The Clinton-Obama Debate: Turn Out The Lights/The Party's Over
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Democratic Presidential Nomination | Fat Lady | Hillary Clinton | Warming Up — Comments (51) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I only caught some of the debate, but it was a disaster for Hillary Clinton. She skipped over questions that discomforted her--and boy, were there a lot of them. She was tedious, exhibiting an instinct for the capillaries that had to have had her supporters cringing in agony. Was it really worth it to whine about how she got the first question and then bring up the Saturday Night Live about the media showing favoritism towards Obama? To be sure, the skit was right and Hillary Clinton had reason to complain, but if she didn't actually believe that she would come out of that exchange looking badly, she has learned nothing whatsoever from her time on the campaign trail.
Equally horrible was the comment about how she just doesn't have time to release her taxes, or that Barack Obama was not sufficiently anti-anti-Semitic when he said that he "denounced" Louis Farrakhan as opposed to "rejecting" Farrakhan. Really, the whole thing was pathetic beyond measure. I know that it is common practice to believe that Hillary Clinton is The Smartest Woman In The World, or something along those lines. But her side of the debate looked clumsy, amateurish and dumb beyond measure.
Meanwhile, Obama was cool, confident, comfortable in his own skin and looked like a winner. I take no joy in writing that because I would much rather have John McCain face Hillary Clinton in the general election; it would be a far easier campaign for McCain to win, after all. But despite my earlier confidence that somehow, someway, Hillary Clinton would find a way to pull through, it is obvious that it's just not going to happen. One way or the other, Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee.
And Republicans will be in for an epic battle. Don't believe me? Then read this. No, Barack Obama is not Ronald Reagan. But he stands to profit from being underestimated by his foes just as Reagan did. Perhaps someone would want to see to it that such a luxury is denied Obama.
Assuming that Republicans want to win, of course.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | The Audacity Of Reticence — Comments (2) »
The Clinton-Obama Debate: Turn Out The Lights/The Party's Over 51 Comments (0 topical, 51 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Unfortunately, repeating 10 or so times tonight that "Obama lost the general tonight" isn't going to make it more so.
We're still over six months from the election day. With all the issues and words and drama, not to mention the inevitable unexpected events, do you really think that when the voters step into the polling booths on November 4th that they're going to say to themselves: "My God, Barack Obama didn't sufficiently condemn Farrakham in his primary debate with Hillary back on February 26th; therefore I'm going to vote for John McCain?"
I don't think so...
ago. No, its not simple. Its born of 28 years of experience and a proper read of history. We don't elect known leftists.
an anecdote
During Obama's rambling answer regarding his pastor and Louis, he offered, obviously as a reason for why the clock had ticked so long before he criticized Louis, that Louis
lives in his district.
He is unelectable.
But guy, it is simple that he will either win or lose, and there will be reasons for it. The reason will be that he is too liberal.
It won't be a debate moment per se, as the media tries to narrate, so as to make sure liberalism never gets blamed. But tinight was an example of why he will lose, an example that he can't take back.
Mike "Gamecock" DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
I saw you post a number of comments tonight on several debate/Farrakhan threads and say each time "Obama lost the general tonight". I assumed you were basing your statement singularly on on his failure to immediately denounce Farrakhan.
That seemed extraordinarily bold, to identify one moment 6+ months before the election as the determiner of his electoral defeat.
However, now that I've seen your clarification, that your declaration of his unelectability is because he's identifying himself as a know leftist, and that tonight's debate is simply one more proof - I see you're advancing a reasonable argument.
I'm afraid I'm not as confident as you from this early campaign point, especially in light of that WSJ column today by Stephen Hayes, titled Obama and the Power of Words.
Then again I tend to prefer to be more pessimistic in my predictions and be pleasantly surprised than to be optimistic in prediction and disappointed.
Carry on, bro'.
Mike "Gamecock" DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
is so far outside the mainstream. The dems and the media ignore it, even hide it, or, as tonight, bring it up and help them answer it and try and defuse it. Staying in that church for so long is fatal to Obama.
Mike "Gamecock" DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Mike "Gamecock" DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
I just see a guy who gets every advantage imaginable from the press and really knows how to use them. The tried this with Kerry and Gore but those two couldn't handle it.
If he keeps doing the likeable gomer pyle meets Martin Luther King bit McCain may be toast.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
1995
Rev Wright says...
Obama still in the pew
1996
Obama still in the pew
and so on
Mike "Gamecock" DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
win. I have been involved in campaigns, and I know soft balls when I see them. When I was a dem, I was amazed at how often the gop was so weak in their response to opportunities. Now in the gop since 2000, I see spinelessness and stupidity. We need to jump on this. We failed to jump on Hillary and Obama's illegal immigration drivers license motor voter id connection too.
Mike "Gamecock" DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Man this is exactly what I'm always saying. We have a number of advantages but we play like the kid who is politicking not to be the last one picked for dodgeball.
Great comments all around tonight Gamecock! Nothing but dittos!
absentee
Mike "Gamecock" DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
I wish I could be as cheerful as Redstates playful rooster though.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
to beat Obama, It would not be so tough if the media did things like highlite that nasty racist church he attends, or his very liberal and slight record.
However, they will not, and neither will the McCain campaign. We are going into it with one hand tied, because they will not go negative against a Black man. Also, the mood of the country is for change. McCain will give them change, probably as much as Obama. but that R beside his name is going to be hard for independents to overcome, and they are the ones who actually decide presidential elections.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
inasmuch as Obama is so liberal.
... and go beyond platitudes, slogans and the politics of glamor and popularity, I think relying on some great mass of "Independents" i.e. "moderates", "centrists", "swing voters" and "undecideds" to think their way into voting for John McCain is foolhardy.
For the first time in almost eight years, McCain is going to face the same level of hostile press the MSM reserves especially for Republicans.
This means that a significant chunk of his "admirers"; people who like him on the basis on having heard his name surrounded by words like "moderate", "Independent", "Maverick", "Bipartisan" and "get things done" in the Press are going to go wobbly. Especially since Obama is going to be showered with these accolades together with "Hope™" and "Change™."
The "middle" is far and away the most ignorant segment of the electorate, which means that they are extremely susceptible to the substance-free glamor and shiny object campaign Obama and his friends in the Press and Hollywood are going to run.
A huge number of middlers are going to go into the polls armed only with the memories of seeing a torrent of newspaper headlines month after month extolling the perfection that is Obama, impressions enforced after months of repetition of John McCain being an ill-tempered corruption tainted Washington insider from the newscasts, and better remembered "factual" anti-GOP rants by Alan Shore (i.e. James Spader) in some fictional Boston courtroom and some wisecracks from Jon Stewart.
Who do you think they'll vote for?
"Assuming that Republicans want to win, of course."
I've come to the conclusion that no, I don't want to Win.
Republicans have embraced the RINO philosphy much more than they have embraced conservative ideals. Democrats have all the answers until they get in a leadership role and they are exposed.
So yes it will hurt, yes it will lead to some problems but nothing cannot be overcome in time, a little adversity is good sometimes.
Is to back McCain with at LEAST the same zeal we backed GWB. And hold his feet to the fire.
Barack will present a tough challenge, but if McCain plays it right, draws the contrast on national security issues and economic ones, and we bring back our 2004 ground game...we can definitely win.
But I'm glad Barack is winning now. Less Bill and Hillary in our lives is a good thing. (Is that English?)
"Logic refutes liberalism" - Rush Limbaugh
That's the smart thing to do.
And all that other good stuff you just said.
Obama is very smart.
And he does make inspiring speeches, and knows how to put together a lot of pretty words. He definitely knows how to communicate.
What republicans need to do is show that the pretty words aren't hiding stupidity but the same old liberal programs that have been around forever.
Obama isn't really about change, unless change means a democrat is in the White House, his ideas are pretty much standard liberal fair. McCain needs to point this out, and Obama has a record in the senate and the IL state house to build the case on.
Pretty words are nice, but not if they come packaged with a typical liberal mindset.
Not only do I not think Obama is unbeatable, I think the economy is going to begin to turn around long before November. I don't know how much people put any stock in Sam Zell, but my internal financial richtometer agrees with his, and his statement about the real-estate market beginning to sort itself out by Spring, with follow-through effects for the rest of the economy going into November:
Speaking on "Squawk Box" this morning, Zell attributed much of the current economic troubles to fear-mongering and politicking by Democratic presidential contenders Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.
"Obviously what we have going on is an attempt to create a self-fulfilling prophecy," said Zell, chairman of Equity Investments Group and owner of the Chicago Cubs, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times and other companies. "We have two Democratic candidates who are vying with each other to describe the economic situation worse.
"The reality is that if you live on Wall Street and you're in the credit markets the world couldn't be worse. If you're a farmer and you're getting $25 for your wheat, you're having a great time. If you're a CEO and you've got a balance sheet that's bullet-proof, you're in a great position. This whole thing is way out of control, way out of hand."
From where I'm sitting, he's on the money. The inventory of unsold and previously overvalued properties is going to begin to sort itself out and I believe that once the banks and lending institutions realize they're not going to die, they'll start getting back to normal. Things are going to be tight until then but after that I'm bullish.
Right now the Donks are trying to make the most of the economic rough patch for their own cynical, narrowly political reasons. But just as the President doesn't control the economy, neither do they, and the bargain-hunters and business people are going to get sick and tired of feeling glum. Besides, as he points out, the problem is more of a "mark" problem than a "cash" problem.
So sit tight and get ready to come out swinging this Spring. Baseball season's never looked so good.
Support the Patriot Post | Defend Liberty - Join the NRA | Visit me at TMR
So the cause for current economic troubles are 2 Senators talking trash? Wow, our economy is not nearly as robust as I thought it was.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
I knew Hillary was toast when the Frank Luntz focus group went overwhelmingly for Hillary. This guys batting average for these primaries(see previous winners John Edwards, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney) has been zero.
You would think Fox might pick up on this at some point and cut this joker loose. On the other hand, I think it does have something to do with American's perverse way about thinking about things. They sit there and see Shrillary get her behind handed to her and maybe feel sorry for her? Maybe it makes them feel better to say some nice things about her "experience" as she's going out the door.
Who knows? See ya', Clintons.
The Luntz group isn't predicting winners of the election. They are talking about who won the debate. It's entirely possible to win these debates and not get elected. Most here agreed with the Luntz group that Fred won the last R debate he was in. But if you don't have a ground game or a zeal to win, the debate win will not get you very far. Not to mention the fact that these debates aren't watched by many people.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
maybe these focus group people are "undecided" but certainly they must be leaning one way or the other or already made up their minds. one debate is not likely to change all of that.
________________________________________________________
Halls of Justice Painted Green, Money Talking.
Power Wolves Beset Your Door, Hear Them Stalking.
anything else. Luntz is a master at asking the right questions to result in the response he wants to hear. I always take his polling with a few grains of salt.
I know of no Republican who is underestimating Obama. The differences between Obama and Reagan are as wide as the grand canyon. Obama is a blame America first leftist, while Reagan was an unapologetic conservative. Obama believes in government and welfarism, Reagan believed in limited government, personal responsibility, and low taxes.
The only similarities between the two would be on style. Reagan no doubt was helped by his charismatic style, as Obama will be, but Reagan was elected on the strength of his ideas, not because he was smooth.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
is a fool and is underestimating the guy. And the crossovers seem to be pretty evenly split between Hillary and Barack, so it's obvious that some Republicans aren't taking the guy seriously enough.
but there is one comparison factor that can't be ignored. Both Reagan and Obama are following unpopular presidents, which made/makes the job easier. Reagan was so much better than Carter in every way: style, record, policy, everything. But anything looked better than 21% interest rate and a 20% inflation rate. Defeat in Iran made the comparison worse. But Reagan was not following an unpopular president from his own party. McCain is.
A better comparison is the 1968 election, when an anti-war candidate campaigned against a fairly unpopular candidate. Nixon was not really liked by his own party, and he was considered the pro-war candidate during an unpopular war. He still beat McGovern. However, McGovern followed LBJ, a very unpopular president from his own party.
Based on recent encouraging polls, it appears that Americans are not yet ready to join the scrap heap of nations who surrendered militarily. It remains an open question of whether we are going to embrace socialism. Which is more important to Americans, low taxes or "free" health insurance? And the answer to that question is not as apparent as we might think.
I continue to be amazed that after watching what happened to Fred Thompson, in a Republican Primary no less, that people continue to be so dismissive of the importance substance and style.
Fred had substance up to his eyeballs, but yet he was constantly behind a candidate with virtually nothing for substance - just style i.e. Huckabee.
Reagan was elected on the strength of his ideas, not because he was smooth.
Reagan's ideas made him a monstrously strong candidate, I agree, but it was his amazing ability to market those ideas that made him truly great both as a candidate and as a President. Let's be clear here, Reagan was a great President just as much for the way he communicated as what he communicated.
Reagan won 44 and 49 states in both of his elections for President because
[1] he drew in the Right with substance and style and then
[2] he drew the center in with style and kept them with substance. That's how you win. I dare say that notwithstanding his ideas, if he had run a campaign like Bob Dole's (or Fred Thompson's) it is conceivable (no matter how unpopular Carter was) that he would have lost.
As Dan puts it, ideas don't run for office ... people do. I'd add parties as well to that; people and their parties run in elections, not disembodied ideas. Substance without style in polities is like having a car with a full tank of gas and no wheels - you don't go anywhere.
Now, I admit, that unlike Reagan - whose tank was full, the reserve light in Obama's car is on, but he has a nice set of wheels. If McCain cannot avoid suffering flats before he is beyond the reach of the little amount of fuel in Obama's car, he's toast.
Obama is drawing voters in, but as you say, you keep them with you by virtue of the strength of your ideas. The fact is that Obama's idea are Jimmy Carter's & George McGovern's ideas. Blame America first, expand government to take care of the helpless masses, increase taxes, etc. That's not an inspiring message. People are inspired because he has not really been upfront with exactly who he is and what he wants to do.
Again, he will be VERY formidable.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
... for a while. Obama has more than enough of it, together with Media and Hollywood support to do that for quite a while. Certainly until November.
I am happy to see you're not underestimating Obama. Unfortunately, far ooo many Republicans are not so respectful of style's ability to overwhelm substance.
Hillary's campaign underestimated Obama from the beginning, didn't put together an aggressive and coherent campaign strategy encompassing all key primary states, mismanaged their spending, and now her and Rudy can spend their time bemoaning what could have been. As for McCain v. Obama, it's going to be a tough fight for all the reasons it was tough for Hillary, plus some. How much fodder does the GOP need to beat him? If they can't pull together a campaign that takes advantage of his glaring weaknesses, as exposed by the Democrat Primary, then they deserve to lose. Oh, and lets not forget the old vs. young aspect of this; it's very likely going to make a difference this time around.
I agree. The underestimation points to a badly run campaign. Obama has been beating up Hillary all year and last night was no exception. His platitudes and image have a lot to do with it but his winning asset is that his campaign was built around the candidate while with Hillary, the candidate was built around the campaign -- just like Kerry and Gore.
It will be a different story for Obama against McCain. There will be contrast on the issues and McCain won't be changing his persona every day like Hillary does. Many Dems like John McCain, myself included. Obama will have to take it to the next level if he wants to beat McCain. It's anyone's game in the General. Should be a good race.
Obama actually was actually pretty bad in the first few Democrat debates. But he has improved greatly as the primary season as gone along, showing that he is very capable of adjusting on the fly. He didn't seem that sure-footed on policy in the beginning but he's done his homework and has shown himself to be at least Hillary's equal on that front. And the charm war was won long ago.
I sure hope McCain is ready to go after the guy and attack him with the same glee that he criticizes radio talk show hosts. But I tend to think that McCain is going to try to win the election without support from the base, focusing on independents and moderates from both parties. His scolding of Cunningham just hurts him with the base, imo.
that thinks you should insult other Americans for sport.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
and he has an almost preternatural ability to sense that something has become hot and drop it.
He isn't running for POTUS he is running for class president at the local highschool.
His campaign is nothing but
Vote for me I'm popular.
All the cool kids are voting for me.
Don't you want to be in the in crowd ?.
All the chicks are for me.
If elected we will go to the state championships.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
There is absolutely nothing new about his ideas. They are the same failed Jimmy Carter policies of the 1970s.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
in every garage.
Attn: RS Management- start cornering the market on shag carpets NOW. You can also sell Obama smiling stickies for the bathtub.
... whether it would be more effective to be specific about Obama's lack of substance rather than saying "Obama has no substance."
If it's true that vague attacks calling Obama shallow don't stick, perhaps McCain should change the way he attacks Obama by simply pointing out specifics to demonstrate Obama's lack of substance instead of asserting it directly.
For example, "Obama wants to ban all fissile material in the world, but he'll have to convince France to get rid of the nuclear reactors that supply most of its energy first."
I think that would stick better than vague assertions about Obama's lack of substance.
It's fairly easy to fall into the trap that Obama is nothing more than a candidate spewing empty rhetoric, which is true to a point, but it isn't as if the guy doesn't have ideas, liberal ideas, really destructive and bad liberal ideas.
The reason he does this is because it masks his ultra-liberal positions and makes him more electable. It is hard to believe that a candidate is advocating for the destruction of American life as we know it if he is smiling. That is similar to what happened in the 2006 mid-term elections. While the GOP was digging itself into a hole, the Dems were running, not on their radical liberal agenda, but with feel-good rhetoric that masked what they really wanted to do.
I do think that McCain should play up his own experience to contrast with Obama's lack thereof. This tact didn't work for Hillary because she has no experience, or no experience that isn't her husband's. Her claims of "35 years of experience" were as empty as Obama's calls for change and hope. She simply wasn't a credible candidate to making that pitch. McCain is.
I'll also note, since I'm on the subject of Hillary's awful campaign, that the reason her campaign failed is because (a) she wasn't credible on the experience issue, and (b) there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between her and Obama, policy-wise, and thus the more likable candidate prevailed. That's why the campaign descended into plagarism charges, racist innuendo, "shame on you" and whining debate theatrics. McCain won't need to resort to that type of silliness as there are actually policy differences between he and Obama that he can key in on.
Thus, I agree that, generally speaking, McCain should focus on specifics of Obama's Jimmy Carter policy proposals and left-wing college professor ideas and attitude.
In any event, while McCain and the GOP shouldn't underestimate Obama's campaign, I'd argue that Hillary lost the Dem nomination more than he won it. I don't believe he's truly been tested on the campaign trail and if McCain runs a policy-driven campaign, he can smoke Obama big-time.
________________________________________________________
Halls of Justice Painted Green, Money Talking.
Power Wolves Beset Your Door, Hear Them Stalking.
Toast in Texas
and
Finished by March 5th.
We neeed this to go on and on, all the way to the convention. We need you to go vote because she will lose this thing by Tuesday if we don't help her.
Hillary is an awful candidate and Obama is unelectable. We are sitting in the catbird seat. If we can get her a win in either Texas or Ohio, she might just try to keep going.
Time to Cowboy Up!
communicator, doesn't make mistakes,and the mood of the country favors something different.
The important thing to keep in mind is that the mood of the country isn't in favor of Obama, just something different (see: Hypothetical matchup polls that show him having trouble breaking 50%).
McCain also has an advantage that Hillary doesn't/didn't: He doesn't have to occupy the same turf as Obama. Due to the power of special interests in the Democratic primary system, thay had to have the same policy positions (with minor exceptions), and Obama came off like the coolest boy in school, and Hillary came off like Tracy Flick.
McCain can pick fights with Obama on Iraq, and what should be done, and Obama's lack of action (didn't vote for the surge, didn't hold hearings on NATO involvement).
McCain can pick fights about school choice, and in a rarity for Washington, I believe his children have gone to charter schools.
McCain can pick a fight on Iran (which the liberals in the Democratic party didn't want to hear), and the fact they still pledge to wipe Isreal off the map (now pair that with Obama and Farahkhan).
McCain can pick a fight on partial birth abortion (not Hillary, though).
McCain can pick a fight on taxes (but not Hillary).
Look, we can and should beat this guy on the issues, but we can't if we describe him as a lightweight and inexperienced only (look how much good that did Hillary). But we will also have to be careful not to overlook his ability to drive turnout in some key states. Energizing the base like we did in '04 will result in a loss. We have to energize the base, and steal some of the voters who a concerned about the economy and future of the country in general - the people who want change, but not necessarily Obama.
democratic primary was a "pansy" primary? No differences, no substance. Anyone else?
in 5 seconds; wouldn't have needed two prompts from Brian Williams to make sure he sufficiently denounced the creep before he finished answering; and wouldn't have attended a hate America church for two decades.
Obama lost the general tonight.
Mike "Gamecock" DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson