Obama Wins
By California Yankee Posted in Democrats — Comments (12) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
SurveyUSA conducted a poll on last night's Democratic Presidential candidate debate in South Carolina and found Senator Barack Obama came out on top:
Thirty-one percent gave that honor to Obama. Senator Hillary Clinton took second place, with 24 percent. Fourteen percent of respondents thought Senator John Edwards emerged as a leader among the candidates.Obama did three times better than Clinton and twice as well as Edwards among South Carolina's Independents. Obama and Clinton tied among Democrats. Edwards and Obama tied among Republicans. Clinton won among white viewers. Of the respondents, 60 percent were white and 36 percent were black.
The debate got a lot of attention from South Carolinians. A third of the South Carolina adults contacted by SurveyUSA listened to the debate. Those who watched were asked who won the debate:
6% Biden
24% Clinton
2% Dodd
14% Edwards
2% Gravel
3% Kucinich
31% Obama
4% Richardson
13% Not Sure
More information on the SurveyUSA poll results, or how the survey was conducted, is available here and here.
The main stream media must not have listened to the same debate. Read on . . .
The New York Times reported:
By the end of the night, none of the eight appeared to have distinguished themselves in any appreciable way with the kind of statement or dramatic moment that they might have hoped for; that said, none appeared to have made any campaign-altering mistakes either.
It's peculiar that the same url earlier brought up a story dated the 26th and titled "Democratic Hopefuls Square Off for First Time." Yesterday's article was less nuanced:
It was a night where no candidate appeared to particularly distinguish themselves. Mr. Obama, in particular, was so soft-spoken and reserved that he appeared at times to recede off the stage.
The Washington Post described the Candidates as "balanced:"
The field seems both talented and evenly balanced.
Long Island Newsday was less kind to Obama, saying he stumbled:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton delivered a cool, confident performance Thursday night in the first primary debate of the 2008 presidential season, while her fast-gaining opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, seemed to sweat a bit in the national spotlight.
According to McClatchy, the debate failed to alter the campaign:
Absent direct challenges - or any pronounced gaffes - the debate probably did nothing to fundamentally change the shape of the contest with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina leading in the polls and the rest trailing well behind.
Clinton and Biden were asked if they support Senate Majority Leader Reid's comment that the war in Iraq is lost. Both simply didn't answer the question:
"The American people have spoken," Clinton said. "The Congress has voted as of today to end this war, and now we can only hope that the president will listen. … This is not America's war to win or lose."Look, Brian, this is not a game show," Biden told moderator Brian Williams. "This is not a football game. This is not win or lose."
I watched the last half of the debate. I didn't see a winner. What I saw was another opportunity taken by the Democratic candidates to beat up on President Bush. Something all eight did with abandon. I agree with the Washington Post that Kucinich and Gravel "provided a counterpoint of left-wing idea that drew rebukes for a lack of seriousness from Biden and Obama." The rebukes were well deserved.
Finally, I think Edwards was the biggest loser. As reported by the Chicago Tribune, when Edwards was asked whom he considers his moral leader, he "paused for a long and uncomfortable moment, seemingly at a loss for an answer:"
"I don't think I could identify one person that I consider to be my moral leader," Edwards said. "My Lord is important to me. … My wife … is a source of great conscience for me. My father … "
Watching the debate, that pause was way too long. The message conveyed was I don't have a moral leader." I found it devastating. When video of the long pause comes out on YouTube, it will require a great deal of spin from the Edwards campaign
« Corrupt Democrat Watch, July 10 Edition, Part One — Comments (20) | Rahm Emanuel's ruthless potty mouth — Comments (0) »
Obama Wins 12 Comments (0 topical, 12 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Of those 403 people in SC who find politics so absorbing that they'd tune in to watch such a debate on a cable news channel a year and a half before the election, I think we can make two assumptions.
1). A lot of these people are Republicans, some of them pretty hard core. This is South Carolina, after all. Hillary Clinton, wife of Bill, is getting few if any votes from this group. And for reasons which have little to do with her debate performance OR her ability to win the SC Democratic primary.
2). A substantial number of the Democrats tuning in are of the hyper-engaged "net-roots" variety, which is more sympathetic to the likes of Obama than Hillary (whose hopes ultimately rely more on mainstream Democrats, the likes of which are less likely to be watching such a debate to begin with).
Clinton 37 Obama 36
______________________________
"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
about 15 minutes and that was part of it. You're just thinking "say something!!" Say Jesus, say Mother Teresa, say "you know, that's quite a question. There have been so many people who have had an impact on my moral development that singling out just one seems almost impossible" to give yourself some time to think.
Obama has the occasional problem of stalling while you see the wheels churning in his head -- but at least it's clear there's something up there. In this clip, Edwards looks clueless and stunned. Not a good thing.
Exactly. If he had paused for 10 seconds (that is how long it took him to think!) and then said, "well, it's my Lord," then it'd be a little better.
But he says "I don't think I could identify one person who I consider to be my moral leader." Well, thanks. But it's the next thing he does which is really interesting. When he says "my Lord," he shrugs, as if it is a passing thought. You can tell he's trying to save himself there, because he really doesn't have an answer. It was really, truly sad.
Like most secular Leftists, particularly the arrogant ones, he thinks not only that God is man but he is as good as it gets. I doubt John Edwards spends much of his day with the concept of humility, acknowledging his own imperfection and seeking better examples on earth or from a higher being. Rather, he probably occupies his mind more with the thought of how pathetic the commoners are and how they should be more like him, i.e. his slummy neighbor.
Although Edwards believes he is his own moral compass, he was at least smart enough not to say it, which left him speechless.
"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974
not to say himself. Edwards comes off about as smart as a lamppost, albeit a goodlooking one.
I think his brain is pickled in hairspray.
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
I'd say Clinton won the debate, at least from what I saw. I suppose if I had to pick one of them it'd be Biden. Edwards is the absolute worst of the bunch.
In the first quarter he had 100,00 donors, and raised 4 million more for the primary than Hillary. She raised "36 million," but really 10 of that was from her Senate warchest, so she only really outraised him in total by half a million. In Q2, expect Obama to outraise her by a good 5 or 6 million in total, and then boy will the sparks fly. Hillary's in a no win situation after that. Once he becomes the front runner, either she stays positive and slides further down the polls, or goes negative and feeds into the whole "Hillary is a shrill negative termagant" meme.
So, I think we should have our thinking caps on, tuned to how to beat him. Cause odds are, that's who we'll face. The biggest point against him is his inexperience, and a strong VP choice would only go so far in beating him. Consider his strengths: eloquent, inspiring, good at fundraising, and let's face it, easy on the eyes.
The only man on our side who is eloquent, capable of generating the money, and inspiring, is a certain former Senator from Tennessee. And guess what... he has the one thing Obama sorely needs, and that's experience.
I expect to final match up to be Thompson versus Obama. And that's good for us, because we can win that one, especially after Obama loses his rockstar image.
I meant to say a strong VP choice would only go so far in offsetting that. I guess I typed "beat him" cause that's where my mind is :)
wow, I couldn't disagree more on practically every count. Obama won't win (general or primary) because there's simply nothing there. and his awful answer on response where Hillary's really totally smashed his in its mouth just highlighted that at least where Wayne Palmer could say "I'm not David, and I never will be," Obama can't even say he's a Wayne (aka President Jellyfish).
and you're right that Thompson has more experience than Obama. Twice as much, in fact. But when you mention that that totals a mere eight years as a Senator, that hardly seems so impressive. Thompson completely neutralizes the inexperience argument, one of our strongest, against all three Democrat favorites. To state that he's our only candidate that is eloquent is false, that he's capable of raising money is unproven, and that he's experienced (or at least that his paltry experience gives him any advantage over his Democrat rivals) is nearly laughable. We do have a candidate that meets all three criteria, however: Governor Romney. He is an excellent speaker, has raised tons of money in reality, and has experience in both the public and private sectors.
The only difference is the jaundiced journalism of 100 years ago was pro American.
______________________________
"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