Obama Pummelled in Debate?

ehBeth... you were quoting Wolfson there.

0 Replies

Quote:

Bruised by previous last-minute attack ads, Senator Obama was matching the tone set by Senator Clinton in her advertisements in the past 24 hours in what has become an unedifying spectacle of two relatively evenly matched candidates trying to land a knock-out blow

the australian

Quote:

theweekdaily

Quote:

In television commercials and in appearances before crowded rallies, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, cast his opponent in one of the most negative lights of the entire 16-month campaign, calling her a compromised Washington insider. Mrs. Clinton, of New York, responded by suggesting that Mr. Obama's message of hope had given way to old-style politics and asked Democrats to take a harder look at him.

The fresh skirmishing unfolded across one of the most complicated battlegrounds in the race for the Democratic nomination. Both campaigns deployed thousands of paid workers, volunteers and surrogates to strategic points across the state.

Mr. Obama, seeking to lock up the nomination, was outspending Mrs. Clinton two-to-one on television advertising in the state, with a barrage of commercials assailing her health care plan and suggesting that she was captive to special interests. Mrs. Clinton fired back on Sunday, criticizing his health care plan and saying he was going negative to mask his poor performance in last week's debate.

nyt

They're both politicians, doing what politicians do.

Yes, change. It's supposed to be about change.

~~~

No hall pass for any of them.

0 Replies

Quote:

saying he was going negative to mask his poor performance in last week's debate.

nyt

which circles back to the title of the thread Cool

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

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.

Calling a black man, especially a presidential candidate is indefensible and racist. You can only retract it. There is no defense for it. The way to get me to stop making charges of racism is simple. Stop being racist.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

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.

It may be possible (Like if Obama gets caught in bed with Ann Coulter) but it is not plausible under any scenario short of disaster falling to Obama.

0 Replies

EDIT

Calling a black man a "boy", especially a presidential candidate is indefensible and racist. You can only retract it. There is no defense for it. The way to get me to stop making charges of racism is simple. Stop being racist.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

EDIT

Calling a black man a "boy", especially a presidential candidate is indefensible and racist. You can only retract it. There is no defense for it. The way to get me to stop making charges of racism is simple. Stop being racist.

In the context in which the word was used, I don't think that your interpretation is at all justified. You are categorical in your judgements of others - and in defense of your own response - to a degree that is not supported by the observable facts.

0 Replies

A simple retraction and a apology to Sen. Obama will result in the same action on my part.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

EDIT

Calling a black man a "boy", especially a presidential candidate is indefensible and racist. You can only retract it. There is no defense for it. The way to get me to stop making charges of racism is simple. Stop being racist.

Look on the bright side. "Boy" is certainly something that no longer applies to you. Would you recommend that approach to Obama?

0 Replies

Roxxxanne, you are the only one here who should apologize. It's obvious to everyone else here that YOU are in the wrong. This is nothing new however, you are famous for unfounded charges of racism/sexism, yet you often portray these isms yourself.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

Quote:
Bruised by previous last-minute attack ads, Senator Obama was matching the tone set by Senator Clinton in her advertisements in the past 24 hours in what has become an unedifying spectacle of two relatively evenly matched candidates trying to land a knock-out blow

Isnt that exactly what Soz said?

"Bruised by previous last-minute attack ads" - by Clinton, note - "Senator Obama was matching the tone set by Senator Clinton".

Thats exactly what Soz said, about who ventured into attack ad territory and who only went there after that in defence.

And in your next quote, again:

"The campaign sure has "spiraled deeper into the mud pit," said Michael McAuliff in the New York Daily News. It started when Clinton "relentlessly" pounded Obama for saying that small-town Americans cling to guns and religion out of economic bitterness."

That's what Soz said. <shrugs>

Sure, that still means that neither of 'em should get a "pass" for attack ads - no argument from me there. You'll probably have seen the pretty intense debate about Obama's "Harry and Louise"-type health care leaflets that we had in the Obama'08 thread, all the way back before Super Tuesday already.

But that doesnt make the distinction Soz is making irrelevant - and your quotes actually seem to support it.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

Quote:
saying he was going negative to mask his poor performance in last week's debate.
nyt

which circles back to the title of the thread

A PS to the previous post. When you counter Soz's argument about what happened by saying that it's "all a matter of perception" - OK, fine, fair enough; and when you then bring a quote, or two, from unspecified voices saying the opposite, you'd guess that those are, like, other observers, just with different impressions.

But instead, though you didnt mention it either time, your first quote was from one of Hillary's campaign managers, as Soz said, and this quote is from Hillary herself.

Two remarks on that.

First, on a stylistic note, it's a bit, eh... Well, let me put it this way. Just imagine your own reaction, if someone observed something negative about President Bush and Foxfyre, say, would respond, "well, that's all just a matter of perception," and bring an observation saying the opposite. Except this quote turned out to be from Bush's speechwriter, something she'd failed to mention. How would you look upon that? Just askin'...

Second, so what's this prove? Clinton Campaign Believes Obama Is the More Negative Candidate? Um, no kidding?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

something she'd failed to mention. How would you look upon that? Just askin'...

uhh, I'd say "there's the link - I can see who said it"

going back to add the name referenced in the link once I'd looked at the post proved impossible since soz had already posted

~~~

Being today's BPB/Lola is an experience - and I don't particularly like Clinton as a candidate. Just imagine if I did <shrug> it'd probably make me cling to her all the tighter.

0 Replies

Obama Pummelled in Debate?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know