Collected here. Scanning the commentary, the dominant thoughts seem to be:
1. It was bad of ABC to trouble Obama with questions about his attitudes and character instead of offering him opportunities to expound policy.
2. Obama is tired. Lackluster.
3. Hillary was intense.
AND: Let me reveal what I think.
1. It was good.
2. Obama has always had a blandness about him. When you're feeling good about him, you project your hopes onto that blandness and he seems wonderful. When you're anxious about him, you think he's effete and ennervated. He's always the same. His face did look puffy and not as fresh as it once did. Deal with it. He's a human being.
3. Hillary bloomed with bright energy in the environment of ABC's questions. She can reel out the policy when that's what's required. But cruel political fighting unleashes her super powers.
April 17, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
72 comments:
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind's blowin'....
Her fabulously monstrous superpowers.
Hillary looked good. And sounded about as good as any liberal of her ilk could. Obama looked almost "Nixonish" - on the defensive, tired, dark upper lip (did he shave?)
She held up under hard questioning - which really means normal questioning, the first they've seen so far - much better than he did.
If Obama wins the nomination he is going to have to do much better than this to beat McCain. Much better.
The questions couldn't have been scripted by Republican strategists any better, which played right into Hillary's hand since she is making the case that Obama will struggle against Republicans.
It is almost like ABC, with George Stephanopolis, wanted to help her campaign out. Hmm.
But I can't get too upset at the network over it, since most debates have had questions that could have been scripted by Democrat campaign advisors.
Debates should have both-- questions framed from the left, questions framed from the right. But most of all, debates should have even more questions framed from the center. Still waiting for that kind of debate.
It's soap opera, and for the intelligent, meta- soap opera.
I think because the intelligent don't think it's worthwhile to learn economics. Boring.
Instead, concentrate on how the lower classes will respond the story lines. Everybody can do that.
And you get to dabble in soap opera! A guilty pleasure.
Hang around a ink well.
Ring bell, hard to tell
If anything is goin' to sell.
A plus point for an Althouse comment : right, just raise the retirement age. That completely and instantly solves the social security ``crisis.''
But that will never come up.
Changing the retirement age absolutely controls the ratio of retired to working people, which can be made to balance any way you like any time you like.
If you want to retire sooner, do it on your own dime to bridge the gap.
Social security is an inflation-adjusted annuity that guarantees you won't outlive your income. It works because most people die sooner to pay for the lucky or unlucky few who linger on.
It won't work if you pay everybody who survives past 65 in modern times. This is not economic news.
The lefty blogs are acting as if the ABC guys betrayed them in some way, or perhaps left the reservation. Tough.
In an ideal situation you'd have both conservative and liberal questioners, the liberals asking questions of the Republican candidate and the conservatives asking questions of the Democrat candidate.
Since there are so few conservative newsmen out there, soliciting questions from conservative talk-radio hosts, as Stephenopolous apparently did, is the next best thing. Nice of him to show some objectivity (and spine) by doing so.
The question about the Ayers connection is perfectly legitimate, given that Ayers is (in addition to being an English professor) an unrepentant terrorist who set bombs in the US. What does it say about the community in which Obama is rooted in Chicago that the community fully accepts a terrorist as an ordinary neighbor, admired as a local professor?
Moreover, the extreme radical connections in Obama's life seem to be a recurring theme, starting with Frank Marshall Davis, Obama's mentor in high school and, remarkably, a friend of his grandparents!
The Davis connection to his grandparents raises more issues - what was the nature of the connection between this acknowledged CPUSA member black poet and the grandparents? Was it just Kansas origins? Or, was one (or both) of his grandparents a real communist or close fellow traveller? Did that friendship predate Obama's birth? How did that affect Obama's mother? Was she a red diaper baby? Was young Obama in effect a red diaper baby? These issues need to be explored.
But, I digress. The theme of radical connections continues with his seeking out Marxists and black activists at Occidental, in socialist connections while at Colulmbia, and, of course, in his association with radically Marxist-based black liberation theology as ladled out by Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Obama has not satisfactorily answered any of the questions raised about his radical connections, and even beyond that, those questions have not been fully explored.
Do we really want a red diaper baby as President?
Jeff Greenfield says he would ask math questions in the debate.
If a train leaves New York travelling west at 80 mph...
But cruel political fighting unleashes her super powers.
Yes, her uncanny ability to sow the fields of possibility with salt.
her uncanny ability to sow the fields of possibility with salt.
Nicely put. Surely, the only peace that will ever exist between Hillary and Obama will be Carthaginian.
And who says war never settles anything?
Go ask the city fathers of Carthage :)
-- stolen from Heinlein
McCain understands that immutable lesson of history. I expect that neither of the Dems do. Certainly not Obama who wants to meet without preconditions with a bunch of Thugs.
I watched for a bit--it was terrible. The one thing that interested me was that while "bittergate" or "clinggate" has been discussed ad naseum in the blogs, I don't know how many Americans who dont read blogs really know about it. Similarly the Ayers relationship. I think some undecided voters may have learned some new things.
As for Hillary--An instinct for the capillary during debates--she needs to come up with short, pithy, sound-bite quality responses when Obama is reeling. Far too wonkish, and by the time she finishes her disquisition, Obama is back on his feet. Where is James Carville when you need him.
And what was with the excessive coverage of Chelsea? Lord that was tacky.
Debates should have both-- questions framed from the left, questions framed from the right.
I agree. However, as you also pointed out, most of these democratic debates have been lefty type questions - i.e. who has the best gov program.
This debate had items that either candidate should expect in the general election and Obama failed miserably.
His attempt to be for gun rights is a total joke. Obama lost the opportunity to use the Guiliani argument on this one.
Obama's comment on the capital gains tax rate that he favors equality and sticking it to the man even at the expense of more revenues for the gov. clearly shows he is ideological rather than pragmatic, this will be a nasty turn off to independents.
His response to the Ayres question was terrible. Why the Ayres issue is important is more understandable if you construct a similar fact situation for McCain. Imagine if John McCain had one of his campaign meetings at David Duke's house.
What makes Obama even a more terrible candidate is that his legislative record from Illinois is not yet in the mainstream of knowledge because Hillary never attempted to attack him from the right on those issues. His record in Illinois is radical-left wing. Many people with be shocked.
Listen, folks, the fellow teaches English. Pipe. White hair. Tattered copy of Strunk & White. Recites Tennyson. He's got a Hobbit poster on his office door. Besides, Sen. Obama doesn't get advice from him "regularly." And a board of directors? Just a rubber stamp thing that meets once a year. It's that Coburn guy...over there...behind that tree...see?
Look out, kid,
It's something you did.
I am amazed that people still have the stamina to watch another debate.
Obama really should apologize for being friends with Tom Coburn, the Republican congressman who has advocated the death penalty for doctors who practice abortion.
Why wouldn't HRC be glowing? George tossed her a bunch of softballs. (Not even softballs. Tennis balls or wiffle balls.) Somebody should ask her why her Bible study group (the Family/Foundation) admired Hitler, other Nazis, and a string of dictators to the present day.
titus: this is the first debate I can recall that was carried by a broadcast network -- in English, that is, because I watched a couple on Telemundo.
fls-
Really? I was pleased with the video question about Hillary having an "honesty problem" and needing to win that guy's vote back. She stumbled and tripped and sorta repeated several times that she "had made comments that [she] knew were not fully in accordance with the truth which [she] had written about in her book." That's a jazzed up way of saying, "Yes, I am a liar."
No way she won that guy's vote back.
"Obama has always had a blandness about him. When you're feeling good about him, you project your hopes onto that blandness and he seems wonderful."
What a completely incoherent conclusion.
So the Obama-mania has nothing to do with Obama and is instead a manufactured projection from people who are reacting to...nothing? People see blandness, they get turned on by blandness, and then it's not blandness anymore!
His "wonderfulness" is only a result of people reacting to his "blandness." Yeah, because people freak out over boring people all time.
This takes the cake.
Why doesn't John Mccain wear a flag pin?
I wished they had asked him about Zimbabwe and what he would do about the situation there.
What impressed me was the way they tried to be as vague as possible while giving the impression of giving a clear answer.
The art of obfuscation.
Its fun to read all the responses Obama supporters are writing today. They feel ABC betrayed them becuase (fill in the blank). Ha! Several times Obama stepped in doo-doo incl. his Weatherman friend (8 years old?! Wrong answer) and his response to Charlie's question re: Capital Gains was telling. Of course the press is giving him a pass today as well but American voters are not so dumb, regardless of what liberals think of them. Bitter? Maybe, after a debate like this. But dumb? Think again.
Yeah, because people freak out over boring people all time.
Um, yeah? Whenever I'm buying my groceries, I'm confronted by rack after rack of magazines filled with boring people who have a talent for speaking other peoples' words. Sometimes not even that. Clearly people do freak out over boring people all the time. Young people are especially prone to this kind of thing.
It is almost like ABC, with George Stephanopolis, wanted to help her campaign out. Hmm.
Yes . . . you know, maybe news networks might want to think twice about setting up hardcore partisan activists as moderators on these debates. People like Chris Matthews and George Stephanopolous really have no business moderating debates at all. No one expects the media to be "objective" any more (except, perhaps, some of the more delusional journalists), but this is just silly. What's next, Karl Rove moderating presidential debates?
That said, though, my impression has been that ABC's journalistic corps have been a lot more skeptical about Obama than any of the other networks. Half the critical stuff I read about Obama in the "Mainstream Media" seems to come from some fellow called Jack Tapper at ABC.
Bother. It's Jake Tapper. I'd forgotten that was even a real name.
jeremy -- HRC simply forgot there were no bullets whizzing past her and Chelsea's head in Bosnia, but when she refreshed her memory from her book she got it write. Whereas all of Barack's best friends and mentors hate America, and either want God to damn it or they want to destroy it with their own hands. Barack's lack of a flag pin indicates that he hates America too, despite his protests.
ohmigod -- "when she checked what she had written she got it right."
Georgie S. asked questions that made one think he was actually worked for the Clinton's at one point in his career.
But of course that can't be true. After all, ABC would never hire Clinton's former press secretary and pretend he's an objective journalist.
The easiest answer for both Obama's notations on the questionnaire about gun control, and Hillary's excellent adventure in Tuzla is: "I lied; please forgive me." Both democratic candidates have their share of honesty issues and neither are good about fessing up. Thats going to bite them hard in the general as the rocks keep getting kicked over.
The debate was amazing. Watching Hillary wade in for the knifework was almost an artistic thing of beauty. Even more joyous is the incessant whining from the zealots in Obama's cult of personality that cannot believe a media outlet actually dared to ask Obama a tough question or two. I know their sense of entitlement knows almost no bounds, and that up till now the media has universally been fawning and doting over Obama, but come on...
If your candidate can't handle a couple pointed questions from a mild mannered middle aged news anchor I don't think we want him anywhere near a position of authorithy.
Obama really should apologize for being friends with Tom Coburn, the Republican congressman who has advocated the death penalty for doctors who practice abortion.
Actually, Matt, what Obama should apologize for is misstating his friend Tom Coburn's statements as an attempted distraction from his own relationship with a known terrorist. But nice try.
Geez, ZPS, where have you been?
That's exactly what people have been saying about Obama all along. If anything, Althouse's statement runs the risk of being banal!
"Hope" and "Change" are blank slates. You "hope" the "change" will be something you like.
Both democratic candidates have their share of honesty issues and neither are good about fessing up. Thats going to bite them hard in the general as the rocks keep getting kicked over.
I think there's a difference here. Clinton's gaffe was a complete and total own-goal -- no one prompted her to lie about snipers in Bosnia. In contrast, Obama has one or two own-goals (e.g. describing working class religious faith as "clinging to religion," then shifting to arguing, essentially, that god and government are substituting goods), but a host of rocks that have been kicked over: Wright, Ayers, Rezko, Auchi, his father, etc. When Clinton says that she's had all her dirty laundry pawed through already, she's not exaggerating. I'd honestly be quite surprised if there were anything new in her past discovered during the campaign.
If you're getting dunked on all night by Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, there is something seriously wrong with your game.
Two points:
1. From an interview -- Coburn's ACTUAL statemnt before being obamtized:
Coburn answered that "while abortion is not against the law now, if it were, states could use death penalty laws to punish the taking of innocent life."
"I believe when we take innocent life intentionally, except to save lives, that we are violating moral law," Coburn said. "Now, I understand what the law is. My hope would be that we would get back to a time when we recognize the value of life, and I think we're not."
(http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/ok_debate_10-5.html)
English is only my primary tongue, but I do discern that Coburn did NOT say what he is accused of by Obama and a (misinformed) commenter here alleges. If he listen that5 badly, he has not business being President of the United States of America.
2. What a cop out -- Obama was only 8 when The Weatherman were blowing stuff (and people) up? Killing armored truck guards in cold blood? ANd Obama was not only 8 when Bill Ayers was featured in the NY Times... September 11, 2001.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B63
If you're getting dunked on all night by Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, there is something seriously wrong with your game.
Come on! They didn't just stop with eight questions. And he couldn't just walk off the stage in a huff. How was he supposed to react?
I have changed my earlier impression about this debate being a sorry affair--This is really the first time St. Obama has had some hard question and not been able to walk off the stage--I would think he would have anticipated these questions and had answers ready for them rather than stumbling over them so badly. This dude is most definitely not ready for prime time--Draft Al Gore!
fls-
Fair enough. For my part, I thought she looked worse trying to address her own blatant lie than Obama did addressing the problems of his associates. On the LapelPinGate question "Police and soldiers wear flags, why don't you wear a flag?" I was hoping for a retort of "Why aren't you wearing one?"
Why wouldn't HRC be glowing? George tossed her a bunch of softballs. (Not even softballs. Tennis balls or wiffle balls.) Somebody should ask her why her Bible study group (the Family/Foundation) admired Hitler, other Nazis, and a string of dictators to the present day.
That kind of question would have helped Clinton immensely. It is not only an obvious example of partisan misrepresentation, but also a misrepresentation too ridiculous for anyone to actually believe. No sane person is going to think Hillary Clinton is a Nazi sympathizer -- she's too well known for that.
Clinton would have been able to immediately paint herself as a victim of unfair media attacks. Add in the fact that the mainstream media have been kissing her opponent's ass for most of the last twelve months and she's got a brand-new Vast Conspiracy to motivate her supporters with.
Ann you posted, "He's a human being."
What? And who exactly believes he isn't?
That is so clichech. That is something I expect and hear and read from bubble headed bleach blonds on newscasts, not esteemed counslars of law.
Better some latin phrase then banal, obvious observation like "He's human".
Expected better from you Althouse.
Do you have any excuses or is it "cavet emptor"?
If you're getting dunked on all night by Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, there is something seriously wrong with your game.
baZING!
The Dems should run Lieberman.
That way they rob McCain of his VP pick....
That's great, but what did they SAY?
How they look has nothing to do with what they believe in or what kind of president they'll make.
Modern politics is based too much on looks and not enough on substance.
Debates should be on the radio. TV is killing the process.
Come on! They didn't just stop with eight questions. And he couldn't just walk off the stage in a huff. How was he supposed to react?
Barack will tell you when and where he will answer questions. And how many! And he will also tell you which are relevant or not, if it falls within the "silly season" or not, or if it's a "same old politics" question or not, or if he has answered this question before or not. And if it's really important, he'll make a speech on it and everything you need to know will be there for you behold.
I thought Obama was fine and Clinton just reinforced her unfavorables. Running totally negative is a mistake, and I imagine she'll pay for it.
Garage, another night like last night and you will have convinced me that you were right all along.
Especially since Mortimer (you lifting to make sure you can back up your talk, big boy?) thinks Obama was just fine.
Especially since Mortimer (you lifting to make sure you can back up your talk, big boy?) thinks Obama was just fine.
Clearly, your evaluation of the debate is biased by your personal animus against me. Clinton's unfavorables are now 54% and her untrustworthiness rating is 58%. No one has ever been elected with such ratings so poor. Going negative hurts her. People hated that debate last night. Hated. It.
Clearly, your evaluation of the debate is biased by your personal animus against me. Clinton's unfavorables are now 54% and her untrustworthiness rating is 58%. No one has ever been elected with such ratings so poor.
On untrustworthiness, her poor rating is statistically significant, yes. But on general unfavorables? She's in roughly the same territory as Obama is right now, although he's managed to keep his spread to single digit negatives, and occasionally even single digit positives, while hers are generally double-digit. Somewhat surprisingly, voters appear to be more polarized about Obama than about Clinton, although that does mean that the centre, vis-a-vis Obama, is slightly more positive than it is vis-a-vis Clinton, and his partisans can point to the spread in support of their candidate.
McCain, meanwhile, has double-digit positive spreads, and hasn't hit 50% unfavorables since February 11, on Rasmussen's polling.
Going negative hurts her.
Going negative is the only card Hillary has left to play. The media ignored Obama's shady background; the public ignored her "boring" policy speeches. She's already despised - I think her negatives have peaked.
People hated that debate last night. Hated. It.
Team Obama certainly did. As for the rest, people also complain about gossip and drama... and then do it anyway. So I don't really believe the public when they tell pollsters they hate negative campaigning.
So I don't really believe the public when they tell pollsters they hate negative campaigning.
She's already despised - I think her negatives have peaked.
This would make sense if her negatives hadn't risen from 40% to 54% in the last month, as she drove up Obama's negatives by 9%.
There's your effective negative campaigning: more damage to her than to him and driving her to be hated by a majority. That's a losing strategy.
If she has no other cards to play, then you're saying she's toast. It sounds like a bad debate for her, then, doesn't it?
On untrustworthiness, her poor rating is statistically significant, yes. But on general unfavorables?
Those aren't historically as reliable indicators, like untrustworthiness, or say, right track/wrong track. Your case is just weak.
McCain, meanwhile, has double-digit positive spreads, and hasn't hit 50% unfavorables since February 11, on Rasmussen's polling.
Rassmussen's polling always oversamples conservative Republicans, by the way.
Rassmussen's polling always oversamples conservative Republicans
No. They do not.
"Rasmussen Reports was also the nation's most accurate polling firm during the 2004 Presidential election and the only one to project both Bush and Kerry's vote total within half a percentage point of the actual outcome."
There's your effective negative campaigning: more damage to her than to him and driving her to be hated by a majority. That's a losing strategy.
Concept of diminishing returns, Mort. The public has low expectations of her, so they're not as outraged when she plays dirty. OTH, Obama can't afford to be tarred.
If she has no other cards to play, then you're saying she's toast.
Scorch and burn, baby. Saved Moscow, might save Broomstick One.
It sounds like a bad debate for her, then, doesn't it?
I've just read two articles that point to Obama-fans-in-denial as a sign that he stumbled badly last night.
Honestly, aren't you a bit worried?
Rassmussen's polling always oversamples conservative Republicans, by the way.
That would suggest that Clinton's and McCain's negatives are overstated -- hardcore conservatives hate both Clinton and McCain with an unholy passion, and possibly that Obama's are slightly understated, although I think the pool of conservative "Obamacans" (e.g. Kmiec) has dwindled almost to insignificance at this point, so his may be slightly overstated too, though probably not to the same extent, as he doesn't arouse the same passions (yet) as McCain and Clinton do.
That said, Rasmussen has, as Fen points out, a pretty good record. And they have daily tracking free and where I can find it.
Scorch and burn, baby. Saved Moscow, might save Broomstick One.
It takes a village => we must destroy the village to save it!
Concept of diminishing returns, Mort. The public has low expectations of her, so they're not as outraged when she plays dirty. OTH, Obama can't afford to be tarred.
I understand the concept. The problem is it doesn't fit the facts. You are believing in a concept that does not apply to this case. Turn lemons into lemonade is a concept, but it doesn't help when I'm looking at a box of wrenches.
That would suggest that Clinton's and McCain's negatives are overstated
My point is that the robo-calls Rasmussen uses oversamples conservative Republicans, which explains why Obama and Clinton have higher negatives than McCain in Rasmussen's daily tracking. In any event, you selected a Republican pollster's numbers to make your case about dynamics in the Democratic primary. As for your speculative prognostication based on the tendentious and nearly irrelevant polling you cite and your remarkable ability to ignore that movement of a negative rating from 40% to 54% is significant, the actual superdelegates (as opposed to the figments of your febrile imagination) seem not to be swayed by Clinton's negative campaigning.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/18/america/18dems.php
"Rasmussen Reports was also the nation's most accurate polling firm during the 2004 Presidential election and the only one to project both Bush and Kerry's vote total within half a percentage point of the actual outcome."
This really doesn't refute my point. But it does explain why you don't understand how a concept may be generally valid and inapplicable in a given case.
Honestly, aren't you a bit worried?
No. I think most people think the past week or so has been full of trivial, manufactured crap that has nothing to do with what Americans actually care about. I do not see how Hillary Clinton is helping her campaign, either. She needs to win all the rest of the contests by huge margins, and we're talking 20%-30%. This kamikaze strategy, while entertainment for David Brooks and Sean Hannity, makes it harder for her to do that. It also makes it harder for her to go on an apology tour once she has to concede.
I understand the concept. The problem is it doesn't fit the facts.
Since Hillary started going negative, Obama's net approval rating has declined while her own has stayed the same. That's consistent with the idea that Obama has to be a saint but Clinton can get away with getting dirty.
Mort: This really doesn't refute my point.
I'm not the one who thinks the 2004 Election oversampled Republicans...
But it does explain why you don't understand how a concept may be generally valid and inapplicable in a given case.
Aw, a personal attack. And after you were making such a great argument on how going negative telegraphs weakness.
Don't get petty Mort. I was being nice to you. Its not my fault your guy lost the debate.
You are believing in a concept that does not apply to this case
It does. Hillary already has a history of playing dirty politics (just ask all the women her husband sexually abused). She's at a point where going negative is a plus: more damage to Obama by attacking him, diminished fallout for going negative.
I'll draw you a graph, when you stop displacing your frustration.
Balfegor: It takes a village => we must destroy the village to save it!
Its getting even better. Today at work the talk is all about Obama/Ayers and Hillary/Muslim Foundation. The Democrats are arguing over which one supports terrorists more
*please pass the popcorn*
I've posted about reluctantly coming around to seeing this grueling, seemingly frivolous test of character as possibly the most informative kind of campaign we could have.
The left doesn't like it because it is showing them things about their darling that they don't want to see.
your remarkable ability to ignore that movement of a negative rating from 40% to 54% is significant, the actual superdelegates (as opposed to the figments of your febrile imagination) seem not to be swayed by Clinton's negative campaigning.
Rasmussen is in roughly that 54% territory for Clinton right now (56%). That number, at least, checks out. Since February, she's gone from ~50% (low of 48%) to ~55% negatives. I don't see the 40%. Obama, meanwhile, has gone from as low as 42% up to ~50% negatives -- somewhat more negative movement, but ending up in a slightly better place. If you push back further in the time series, I guess it's possible that Clinton hits as low as 40%, but I know Obama had really low negatives five or six months ago. Both their negatives have increased dramatically.
Also, if you don't like Rasmussen, please, give me a timeseries from a different pollster! I don't have subscriptions to Gallup et al., so I am stuck with the free ones. On that note, I don't see a cite for Clinton's 40% to 54% "in the last month", as you claim, and your account is wholly incompatible with the numbers I can check -- the trendline appears to be that both of them have negatives inching up, over the past few months, but neither has dramatically more movement than the other, and neither has had dramatic favorability movement in the last month. Clinton starts from a worse place, obviously, but she's still in the same ballpark.
I'd like to thank the posters here for the generally high quality of the comments. The signal to noise ratio is refreshingly high, especially compared to many other spots currently discussing the same topic(s).
I'm enjoying your informative P.O.V.s.
Let me get this straight,
some conservative is giving the moderators kudos for asking conservative hit questions during a Democratic primary debate?
Now that's a level of illogic that only be refreshingly seen on the Interent because said person couldn't validate that question in person face to face.
PS The import of liberal associations is about as significant to me as the fact that one of McCain's campaign managers solicited sex from another male in the bathroom. (i.e., I don't give a @#$@). I'm pretty sure the conservative applauding the mud-slinging in this last debate won't be singing the same tune in the fall.
Let me get this straight,
some conservative is giving the moderators kudos for asking conservative hit questions during a Democratic primary debate?
Now that's a level of illogic that only be refreshingly seen on the Interent because said person couldn't validate that question in person face to face.
PS The import of liberal associations is about as significant to me as the fact that one of McCain's campaign managers solicited sex from another male in the bathroom. (i.e., I don't give a @#$@). I'm pretty sure the conservative applauding the mud-slinging in this last debate won't be singing the same tune in the fall.
Also on Coburn's own website is a link to an article that states:
On the death penalty, he said: "I favor the death penalty for abortionists and other people who take life."
So Obama's assertion is correct and your link selectively picked an NPR quote that is not the quote above.
Ben: So Obama's assertion is correct
I don't know why Obama thought Coburn lent some kind of equivalence. Coburn never bombed an abortion clinic.
Let me get this straight, some conservative is giving the moderators kudos for asking conservative hit questions during a Democratic primary debate?
No, there are no conservative hit questions. ABC scrutinized Obama and asked him tough questions. I'm giving the mods kudos for finally doing their job.
And we've already covered the fact that neither candidate has the balls to debate on FOX, to be "grilled" by Brit Hume and Mara Liason of NPR. So Team Obama should stop whining about ABC.
because said person couldn't validate that question in person face to face.
Huh? What?
The import of liberal associations is about as significant to me as -
Not liberal associations. Try associations with anti-americans and terrorists. Although I can see how these days, its easy to confuse the three.
Stop whitewashing and minimizing Obama's association with black racists, america haters and former terrorists.
i'm starting to feel embarrassed for the democratic party. they have made such a spectacle out of all this - what a huge mistake. now mccain's chances have just been rapidly growing thanks to this mess. so many i'm sure are cross-voting. it's april already and everything going on with the dem party is unbelievably ridiculous. now we'll get stuck with mccain and will continue to live in the mess bush started for an additional four years. Democrats need to get it together now or they're just handing McCtain an easy win.
Post a Comment