Posted on 04/16/2008 10:07:34 PM PDT by The_Republican
This was not a good debate for Obama, period. But it wasn't a great debate for Clinton either. Of course, that may not matter to Team Clinton. In a twp-way debate, it's not about which candidate narrowly wins -- but which candidate gets pummeled in the post-debate reviews. And Obama will get pummeled because well he did get pummeled, a little bit by Clinton and a little bit by the moderators.
In the first 40 minutes of the debate, most of the questioning was on Obama's negatives (except for a lone Bosnia-sniper question to Clinton) and that's what helped create what was a near disastrous performance by Obama in those first 40 minutes. He was weak in a lot of his answers on his personal negatives. (Did he really compare Tom Coburn to a one-time '60s radical/terrorist?) Clinton, meanwhile, piled on, particularly (and surprisingly, actually) on Ayers.
Many news organizations will feel compelled to do Ayers stories in the next few days. While some may question the fairness and relevancy of the Ayers issue, it's not going to be good for Obama.
This debate is going to lead a lot of Obama supporters to ratchet up the calls on Clinton to either withdraw or tone down the attacks. Clinton supporters will point to this debate as proof that he's not yet ready for the general, that's why she should stay in, and that's why superdelegates should overturn the winner of pledged delegates.
And as we've noted in "First Thoughts" quite a few times, whenever the spotlight is on one candidate, the other seems to benefit. Tonight, the spotlight was on Obama, and for a short period of time, I expect Clinton to benefit.
(Excerpt) Read more at firstread.msnbc.msn.com ...
The pardoned Puerto Rican terrorists were a cause celebre in the PR communities in New York. This was a play for their votes for HRC’s run for the Senate. That gives you a little more perspective on who those supposedly “remorseful” terrorists were. There was a benefit in it for the Clintons, not a magnanimous grant of executive clemency to a deserving convict.
Well, on the Iraq question, BHO was MOST vocal about saying that the military shouldn’t “dictate the mission and policy” but that was for the president to do, and the military’s role is to carry out that policy. He said it at least twice. Our most formidable threat in Nov. is not Hillary, but B. Hussein Obama. You are right, though, about his weakness when confronted spontaneously on various issues, and it hasn’t even yet begun. His strengths are prepared speeces and teleprompters.
Even if they were pressed about the 2nd Amendment, all we would have heard was a bunch of massaged language and tired cliches like:
"hope, Bush, change, oil companies, believe, community organizer, father, coal miner, troubling, dreamed, concerns me, ideas, conversation, sometimes, not sure, cannot recall, not that I am aware of, plan to, assault weapons, not certain, look, understand, Republicans, etc..."
Never a direct answer. Only generalizations. I did enjoy the gaffes from Hillary regarding her refusal to listen to Soldiers on the ground, and I just love her unConstitutional plan to "ban assault weapons."
Like any of these d*mn Democrats will make American lives safer.
you’re absolutely RIGHT! People need to realize just how dangerous this guy is, and it’s almost supernatural.
Ref your Post #11.
YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT, MY FRIEND, ON ALL POINTS; YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT.
And what about a President Obama??? Kiss this country goodbye as we know it.
Agreed. If the She-beast wins the White House, the biggest reason will be the mouth to mouth rescue continually given to her by Limbaugh on each day's show. He is practically hysterical in his trashing of Obama and supporting of Hillary. It isn't just a joke with him. That's his candidate, not McCain. I can't stand listening to it.
yes, yes, yes. Guys, this is not a chess game or amusement to watch, it’s the future and safety of our nation, our children, grandchildren and their children. It’s whether the United States of America continues, and we owe our founding fathers (most of whom ended up broke andor broken over what they fought for - check it out) so much more. Okay, guess I’m a flag-waver. But we’ve been divinely blessed and should never take it for granted. Why do most people not appreciate something until it’s gone?
Obama has an even greater agenda than Clinton, and given the chance, he will listen to no one. He’s dangerous and does NOT have this country’s interests at heart.
Ah, really? Maybe because he doesn't have any positives.
yeah, aren’t those numbers scary? For what it’s worth, though, a couple of nights ago, I saw a poll that showed Oprah’s popularity dramatically down since she announced her support for Obama - I mean, the decline was big, like 25%!!!
no, no, no - if you’ve listened to Rush on this, he’s said that he’d direct his listeners to support whichever Dem candidate was the “underdog”, doesn’t matter. The whole point is to drag out the feud as long as possible, thus weakening (hopefully) the (Dem) party.
I’ve heard Rush state live on his radio show that the overriding purpose of Operation Chaos is to get McCain elected.
I don’t know if it’ll work, but that is his stated objective.
Yes, you are correct.
It’s the Reagan doctrine during the Iran/Iraq war: Help the one that’s losing.
It’s impossible to know which Dem will be the hardest to beat; it is certain that the longer they fight each other, the weaker they get.
Ay, there's the rub.
My question is which commanders on the ground would Obama be talking to???? Taliban, Al-Qaida, Iran, Hamas????? I don’t trust any one of the, Clinton, Obama, or McInsane.
From the debate reports it appears the MSM knows that BHO has become very vulnerable and they tested a simulated Republican GE attack would be. The spin in the next week or so will be interesting, I think the internal polling in PA has the BHO MSM wondering if they have aanother Dukaka candidate....
Take away his teleprompter and he's a dim-bulb and a babbling idiot. I didn't watch the debate last night, but I can imagine that he doesn't look good when forced to discuss issues for more than the 30 seconds that was required in the early debates.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.