Well, that debate last night was pretty nasty and petty. It didn’t really even come from the candidates – we can thank George and Charlie for a debate high on guilt-by-association and symbolism. Maybe they just figured that the policy issues between the two candidates were so insignificant the only way to make it interesting was to focus on the tabloid fodder. You have to figure that McCain’s folks were loving it.
Hillary didn’t even have to raise the tough issues herself; all she had to do was just chime in on the back of the petty questions. Easy for her, even though it may come off like piling on as her attacks often seem to blowback.
And no doubt Obama had a pretty bad night in conventional terms. If this was a high school debating contest – he lost on points. Tired, almost mumbling – going through the motions. And yet this isn’t a debate on points but on opinion and there I am not so sure how this plays out. Recalling the Gore-Bush debates from 2000, I was convinced that Gore won the first one and then his sighs and glances were spun around on him. Obama looked harried last night, rattled by the drum beat and couldn’t respond very well to anything. But, will it hurt him? Hard to say.
Ultimately, Clinton’s case remains that she is the more battle tested and vetted candidate – that she can withstand nights like last night better than Obama can so she is better ready for the campaign tests to come and the presidency thereafter. But that seems a message directed at one constituency – the superdelegates. I’m not sure voters are thinking in those terms. And yet, it is likely superdelegates won’t move against the wishes of the voters and pledged delegates so where does that get her if on June 3rd she is still behind in both columns (which is likely)?
And while Clinton is certainly doing all she can to raise doubts about Obama (aided last night by Charlie and George – and Obama’s own poorly constructed comments on bitter people), it doesn’t seem like she is doing much to make people want to vote for her – see the sky high unfavorables. She obviously doesn’t care whether people vote for her because they want to or just vote for her because they can no longer stomach the other guy. And I guess there is no reason why she should care because at this point that is her only route to the nomination.
But at the end of it all, where does this get us? Maybe Clinton wins decisively in Pennsylvania (I really hope not but who knows how the “embittered people” are feeling there) and takes Indiana and Kentucky and then wins fairly big in the last contest in Puerto Rico, but is still likely behind in pledged delegates and popular votes. Obama still comes in first on those counts but is on his knees by that point – more a frontwalker than runner. It remains unlikely superdelegates break for Clinton and yet our probable nominee has been made to look terribly weak. That can’t be good for November prospects (even though Obama will have time to rally) but that just might be what we are left with.
I guess I just find the Clinton notion, that by making Obama look weaker the superdelegates will have to give her the nod, pretty nuts. My sense is that while she certainly has the ability over the remaining contests to soften him up further, she doesn’t have the capacity to rally folks to her side. For the superdelegates, the outcome will be either to save the wounded vote-leader, dragging him over the mountain top, or shift to a dogged but very unpopular challenger who just won’t go away.
Being an optimist (despite the dark tiddings of this post), I still think that even after the brutal nomination fight is over we got a good shot in November – war and recession have to play our way right? But, my hope was that our likely nominee would come streaking across the primary-season finish-line in a blaze of glory and with a growing army ready to take up his/her banner. At least that was my dream back on January 4th, in that fairly short lived post-Iowa glow. Now I fear our likely nominee will be carried across the line on a stretcher, with many once likely supporters afraid to join his triumph and friendly fire still harassing his rear defenses – and all this with a bigger battle still to come.
but I think Obama, in particular, needs the vetting that Clinton has given him. Better to take the blows now and have time to heal than to try to absorb them in late October. To assume the Republicans wouldn’t have these weapons at their disposal without being instructed by Clinton may be somewhat naive.
It’s almost like she is helping him clean his closet and giving him practice.
It’s a shame this negativity is coming from a fellow Dem, but perhaps it will allow him to run a more positive general campaign.
She is like a tough sparring partner getting the contender warmed up for the main event. I think the road to the Thrilla in Denva keeps people interested, and the campaigns tight. As long as they don’t completely run out of money — which shows no sign of happening for Obama — I think this has been an excellent campaign so far. If Clinton doesn’t score a knock-out in PA, however, which I would describe as a 20-point or more win, I think this will be the time for her to fold her tent.
I love it.
That’s one (incredibly optimistic) way of looking at it.
<
p>I would say that she’s forcing him to spend tons of money on ads in PA that could go into organizing in swing states for the general election. Not only that, but it also seems worse when someone in your own party criticizes you for something than when someone in the other party does it, and the GOP will use her words in the general election.
<
p>What really disappoints me about her is that she’s just so willing to play old-style politics as usual, and ABC News is more than happy to try to fan the flames. It would have been nice for her to agree that all of these issues are a distraction, rather than constantly joining in the chorus and trying to take advantage.
<
p>If she truly believes she can win and is not in it just muck up the eventual Dem nominee, shouldn’t she want to stay about the fray rather than getting down in the mud?
<
p>She already has high negatives and absolutely rotten numbers on her trustworthiness. I would have thought she would have left the dirty work to the moderators, who were happily playing that role already, not chime in literally every single chance she got.
But its one thing for them to come out and another for Clinton, a fellow Democrat, who has almost no chance of winning at this point, to fan the flames and keep fanning them over and over again. I just think that sucks and that at this point, if she can’t get people to vote for her and not just against him, then she should get the frig out. If she’s not contributing anything positive anymore, which she’s not, than it can only harm our chances. What she is doing is giving the Republicans cover to use all of the above – to use her own comments against Obama in the general.
Wonder if Charlie Gibson has been hitting the old Tail Gunner Joe Mc Caaaaaaaarty (R)Wisc.’amber colored liquid’ for he sure sounded like an incarnation of that evil drunken US Senator from Wisconsin.
<
p>Half expected to Gibson and his diminutive sidekick, George, to utter the famous guilt by association phrase of Tail Gunner Joe….”Mister Chairman….Mister Chairman….point of order. I have a document here….” Or better still,” Have you been or are you now a member of the Communist Party Mister Obama....” And they were not much less tabloid in their questioning of Hillary Clinton. Almost expected Charlie Gibson to ask Hillary whether or not she thought oral sex was really sex… Maybe Charlie and Georgie ran out of time for that one.
<
p>Charlie Gibson’s performance was a disgusting tabloidization of the presidential debate format. It is a good thing that there was a Red Sox/Yankee game on and Dancing with the Stars as well as American Idol on opposite this travesty. So, I am sure it must have had the lowest rating of all the past debates.
<
p>ABC must be desperate to put on such trash.
For better or likely for worse, given the massively embarrassing performance by the ABC News moderators (with an assist from Sean Hannity of Fox News and right-wing talk radio, who fed the Ayers question to George Stephanopoulos), it was the highest rated of all of the debates, with almost 12 million tuning in at one point in the first (worst) hour.
<
p>It was the only debate on network TV on a weeknight. 2nd was the ABC debate in NH just before the primary (which if I recall was also horrible and full of similar stupid gotchas and similar stupid Charlie Gibson), and 3rd was a CNN debate in January.
Charlie ” Joe McCarthy” Gibson talked about the ABC tabloid debate controversy of tonight’s news. Said you could post a comment on the ABC Web page. Gone on it and cannot find where. Anyone have direct link ?
Thanks
Why, we blame his loss on the debate itself. Or the moderators. Or the questions. Or the amphitheatre…anything but Obama himself.
But for all the Clintons’ moaning about the press loving Obama and her facing all the tough questions, Clinton has never faced a barrage of crap in this campaign like he did last night. Questioning his patriotism, his love of country, the fact that he knows Bill Ayres – c’mon. That is crap.
<
p>Just because the Republicans will go there, doesn’t mean a debate has to be all about that junk.
<
p>I think he did fine, but it was one junk pile after the other. And Clinton took every opportunity to dance on the pile. No class. None.
Except for the Ayers thing, as I suspect that hanging around with terrorists of the domestic variety is not going to play positively come October.
Remember early in the campaign, when all the guys got to pile on bashing Hillary? Deval just sitting aloof, letting Biden and others do that grunt work? To me, Obama’s defining debate moment was when he looked down his nose at Hillary and sneered, “Oh, I think you’re likeable ENOUGH….”
<
p>Now – the hounds are baying at his heels, and he don’t like it much.
<
p>BTW – where is the BMG outrage about superdelegates Kennedy, Kerry, Delahunt and Frank failing to follow the wishes of the popular vote in their state?
AFAIK
http://www.boston.com/news/pol…
<
p>You might be right, but if he’s now for Obama, I haven’t heard. The above article is dated April 15.
The notion that Clinton is actively running for president — in 2012?
I have heard the theory several times (can't remember where), that despite the fact a Clinton nomination is a numeric impossibility at this point, she continues to tear down her democratic challenger. It can't be to the end of getting the dem nod, at this point, it just cannot happen.
BUT…
If she can help McCain secure the general, a purveyor of what will essentially be a third bush term and a 1 term shot for McCain, puts her at the pole position for the 2012 race.
So when Obama loses, it’s Clinton’s fault? Nice way to be confident in the candidate, who is apparently made of eggshells.
Have you been in the states for the last 8 years?
I have utmost confidence in Obama to take the general. It remains a mystery as to why Clinton remains in the race when it is impossible for her to get the nom. This is one explanation.
How many times do we have to say it?
<
p>Florida and Michigan not yet resolved.
Many superdelegates not yet declared.
Neither candidate has made the threshold.
<
p>Ergo, still a chance albeit less so than for Obama.
If you are of the opinion that the pledged delegates don't matter, I can see your point.
However, the proportional delegate lead will not be overturned unless there is a miraculous series of landslide victories on the part of Sen Clinton that is simply not possible anymore.
Sen. Clinton would have to win every single remaining contest with a margin of at least 70% or better. Do you really think that is possible? Her best shot is PA and it is not looking like she can even approach 70% in the best case scenario. In a general election, with a clear lead and 82% of the votes in, the contest would be “called” by now.
Of course they matter, but so do the superdelegates. I am not asking for Clinton to score landslides in remaining contests, but even if Obama did he would not have enough without some superdelegates either. Your general election analogy doesn’t hold water because there are still people who haven’t voted. In the general 82% of precincts might be reporting, but the polls are already closed and nothing can change. There’s a big difference between 18% of the votes not yet counted and 18% of the votes not yet cast.
I rewatched the debate and think that Obama was dignified. He answered each question plenty well. I think my own appraisal of his performance was actually off base – he did a lot better than I thought he did. I think I just cut up in the questions and not the fine and distinguished answers he gave back.
<
p>I wouldn’t call em softballs. And maybe he didn’t knock em out of the park. But, he bunted well enough, got on base – he certainly did not strike out.