Bill Clinton. But even if he would do it, Obama shouldn’t trust him. If somehow he could, I don’t think Obama would like sharing even the practice stage with the man who out-shone him at the convention and who would easily best him at debate. And yet, with 2 more public humiliations in the offing, he’s got to do something. If he’s really desperate, there could be a world crisis of some sort that forces him to cancel the remaining debates.
October 7, 2012
Who can replace Kerry as Obama's debate practice sparring partner?
I've got an idea:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
75 comments:
I agree. Bill Clinton be a total "mismatch."
If he wouldn't cancel a fund raiser for a dead ambassador, I quake with horror at what would need to happen for him to cancel a debate.
How about Michael Douglas?
He played a capitalist in the movies. And he played the kind the Demos think capitalists really are.
He can do Dad so Barry gets really mad.
Supply your own modal verb.
Bill Clinton. But even if he would do it, Obama shouldn’t trust him.
Why are you spending so much time on something so trivial?
You claim Obama shouldn't trust Bill Clinton, but haven't mentioned one word about the political or theocratic ambitions of Romney's cult.
Such silly priorities,...
Probably best to practice against somebody you don't trust.
Obama isn't going to "trust" Romney, is he?
Clint Eastwood
I think Mick has hacked The Crack Emcee's account.
People who have been around the Bain guys know some of them, when they are pitching, or debating, they can go into a mode. We all know what the mode looks like. One of Bain's Democratic sympathizers would do nicely...
Ed Conard is a Bain guy, but he's on Mitt's side. But watch him debate Stiglitz
You're fighting the last war, however. The next two won't be like the first one.
Ann Althouse said...
I don’t think Obama would like sharing even the practice stage with the man who out-shone him at the convention and who would easily best him at debate.
As we recall, Zero has shone no problem sharing anything with Willie, including the President's lectern.
And I don't know that Willie is all that good a debater. He throws a tantrum like a 2 year old whenever he's challenged. Back-stabbing is his forte.
That said, they need somebody like Jeffrey Immelt or Jamie Dimon, but they've all gone over to the other side.
The answer is for Bill Clinton to take on the role of Obama, and Obama that of Mitt Romney.
I doubt Bill Clinton can be much of anyone but Bill Clinton, but an ass whopping for Obama by Bill as Obama would be instructive for the Obamao.
"This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen."
- Bill Clinton
January, 2008
...and then there was that comment about Obama "should be fetching us coffee".
I'm pretty sure that Clinton has zero confidence in Obama, and the last 4 years have done nothing to change that. He wouldn't waste his time.
Any Mormon stake president who is also a successful businessman would do nicely.
The town hall format will be much better for O. The dems will easily outmaneuver the 'pubs and stack the audience with O sycophants.
All questions will be pre-approved by the Obama campaign.
It will be almost as good as letting TOTUS take part.
[Brigham Young] preserved a church and created a people, but that success damaged and even destroyed some lives."
Pffft. What are individual lives? Nothing, even today. We roll over them like water on a duck's back. That's what a compassionate people we are. And the Mormons. They're proud of what they've done.
Now how can we get them in charge as soon as possible?
Nothing to fear there.
But Obama and Clinton?
I'll be up all night worrying over that dynamic,...
The fighting the last war comment was correct. I expect Zero to come out all huffy, and alpha male. That's when Romney needs to get in his face and calmly say, "You said some untruthful things about me the days following our last debate. I'm here, now. Say them to my face"
Zero can only respond 2 ways. He can back don, and lose like the lilly livered chicken shit we all know he is, or he can go all up in Romney's grill ghetto, and confirm the "Angry Blackman" stereo type, which gives even Zeros Granny the willies.
Regardless, if Romney prepares, and he will, Romney is nothing if not anal, Zero would be better served cancelling the debate. This one is about foreign policy right? What accomplishment is he going to point to there? Iran, getting the bomb? Ambassadors being raped, then killed? Promising the Russians he'll have more flexibility after the election? I can go on, and I'm sure Romney can too.
If Zero cancels the debate, everyone will think he can't hold his own without being propped up by his teleprompter, and the media. If he does hold the debate, everyone will know it.
Come on, fellas, you're losing your heads. The problem isn't with the training partner, the problem is with the person being trained. Obama needs to step up his own preparations. He needs more energy and more focus, and he needs to work at it.
All the practice in the world is not going to help this empty suit do any better.
George Lucas as Yoda. Just wait until Obama comes out transposing the main and subordinate clauses in his sentences at the next debate. Trounce Romney, he will.
They'd better do something or that last, foreign policy debate is gonna be a mess.
Apparently State pulled an SF B detachment out of Labia a month before the attacks.
Barry's sure to be asked.
"Come on, fellas, you're losing your heads. The problem isn't with the training partner, the problem is with the person being trained. Obama needs to step up his own preparations. He needs more energy and more focus, and he needs to work at it."
Having to step up to Bill Clinton might be the incentive he needs to sharpen up.
Clinton has an interest in Obama losing. (It would enhance Hillary's shot in 2016.) But so does Romney. Clinton might lure Obama into thinking about Romney the wrong way. He's wily. Bill is, I mean.
"Apparently State pulled an SF B detachment out of Labia a month before the attacks."
What?!
You've got an autocorrect problem of the most absurd kind, especially while the subject is Clinton.
I'm trying to figure out what an SF B is that you could detach it from labia!
First you have to have some idea of what a debate is. Have some skills at extemporaneous speaking. Understand the topics of the debate and be able to put yourself into your opponent's mindset so you can counter his points.
Obama cannot do any of those things, so practicing is just a waste of time.
He might as well continue golfing and help Michelle plan the decor of their fancy new home in Hawaii.
Ann Althouse said...
Apparently State pulled an SF B detachment out of Labia a month before the attacks.
What?!
You've got an autocorrect problem of the most absurd kind, especially while the subject is Clinton.
The thread's about the debates, isn't it?
OK, I should have flagged it as possibly OT.
An SF B detachment is a Special forces company HQ and it usually has an A-team co-located with it.
And isn't Labia how O spells Libya?
"The fighting the last war comment was correct. I expect Zero to come out all huffy, and alpha male."
The problem is that Romney is the alpha and there is nothing Obama can do about it. Romney is smarter, more knowledgeable, FAR more accomplished, and more emotionally grounded.
The first debate showed in body language, in the starkest terms, who the dominant man is. This is not two closely matched contestants with one having a better night than the other!!
Obama can't change what he is with some stupid debate training, and delusional people like Althouse who imagine he is something he is not are going to be disappointed again.
There is no making bones for a jelleyfish.
"Having to step up to Bill Clinton might be the incentive he needs to sharpen up."
-- Maybe we need to just have Mitt Romney punch out Kerry, like how Drago killed Apollo. Then Obama can walk in to the next debate to Eye of the Tiger.
You've got an autocorrect problem of the most absurd kind, especially while the subject is Clinton.
Moniker mismatches like Libya, Majorca, etc., perinally clutter analyses of Bill Clitnon.
Paul. Well put.
I'm more concerned about Romney in debate #2. Candy Crowley is the moderator and the format will be "Town Hall". Each candidate will have 2 mins to respond and only one minute additional before they move onto the next question.
Based on what happened last week with the Libs hating Jim Lehrer, I fully expect Crowley to adhere fast to those time limits and cut off Mitt off early just to be safe.
I also expect the audience to be loaded with people offended with Romney somehow. We'll have a granny who doesn't understand medicare vouchers, a newly employed college grad who got a job last Friday because their employer was so stoked to hire after the jobs report and finally a military mom whose son was KIA in Iraq so that we focus on "Bush's war" and not Afghanistan.
Finally, in this format, Obama doesn't need to respond to Romney at all. He just needs to give an empathetic "shout out" to the person asking the question.
This one will be Barry's to lose as the game will be rigged for him.
Oh, cause a world crisis, cancel the debates. Now, that is in the realm of possibilities for Obama. It won't help us, the world inhabitants but it will help him.
1. Noam Chomsky
2. Robert Cook
I don't know if this format really does favor Obama, he only has strawmen behind him.
The left pretends if you don't think a religious employer or school doesn't want to have birth control and abortion paid for in an insurance plan, suddenly there is no access at all to birth control and abortion. Somhow the employee cannot go to the local Target and get pills for $9/month or a package of condoms for a few dollars. Somehow the employees or students do not have the option of finding a new employer or attending a public university. What next, do we have to cover toothpaste, toothbrushes and dental floss? Poor dental health can have an effect on heart disease, so perhaps those items need to be paid too. Why aren't those mandated in Obamacare? Obama wants everyone to develop heart disease.
The left pretends cutting funding for PBS is killing Sesame Street. Big Bird and Sesame street make a fortune, and people will still be allowed to donate to Sesame street. There will be no laws prohibiting Hollywood celebrities from hosting $40,000/plate fundraisers for PBS.
Obama will use his shout out techniques and Romney has the power of reality. The simple fact is that if we keep expanding social programs they will no longer help the truly needy.
pm317 said...
Oh, cause a world crisis, cancel the debates.
But isn't that how McCain lost, uh, everybody?
Bill Clinton would be an excellent choice except that Obama would never do it. Maybe Obama would be justified in thinking that Clinton would sabotage his efforts but probably O's ego couldn't stand the thought of Clinton dishing out advice.
And as for the prospect of 2 more public humiliations, the pendulum wants to swing the other way. Obama has nowhere to go but up and I think he can't help but improve and that will be seen as a major victory. Even the expectations for Ryan/Biden are so extreme that if Biden can avoid crying or soiling himself, they'll say he crushed Ryan.
As soon as the first debate was over, I speculated that Obama will find some reason to dodge additional debates. His biggest problem will be to find someone we can bomb that we aren't already bombing, and then get the media to cover it when they've pretty much refused to cover Obama's various drone wars entirely.
Whomever is the “sparring partner” can't change facts. As Paul said, Mr. Romney has an advantage, but not just as Alpha vs. Beta.
The subject is Foreign Policy, and darned if The President has much in the way of success in that regard.
My guess is that questions such as “...how will you... [end the war in Afghanistan or approach the changes sweeping the M.E.]” instead of “...why did you... [insert ANY F.P. Failure here]” will give The President a chance to be positive, orate, and promise. Further, if The President even touches the “...killed Bin Laden...” land mine, even that is now a negative End-Zone Dance maybe not here, but certainly in those places which will be the subject of the debate. Canada (XL Piepline), Mexico (F&F), England (Sir Winston), Israel (Bibi who?) just for openers.
This Administration is demonstrated repeatedly that it is incompetent, feckless and over-matched by the Office. To believe changing Dance Partners for sparring will somehow change the outcome of the next Debate misses the entire track record.
Yeah, this won't be the same format but I imagine Romney's noticed that. I'm sure Rob Portman has. If the Romney team can get Obama's strategy by knowing who his trainer is, I'm sure they can win. Plus they can read the media and listen to Obama.
Another thing. This debate is only 9 days away and the Democrats are still arguing about who to blame. To me that says: it was Obama's fault and they know it. And if the Democrats switch to a new trainer as if blaming Kerry then who will want to do it? Who wants to be the new trainer? Who wants to be the next under the bus, getting the blame for Obama's laziness and lack of work over the last four years?
This debate is about both about domestic and foreign policy.
Clinton would be as horrible a choice as Kerry.
Obama needs a businessman coaching him; one with lots of private sector experience and success. The only way to understand where Romney is coming from is within that context.
That's not to say that Romney is not a consummate politician; He is certainly that. But he is much more than that in terms of life experience.
Clinton, like Obama, is a pure political animal, and cannot conceive of being otherwise. It just doesn't occur to them that Romney has a very deep understanding on what makes the real world operate, because they've never had to experience and perform in that world.
Obama should be getting coached by a Fortune 500 CEO or CFO with political connections. Not the other way around.
"Whomever is the “sparring partner” can't change facts. As Paul said, Mr. Romney has an advantage, but not just as Alpha vs. Beta."
Sure Obama has bolloxed foreign policy just as much as anything he touches and that just adds to his betatude, but the body language in the last debate trumps policy, records, and everything else because it affects the viewer on the most primal level.
Everyone saw a clear winner and a clear loser, and they would have seen it just as clearly with the sound off. This is what drove the left so crazy, although they are desperately spinning rationalizations to try and convince THEMSELVES that they didn't see their god-man as not only mortal, but a sham. A weakling. A LOSER.
"Everyone saw a clear winner and a clear loser, and they would have seen it just as clearly with the sound off."
Agree! I bet this will be addressed and perhaps reversed, but style with no substance will be difficult to overcome.
edutcher said...
--
I didn't say Obama will win by doing that just that debates will be cancelled. :) But of course, we will have a world crisis on our hands.
I don't think there is anybody in this world who can coach Obama. If that were the case, we would never be talking about this.
"Everyone saw a clear winner and a clear loser, and they would have seen it just as clearly with the sound off."
Three things:
1) This quote can basically be taken as evidence Romney didn't win on substance.
2) Jon Stewart made this same point - Romney won even with the sound down - a few nights ago.
3) I read an article that showed, historically, the winner of the first debate has only won the presidency twice.
Reality's a motherfucker,...
JFK is the next SoS (Sec of State). No question about it. There is NO else in the DNC that could get it. The Sen. from RI perhaps, but he would not be interested. It is Kerry all the way. So, JFK does not want to ruin it. Also Teresa Heinz is strict about world travels and so she made him cautions - do not screw up for us, John.
The POTUS will come back swinging on 10/16. The media, led by MSNBC, will have its back. I know there are head-lines and phrases already WRITTEN in advance.
Romney will be buried on 10/16 at the live debate and then on 10/17 in the newspaper headlines.
The election will be over starting then.
You heard here first.
"Reality's a motherfucker,... "
Says the crazy man standing on the box screaming the same thing over...and over...and over........
Barney Frank-if he feels like it. He is from Mass., so he knows Mitt, he is smart, and he is retiring, so he can really let loose on the President without fear of losing anything from Mr. Thin Skin. But he most probably won't be asked and wouldn't do it. Thank goodness. Go ahead-stick with Kerry.
Barney Frank-if he feels like it. He is from Mass., so he knows Mitt, he is smart, and he is retiring, so he can really let loose on the President without fear of losing anything from Mr. Thin Skin. But he most probably won't be asked and wouldn't do it. Thank goodness. Go ahead-stick with Kerry.
The second debate isn't about foreign policy -- that's the third debate. The second debate is open to all topics, foreign, domestic, and ludicrously off-topic. (See: "Boxers or Briefs?")
And remember that the "town hall" participants are being selected by the Gallup Corporation. You know, the one that is currently being strong-armed by the Obama Justice Department.
I expect Romney to handle himself quite well -- but the format *definitely* plays more to Obama.
Am I the only one who thinks there's a chance of an "undecided voter" smuggling in a pie?
I would seriously pay money to watch an unleashed Barney Frank playing Romney debating Barack Obama.
Too late now, but he should have used Erskine Bowles for practice for the first debate - someone who would argue like Ryan about the economy and related issues.
Debate #2, Foreign Plicy...
Obama: "Osama bin Ladin is dead!"
Romney: "So are Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans."
Obama: "Isn't it time to move on to the next question?"
Am I the only one who thinks there's a chance of an "undecided voter" smuggling in a pie?
...and glitter bombs. Romney definitely needs to prepare for glitter bombs.
Had brunch at the Capital South with a few K-streeters and DNC people. The word is that that NYT and other members of the JournoList have made up the talking-points for:
- During the debate
- After the debate
- The day after
SO, it is over! There is NOTHING you can do.
Romney is "finished" on 10/16. Bring flowers.
Paul,
Says the crazy man standing on the box screaming the same thing over...and over...and over........
Hey - it beats saying something different every time and still making no sense,..
Obama is such a preening, brittle peackock that Daniel Webster would be hard pressed to improve Obama's debate performance.
The only way Bill Clinton could help Obama is by serving as his tag-out in the actual debate.
We all know how the President will perform in the next debate.
He will become "The Barrack Emcee!"
MORMON...........BOO!!!!!!
Crack is whack.
I agree with numerous others here that the problem is Obama himself & his beliefs, along with his inexperience in debating, not to mention in governing.
Nevertheless, assuming for the sake of argument, that “it’s the debate opponent, stupid”, the problem with living in a Pauline-Kael bubble as the Obama folks do is that not only do they not know anybody who can stand in for a Republican, they don’t even know anyone who knows anybody who can stand in for a Republican.
Romney may have trouble if we get into "lady parts" and gays. I'm sure he's prepared.
I have a theory that Obama really doesn't want to win. I think he is sick of being President in the sense that he doesn't want to do the work, the heavy lifting.
He would rather do something else. Go live in Hawaii. Perhaps come back as Secretary General of the UN. He can then be a big shot to the rest of the admiring world and universe. President is just not interesting anymore. He thinks he is destined for bigger things.
Like the last scene in Sunset Boulevard. I am big....it is the Presidency that has gotten small.
I think he is going to angry and arrogant and very very stupid in a one note kind of way.
You know...."The Barack Emcee!"
Mormon.......BOO!!!!!
DBQ, you may want to check out this piece, as it has an interesting rationale for your theory.
Another item overlooked regarding preparedness is that Romney has experience entering a Boardroom and presenting. Pressure, and an ability to improvise. The President can spar all he wants, but can't compete with that either.
@ edcutcher
Interesting. I hadn't seen that piece. But, it dovetails with what I have been thinking. Obama is just not that into being President anymore, if he really ever was.
@DBQ & Ed - I'd take it even further. I have always had a small part of me believe that he President never believed he'd WIN in the FIRST PLACE. As his campaign snowballed due to internal and external circumstances and influences, he found himself the last Democratic candidate standing. Then the final campaign against what was a weak, "next-in-line" R Ticket swept him into office. An office and a set of responsibilities he and his "Administration" have proven over and over again of being incapable of successful execution.
I'll agree that Obama might be lazy, might not want to do the heavy work that is required of the Presidency, but there's a good possibility that he is looking at how much debt that he alone is running up, and maybe thinking that 4 more years of this and he'll go down in history as perhaps someone who completely destroyed this country.
He had some big ideas about how to generate energy with solar and wind, but all of that stuff is going out by way of bankruptcy. What on earth will his legacy be? The unending deficits are it. Forget bin Laden.
1) This quote can basically be taken as evidence Romney didn't win on substance.
Not really. It can be taken as evidence he visually comported himself better, but nothing else.
Your claim is like saying "Hey, the person with the highest GPA in the school got an 'A' in art, therefore that's evidence they screwed up in Science and Math." How ridiculous would that be.
Maguro,
Crack is whack.
Everybody's whack who knows you guys are so into Romney now you flip-flop as much as he does.
He wasn't a viable candidate - now hie is!
He was a flip-flopper - now he isn't!
Ne had no core values - now he does!
It's simply amazing:
By merely getting nominated, he's exposed what empty vessels YOU are!
Hey - it beats saying something different every time and still making no sense,..
Good point, but frankly, Crack, I don't think you are being effective.
I would consider a different approach, and will offer one up
Many conservatives are not particularly happy with Romney. They felt the Republican party pushed him down their throats. However, once selected, given that one of these people is going to be elected to the presidency, they want to get the person most aligned with their views. That's simple, correct? That's the world you have to deal with, unless you simply like to bitch instead of making change.
I would focus on the process of selecting the republican candidate. How could it be better? Argue for those things that align with your personal objectives.
A lot is going on with the Republican system right now. You have Tea party folks that have some amount of political power. There is the fracture from Ross Perot. Conservatives are particularly disappointed in Romney. Is there a principle you have that would resonate with these folks?
You might consider asking the question "How the hell did we get this flip-flopping liar as the republican candidate?" Or whatever gives you a lever to transition to a system that has a better chance of selecting candidates you feel are worthy.
Another area I think you have been ineffective in is steering the dialogue to what you want it to be. You have a strong interest in cults, and the damage they cause to the US. But, you haven't made the case, but merely berate people for not understanding.
To help people to understand why this is important, you ought to provide some specifics as to how having a member of Mormon cultism as president is going to affect US culture, and what the potential damage is. I don't read everything you say, but this certainly doesn't seem to be your #1 argument. It's "you guys don't understand cults, you haven't vetted this guy, and you suck."
Instead, you could catalog the damage electing a cultist can have for America. This may not go so far in terms of votes, but it might help to open eyes, and to advance your perspective.
Just 2cents.
Clinton has an interest in Obama losing. (It would enhance Hillary's shot in 2016.)
Dream on. Hillary has all the signs of being an alcoholic. Depression. Weight gain. Puffy face. Deep wrinkles.
I've thought that Hillary would have been better, but you know what? She lost because of people like you. Now she's done. Four more years, and she is going to look and think like a toad.
Stephen Colbert -- in character -- should be Obama's debate-prep partner.
Post a Comment