yawn] Wait until after Pennsylvania. And, not only will you likely have to try to grow up and wait until the nomination*, but you must now get ready to hyperventilate over Indiana, too.
* Florida and Michigan conducted illegitimate elections and don't deserve to have their delegates seated. But in addition to typical Democratic childishness and worse, among people to whom rules and propriety may easily be discarded, the size of the delegate blocs will still have the Dems worried. Something needs to be done with Florida and Michigan. They're too lazy, stupid, or parasitic to pay for new elections themselves, which normal, decent people (even Republicans) would do. So what games are they going to play later this year to resolve this?
(Doing nothing is what they're obliged to do, but going around the rules is the Dem way, so let's see what happens at the convention. I hope there's a brawl.)
“It is truly remarkable the sense of …”betrayal”…that Obama supporters feel at journalists asking Obama some hard questions.”
After all, to the cultists, he's far more entitled to the coronation than Clinton is.
[snicker]
“Either way, he just didn't look good and Senator Clinton looked right at home.”
You're not one of the cultists, Mr. T. (Think groupies and the Economist with the stupid people, often young women, shown on the cover one week: “Foolish Love.”)
What this is (for cultists and non-cultists alike), is: Welcome to the real world.
Obama is favored, but Clinton is not out of this race. (Nor is McCain. You Dems would do well to be concerned about his winning the White House by default, same as the GOP nomination — though the convention and his VP choice must be examined first.)