0
   

Obama Pummelled in Debate?

 
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2008 07:11 pm
sozobe wrote:
Main thing I'm saying is that Hillary attacking Obama and Obama parrying her blows doesn't help EITHER of them. Only helps McCain.


Interesting that you don't seem to see it as the Democratic candidates attacking each other. My read of the news would suggest they've both got a decent ability to attack - their techniques are different, but they're both in there flinging stuff around.

Neither of them deserves a pass in this category.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2008 08:48 pm
ehBeth wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
BPB how was McCain doing against Obama and Clinton before he was the presumptive nominee? The head to heads right now don't mean much.

I was re-reading the first pages of nimh's polling thread earlier tonight. McCain was doing quite well against either Obama or Clinton when he was at 10% in the Republican campaign ( ~ December 2007)


Yep, Ebeth is right: McCain was always either the best or, when Giuliani was still riding high, second best performing Republican candidate in these head to head polls - even when he was down at rock bottom in the Republican primaries.


ehBeth wrote:
The concern here is McCain, and how he's holding up against either of the current Democratic options (Edwards was the only one - in the early days - who seemed to have a solid chance against McCain).


That's not correct. All three Dems have always seemed to have a solid chance against McCain. In the rolling average I was maintaining till the end of March, none of the three Dems was ever behind McCain more than 5 points on average.

And though Edwards often did indeed do best, there was a distinct difference between how Obama and Hillary did. The times when they did equally well (late September to mid-December last year, and from early March on) alternated with extensive periods in which Obama did noticably better.

All the way from mid-December to early-March, Obama was polling from 2% up to 9% better than Hillary against McCain. In fact, in the rolling average throughout this period, Obama was hardly ever beaten by McCain, while in contrast, Hillary hardly ever bested McCain. There was an equally noticeable difference between how Obama and Hillary did back in April-August last year as well; back then Obama had a clear advantage too.

So in short, so far in this race, up till late March at least, when it comes to these match-up polls, periods in which Hillary and Obama seemed equally electable have alternated with periods in which Obama clearly had an edge. And throughout that time, the Dems were more likely to lead McCain than to be behind, and were never more than 5% behind on average.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2008 09:52 pm
Nimh
But for the good of the party. Most of the Obamites have been insisting Hill drop out for the good of the party. If there so interested in the party why not have him drop out for the good of the party. After all unless one of them drops out neither is going to have enough delegates to carry the convention. Which is why the Obamites have been insisting Hill drop out so thier boy gets in. Right.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 12:21 am
Their boy????????????????????????//

Their boy has the nomination locked up, you racist POS.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 06:28 am
Roxxxanne wrote:
....you racist POS.



Sometimes I wonder if free speech is such a good thing..... [shakes head]
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 06:34 am
ehBeth wrote:
sozobe wrote:
Main thing I'm saying is that Hillary attacking Obama and Obama parrying her blows doesn't help EITHER of them. Only helps McCain.


Interesting that you don't seem to see it as the Democratic candidates attacking each other. My read of the news would suggest they've both got a decent ability to attack - their techniques are different, but they're both in there flinging stuff around.

Neither of them deserves a pass in this category.



I purposely have been using that formulation because so often it's reported that the two of them are "fighting" which implies an equivalency that I don't think is there. This started to really bother me during the "race card" stretch in South Carolina. It was started by Bill Clinton making some remarks that publicly concerned Donna Brazile and James Clyburn -- both of those people are neutral, not associated with Obama's campaign at all. Then Hillary surrogates got in the act, with that BET guy saying lovely things about Obama selling drugs (and insisting, for nearly a week, that he meant something more innocent, honestly, before finally apologizing). Then Hillary herself spent an hour on "Meet the Press" attacking Obama for one thing or another and laying the whole "race row" at his feet. That was a Sunday, after things had been getting hotter for about a week. After her appearance, Obama said wait, I haven't even commented on this whole thing until now! Then by the next day -- Monday -- as things were escalating and escalating, he called a press conference to say that hey, let's calm down, the Clintons are good people.

Hillary followed it up with her own statement about an hour later, uh, yeah, let's calm down, totally agree.

Yet this was reported as a) Hillary and Obama were fighting about "the race card," and b) they mutually decided to bury the hatchet. This blamed Obama far more than he deserved for the initial flap, and gave Hillary far more credit than she deserved for bringing things to an end.

That's just an example. There are many, many things that Obama could be using against Hillary that he isn't. He just won't go there. He does policy-based stuff that is sometimes annoys me -- the health care things about "under Hillary's plan you will need to buy insurance even if you can't afford it," etc. But while Hillary brings up Ayers* and is happy to talk about how very bad that "bitter" comment was, Obama defends her Bosnia gaffe. He hasn't touched those boxes of oppo that the Republicans have -- Whitewater, Monica, etc., etc. He could use the same excuse as she has been; "Well, if she can't withstand my attack, how can she expect to defeat the Republicans?"



*
Quote:
Bill Ayers' brother, Rick Ayers, is lashing out at Hillary Clinton, accusing her of "McCarthyism" for making an issue of rival Barack Obama's links to Chicago professor Bill Ayers during this week's Democratic presidential debate.

"The fact that she would drag up this pathetic red herring about Obama's alleged ties to so-called terrorist Bill Ayers (my brother!) brings her right down to the level of Fox News and the National Enquirer," blogged Rick Ayers, a California high school teacher and author.

"This is the most base version of McCarthyism," he wrote. "Obama should have taken a page from Joseph Welch when he confronted the red-baiting senator during the Army-McCarthy hearings. He should have said, 'Senator Clinton, are you really going to go there? Do you have no shame?'"

Clinton raised the relationship as a potential general election sore spot for Obama should he defeat her.


http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/904015,CST-NWS-ayers19.article
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 06:41 am
rabel22 wrote:
But for the good of the party. Most of the Obamites have been insisting Hill drop out for the good of the party. If there so interested in the party why not have him drop out for the good of the party.

Umm.. because he's won more states, more votes and more delegates? When have you ever heard of the leading candidate dropping out in order that the trailing candidate can get nominated? Doesnt make any sense.

rabel22 wrote:
Which is why the Obamites have been insisting Hill drop out so thier boy gets in. Right.

"Right"? The obvious reason that Obamaites have been urging Hill to drop out so their "boy" can get in (jeez, Rabel), is that, umm... she's the one who's trailing. And no matter if she wins Pennsylvania, Kentucky, West-Virginia -- she will still have won fewer states, fewer votes, and fewer delegates when every state has voted. There's no way she can catch up on any of those counts.

Wouldnt it be, you know, rather undemocratic to push the candidate who actually got the most votes and victories to drop out? So that the one who once was all but "inevitable," but has managed to drop behind on all counts can get the nomination after all? How's that make any sense?

Seriously - can you imagine yourself proposing such a thing in any other circumstances? Can you imagine your own reaction of it was Hillary who was ahead in votes, states and delegates and Obama supporters would still say she should drop out for the sake of him? What would you say to that?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 08:46 am
Just read Michael Moore's endorsement of Obama -- I certainly don't always agree with the guy but he makes the same point as me in a more colorful way:

Quote:
[O]ver the past two months, the actions and words of Hillary Clinton have gone from being merely disappointing to downright disgusting. I guess the debate last week was the final straw. I've watched Senator Clinton and her husband play this game of appealing to the worst side of white people, but last Wednesday, when she hurled the name "Farrakhan" out of nowhere, well that's when the silly season came to an early end for me. She said the "F" word to scare white people, pure and simple. Of course, Obama has no connection to Farrakhan. But, according to Senator Clinton, Obama's pastor does -- AND the "church bulletin" once included a Los Angeles Times op-ed from some guy with Hamas! No, not the church bulletin!

This sleazy attempt to smear Obama was brilliantly explained the following night by Stephen Colbert. He pointed out that if Obama is supported by Ted Kennedy, who is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is led by a Pope who was in the Hitler Youth, that can mean only one thing: OBAMA LOVES HITLER!

Yes, Senator Clinton, that's how you sounded. Like you were nuts. Like you were a bigot stoking the fires of stupidity. How sad that I would ever have to write those words about you. You have devoted your life to good causes and good deeds. And now to throw it all away for an office you can't win unless you smear the black man so much that the superdelegates cry "Uncle (Tom)" and give it all to you.

[...]

Finally, I want to say a word about the basic decency I have seen in Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton continues to throw the Rev. Wright up in his face as part of her mission to keep stoking the fears of White America. Every time she does this I shout at the TV, "Say it, Obama! Say that when she and her husband were having marital difficulties regarding Monica Lewinsky, who did she and Bill bring to the White House for 'spiritual counseling?' THE REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT!"

But no, Obama won't throw that at her. It wouldn't be right. It wouldn't be decent. She's been through enough hurt. And so he remains silent and takes the mud she throws in his face.

That's why the crowds who come to see him are so large. That's why he'll take us down a more decent path. That's why I would vote for him if Michigan were allowed to have an election.


(Emphases in original.)

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=225
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 08:55 am
Mike Barnacle said this am on MSNBC that it is over. Hillary needs to win all "her" states by huge margins and break nearly even in "Obama" states. And beyond that, hse has to ciunt on record turnout. And all this just to won the popular vote to have SOMETHING to pitch to the super delegates. I don't think her claim that she "won more electoral votes" is going to wash among the lucid.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 08:56 am
Roxxxanne wrote:
Their boy????????????????????????//

Their boy has the nomination locked up, you racist POS.


For starters, you don't really know whether he has the nomination "locked up" or not.

In the second, you ask for (and usually get) a good deal of tolerance and forebearance from others here. That is as it should be. However, it is disappointing to see how poorly you return the favor.

Posts like yours are better left unsent.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 09:05 am
Ever the gentleman, george.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 09:08 am
The "spiritual advisor" thing was new to me, I looked around and it sounds like it's probably an overstatement. Wright was invited to the White House and there is a picture of him with Clinton, but it was part of an annual prayer breakfast, and I haven't seen anything indicating that there was any sort of one-on-one or "advisor" relationship.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0308/A_Bill_ClintonJeremiah_Wright_pic_emerges_.html


btw I think the "it's over" stuff is still premature. If Obama stays close in PA or even (gasp) wins, that might seal some deals -- but I really don't think he'll win and I'll be pleasantly surprised if it's close (within 10 pts).
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 09:10 am
So on what basis can Hillary claim the nomination if it is impossible to win the delegate count or the popular vote?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 09:12 am
If she can convince a big group of superdelegates that she's the better choice, she could still get the nomination.

Not saying it's likely, but not impossible yet either.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 09:22 am
georgeob1 wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
Their boy????????????????????????//

Their boy has the nomination locked up, you racist POS.


For starters, you don't really know whether he has the nomination "locked up" or not.

In the second, you ask for (and usually get) a good deal of tolerance and forebearance from others here. That is as it should be. However, it is disappointing to see how poorly you return the favor.

Posts like yours are better left unsent.


I do know he has the nomination locked up. It is impossible for Clinton to legitimately claim the nomination.

I have never asked for any tolerance or a cessation of the vilification that I receive here on a daily basis from the usual suspects. (Deeply disturbed white males.) There is simply no excuse for calling an African-American running for president "boy.")
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 09:26 am
sozobe wrote:
If she can convince a big group of superdelegates that she's the better choice, she could still get the nomination.

Not saying it's likely, but not impossible yet either.


OK well then, on what basis, without winning the delegate count OR the popular vote can she convince the super delegates to pull a 2000 like Supreme Court coup that would drive away black voters and virtually guarantee a McCain victory. Please explain what cards she holds to convince them to overturn the will of the people?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 09:30 am
The will of the people isn't overwhelming, though, is it. She can drag it to the convention. Not saying she can or can't get the nomination, but in terms of whether it's over, clearly it's not. She's not going to get out, and Obama can't really put her away.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 09:33 am
Again, I'm not arguing it's going to happen. I think it's unlikely. Unlikely is still a distance from impossible, though, and I think there is some possibility.

I remember really not liking it when you declared victory for Obama in NH the day before the election, and so have tended to say something since then. Sometimes you've been right, sometimes you've been wrong.

There are many scenarios in which Hillary could still get the nomination. She could have a huge victory in PA, and then Obama could make some gaffe that's worse and more damaging than Wright or "bitter," and something could happen with FL and/ or MI, and and and... it's not over yet. Definitely unlikely that she'll win, not impossible.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 10:13 am
Nimh
Im only pointing out that the Obamiates are trying to end it before its ended. Neither has or will have the delegates to win the convention. Iamb still hoping that Edwards or Krinicech can be a choice that would be O.K. with the Democrats. I don't like Obama or Clinton and I would like to vote for someone whose ideas I agree with and trust.

Roxxanne
You seem to be able to make most posts seem to be about racism. This says a hel- of a lot more about you than me I think. Im not going to try to defend my posts against unwarranted attacks. Most people understand what I said.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 10:20 am
sozobe wrote:
That's just an example. There are many, many things that Obama could be using against Hillary that he isn't. He just won't go there.


Quote:
And i think it's in keeping with the kind of campaign Sen. Obama has been running in Pennsylvania these last few days. They have turned very, very negative. So negative in fact that the press is reporting today that the Obama campaign is doing everything it can to spend as much money as it can to spread as much negative information as it can about Sen. Clinton here in the closing days of Pennsylvania."
realclear this morning

all a matter of perception, it would seem

~~~

I'm still not going to give either of them a pass in this category.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/09/2025 at 04:38:57