Second Debate Thread

Here's another thread for you to discuss the debate.

Update [2008-2-26 22:19:47 by Jonathan Singer]: I've got to say, even though it was defused a bit towards the end of this second segment, that Hillary Clinton would stoop to making insinuations about Barack Obama being anti-Semitic or not sufficiently denouncing anti-Semites is really beyond the pale to me, just totally unacceptable. There can be attacks in this primary, and the candidates can disagree on issues. But I am just shocked that Clinton would stoop so low to make such insinuations. I am somewhat appalled, both as a Democrat and a Jewish American.

Update [2008-2-26 22:21:48 by Todd Beeton]:Did Obama just call himself a "supposed liberal?"

Update [2008-2-26 22:32:57 by Todd Beeton]:Obama had a great answer on what vote he would take back re Terry Schiavo. "Sometimes inaction can be as costly as action."

Update [2008-2-26 22:32:57 by Todd Beeton]:On "what question does Hillary Clinton need to answer...?" Obama isn't taking the bait, instead taking the high road. He's wisely instead talking about why he should be the nominee. Will Clinton use her answer to have another "moment" or to draw some blood?

Update [2008-2-26 22:43:37 by Todd Beeton]:Senator Obama often looked uncomfortable to me up there when not answering. Didn't really project the confidence I'm used to him projecting at the debates lately. Of course while Clinton may have looked more confident and more presidential, several of her lines didn't really work, and Obama's taking the high road may have come off better ultimately. But she certainly appeared to be the very image of the fighter she says she is, not sure it helped her though.

Tags: msnbc debate (all tags)

Comments

234 Comments

Re: Second Debate Thread

tim russert is an idiot

by sepulvedaj3 2008-02-26 05:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

He keeps hurling these charges against Clinton, and then cutting her off from responding to Obama's charges. Why is she being double teamed?

by bowiegeek 2008-02-26 05:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Finally, a statement that we can all agree on.  Could his head possibly get any bigger?

by rfahey22 2008-02-26 05:34PM | 0 recs
Re: The post debate spin..

Well, while Saddam the person was a douche, Saddam in power kept Iran in check and the region stabilized.  His removal is showing the destabilization of region.  While him being gone isn't bad, the way in which it was done has caused problems that will probably take years, maybe decades to solve.

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-26 06:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

As an Obama supporter, I couldn't agree more.

by tysonpublic 2008-02-26 05:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Tim Russert --

Worst. Moderator. Ever.

by Ms Bluezone 2008-02-26 05:09PM | 0 recs
"Med ven dev... whatever," Clinton

Republican Health Care Plan: Be Rich or Die

by dearreader 2008-02-26 07:08PM | 0 recs
So what do you want Tim?

Should Obama go on a Farakhan hunt?

Will we take a break from the debate while Obama hunts down and beats the crap out of Farakhan?

by zonk 2008-02-26 05:09PM | 0 recs
Re: So what do you want Tim?

Oh man, you have me laughing out loud.

by LandStander 2008-02-26 05:14PM | 0 recs
i volunteer

for this guerrilla force.

just cause im a dem, don't mean i aint strapped with heat bitches.

by omar little 2008-02-26 05:30PM | 0 recs
You got killed

last Sunday, remember?  We're going to miss you.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-27 06:47AM | 0 recs
it is Bad for Obama to be associated with Farakhan

and Obama lost the opportunity, given to him, to reject any association with Farakhan. And reason is very simple: Obama wants badly to keep hold on race-motivated black votes. Can you handle the truth?

by WeNeed3rdParty 2008-02-27 01:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Why is Farrakhan an issue at all? This Russert question is as bad as the one about what would happen if Cobra Commander took over Iraq.

by OrangeFur 2008-02-26 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

it gives Obama air time, and allows him to answer really well

by sepulvedaj3 2008-02-26 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

That was just an MSNBC/Obama love in. It gave Obama a chance to make clear that he doesn't endorse Farrakhan in case anyone was worried.

by arkansasdemocrat 2008-02-26 05:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Well, if these debates are about answering questions about their candidacy isn't that a relevant question?

by JDF 2008-02-26 05:36PM | 0 recs
Re: They say this debate 'was not a game changer'

Such is the nature of debates. Moderators ask questions and candidates answer the questions they WANT to answer. Both Candidates (all candidates really) do this.

by JDF 2008-02-26 06:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Which Cobra Commander though?  

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-26 06:28PM | 0 recs
Is Brian Williams

Just there for decoration?

by zonk 2008-02-26 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

I think that Obama looked a little taken aback to have his pro-NAFTA rhetoric thrown at HIM.

On balance, they've both been good. This is a good issues oriented debate.

by arkansasdemocrat 2008-02-26 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Has anyone else been put in the penalty box for posting too many comments?

by OrangeFur 2008-02-26 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Happens to me all the time in debate and election night threads.  Don't sweat it, it only lasts a few minutes.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-02-26 05:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Hillary just blew the biggest chance she had to show transparency and open disclosure by waffling on the issue of releasing tax returns.  She wants to leave the scrutiny of her financial dealings to the GOP once she locks the nom?  She alludes to "or maybe before the primary next week" but says she is too busy to get it together sooner.

Do we really want a President who is too preoccupied to be accountable toward the electorate that she seeks to serve?

by nafamabo 2008-02-26 05:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Whatever- like she said, she's a little busy at the moment. She has until April like you and I.

And Russert's question was asinine- release your tax return so that we can see who is "bankrolling your campaign...." Jackass- what is he trying to say?

I thought her answer was fairly good there.

by arkansasdemocrat 2008-02-26 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Uh - I don't think the question was about this year's tax return - it's about releasing previous ones.

by tysonpublic 2008-02-26 05:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Hasn't she essentially already disclosed previous ones, with her Senate filings?  

I'm not sure - but I think that that is the case.  

by mgee 2008-02-26 05:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Um.  nope.

by Dave 2008-02-26 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Of course she would have to go to that storage cabinet in her attic to get out the return, and she's just too busy to do so -- give me a break!  Too busy?  Like she doesn't have People to do it for her?

by Ms Bluezone 2008-02-26 05:17PM | 0 recs
I will go to jail

for whichever candidate decides to assault Tim Russert right now.

HIllary?  Barack?

Take your swing.  I'll do the time for you.

by zonk 2008-02-26 05:13PM | 0 recs
Re: I will go to jail

I'll support you. You can still do the jail time, however.

by OrangeFur 2008-02-26 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: I will go to jail

Me, too! I will vote for any candidate who throws the first punch to Tim Russert.

by praxis1 2008-02-26 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

This sucks, for some reason Comcast does not carry MSNBC and evidently msnbc.com has never heard of Content Delivery Networks

by MChav06 2008-02-26 05:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Well its not like they're in anyway linked to a computer savvy company.

by Socraticsilence 2008-02-26 05:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Hillary's voice reminds me that she's still there. I feel like Obama and Russert have been talking for the last half hour.

by OrangeFur 2008-02-26 05:13PM | 0 recs
Shut up Tim

No.  

She's not saying that.

No one thought she was saying that.

Why in God's name do you have a job?

by zonk 2008-02-26 05:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Shut up Tim

Hmmm... well.. maybe Obama feared she might be.

by zonk 2008-02-26 05:15PM | 0 recs
Nice Dig at Obama re: Farrakhan's endorsement

Hillary: Difference between denouncing and rejecting.

Barack: I'll smile and hope that the audience helps.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-26 05:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Nice Dig at Obama re: Farrakhan's endorsement

That was too nitpicky by Hillary.  It gave Obama a softball to take a swing at.

by NJIndependent 2008-02-26 05:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

I'll reject, renounce, and beat him with a stick!

by LandStander 2008-02-26 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

And then let's bludgeon him with a large club!

I have to say that the denounce vs. reject thing was pretty silly.

by arkansasdemocrat 2008-02-26 05:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

reject and renounce -- Clinton looks petty on that exchange, I think

by Ms Bluezone 2008-02-26 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

not to the jewish community

by sepulvedaj3 2008-02-26 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Yeah, thank god they both locked up that swing voting block.

by LandStander 2008-02-26 05:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

It isnt for the General, its for the Primary

by sepulvedaj3 2008-02-26 05:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

If you think this impresses any Jews except a small, Likudnik segment, you really don't know much about the Jewish community.

by mainelib 2008-02-26 05:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Yeah I suppose, plus Obama is trying to be dog whistly respectful ("Reverend Farrakhan") -- not that I think he's a farrakhan fan by any stretch of the imagination

by Ms Bluezone 2008-02-26 05:20PM | 0 recs
I'm Jewish

And I thought his response was perfectly appropriate. I despise Louis Farrakhan for all the obvious reasons. What I loved was Obama's mention of the need to restore the strong relationship between Jews and blacks.

by elrod 2008-02-26 05:41PM | 0 recs
I'm Jewish Too

And I agree 100% with your reply.

Obama's denunciation/rejection of Farrakhan was totally sufficient the first time. Clinton's pander struck me as pretty gratuitous - and Obama got the best of that in the end anyway.

But Obama's acknowledgment of the Jewish involvement in the civil rights struggles was HUGE. That was really powerful and I am quite certain it impressed a lot of Jews. Nobody seems to realize it, but that acknowledgment was THE moment of that exchange.
 

by Callimaco 2008-02-26 10:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Nah, Obama does like to tippy-toe around stuff when it's a lot easier to say "I don't want to have anything to do with Farrakhan and I don't want his endorsement."  

by newhorizon 2008-02-26 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Why is Clinton making an issue between denouncing and rejecting? She's picking the wrong fights!

by mecarr 2008-02-26 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

nope -- Jewish community remembers her for that SPECIFIC issue among others, and it was very important, especially here in NY.

Ordinary voter will be confused, Jewish population will remember

by sepulvedaj3 2008-02-26 05:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Denouncing the independence party matters in NY?  Are you kidding?  They are as marginal as it gets.

by mainelib 2008-02-26 05:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Good point and the massive Jewish community of Texas and Ohio will be glad that she pandered to them! Oh wait there isn't a massive Jewish Community in Texas and Ohio.

by Socraticsilence 2008-02-26 05:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

And if there was one, I would give it to them that they know exactly what pandering is and that they don't fall for it.

by marcotom 2008-02-26 10:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

There's a clear distinction to the community between denouncing someone's words, and rejecting someone's support.

by bowiegeek 2008-02-26 05:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

so words do matter? but just for this segment of the broadcast though, right?

if I would have known earlier that words only matter in trivial situations, I would have voted for Hillary.

by alex100 2008-02-26 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Rejecting the support of a bigot matters. That's an action, isn't it?

by bowiegeek 2008-02-26 06:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

he rejected it. and denounced it. and he made hillary look awful in the process.

by alex100 2008-02-27 04:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Well, if he says he rejected it, that's new to me. He changed the subject during the debate.

by bowiegeek 2008-02-27 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

denounce - to give formal notice of the termination or denial of (a treaty, pact, agreement, or the like).

reject - to refuse to have, take, recognize, etc.

Did they just seriously argue over that

by MChav06 2008-02-26 05:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Yes I did look it up, guilty as charged :-) - if I am charged

by MChav06 2008-02-26 05:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

You are charged, rejected and denounced. Well done ;)

by LandStander 2008-02-26 05:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

yes -- see my comments right above yours

It is especially interesting because Obama just met with Jewish leaders

by sepulvedaj3 2008-02-26 05:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

The kind of questions that these people ask go a long way to explaining the shoddy state of media coverage of politics in general.

Assuming Obama get the nomination, you can already see a string of questions on Farrakhan and related crap.

by OrangeFur 2008-02-26 05:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread
Obama should have hammered home the point that you dont change people's minds by ignoring them, or not talking to them.  To change minds you must engage them.  And this can be done with out condoning the ideas of the other party.
this seems to be an over arching theme in his campaign.
by IndyJ 2008-02-26 05:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

That was a good thanks to the Jewish freedom riders speech by the Big O

He solidified his nomination with that remark

by gil 2008-02-26 05:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Yes, when he said he wouldn't be here without the Jewish community, I said "thank you."

by mainelib 2008-02-26 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

No mention or recognition of the plight of Palestinian people through  the brutal occupation by Israel nor their Wall...

nothing to see here...move along...

by nogo war 2008-02-26 05:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Brian Williams: You've been rated as liberal. Won't that be a liability in the general election?

Our liberal press at work.

by OrangeFur 2008-02-26 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Obama is not exactly giving a ringing endorsement of the term liberal, however.

by OrangeFur 2008-02-26 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Jonathan, Obama falsely shifted the discussion from not the difference between "denouncing" words and "rejecting" an endorsement to whether denouncing or rejecting was a better adjective.

by bowiegeek 2008-02-26 05:21PM | 0 recs
Meat the Hardball

Press the Countdown.

I support Obama.

Russert has been a class A dick to Hillary all night.

by Walt Starr 2008-02-26 05:21PM | 0 recs
agreed.

no one on this stage has the right to interrupt clinton.

by omar little 2008-02-26 05:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

I've looked in Tim Russert's eyes and he has no soul

by Ms Bluezone 2008-02-26 05:22PM | 0 recs
Wow

Apparently I'm the only naive person watching this debate.

Todd thinks Hillary tried to score points and so does Josh.

Am I that naive?  I just thought she was saying "we both faced the same issue".

Did I really miss it by that much?

by zonk 2008-02-26 05:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Wow

yes

by Ms Bluezone 2008-02-26 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Wow

sorry, no offense, but she's trying to slam BO for not taking a strong stand on farrakhan

by Ms Bluezone 2008-02-26 05:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Wow

Please do yourself a favor and look up the definition of denounce and reject.

Thanks.

by RussTC3 2008-02-26 05:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Wow

I'm not saying she's right; I think she's full of sh-t, but that's what she was trying to do, not just saying, hey, I faced that problem too" an a chummy fashion

by Ms Bluezone 2008-02-26 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Wow

Hey -

I'm an Obama supporter.

I'm willing to accept that it just flew right over my head.... maybe we need to go to the replay.

Sometimes I miss a lot trying to look for the little.

by zonk 2008-02-26 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Wow

As someone with ties to the Jewish community through ancestry and friends, I don't think she did.  I thought she was saying they both faced it.

by ejintx 2008-02-26 05:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Wow

I thought that's what she meant as well. Obama had been talking so long I had forgotten she was there.

by OrangeFur 2008-02-26 05:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Neither Obama or Clinton want to be tagged with the liberal label. They're right and smart to do so.

by Korha 2008-02-26 05:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Progressive is a better term than liberal, I mean Reactionaries get to call themselves conservatives so we should get to choose our nomiker as well.

by Socraticsilence 2008-02-26 05:33PM | 0 recs
russert should

never be allowed within 5000 miles of a debate.

by highgrade 2008-02-26 05:22PM | 0 recs
Re: russert should

Or a teevee studio.

Or a radio studio.

or a printing press.

or a PC.

Or a MAC.

Or a podium.

The moon maybe, but that's as close as I'll go.

by zonk 2008-02-26 05:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

By the way, I am thoroughly disgusted at this "debate." There have easily been 15 minute stretches of Obama talking.

by bowiegeek 2008-02-26 05:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

For a candidate building her campaign around the argument that words dont matter, Clinton certainly spends a lot of time harping on them...

And I agree, as a Jewish American, whatever hope of support Senator Clinton had from me completely evaporated. That was absolutely appalling. She should be ashamed.

by LiberalFL 2008-02-26 05:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

"whatever hope of support Senator Clinton had from me completely evaporated."

Please.  As if she ever had a chance of getting your support?

by newhorizon 2008-02-26 05:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Actually, she did. You're welcome.

by LiberalFL 2008-02-26 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

What a shock.

by newhorizon 2008-02-26 06:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Yes thank you! I agree with you wholeheartedly as a Jewish American.

by Pickcorrectly 2008-02-26 05:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Well, I am a Jewish American, and I understand the difference between "denounce" and "reject", and I liked Clinton's answer MUCH, MUCH better.

Obama said all chummy like "well, I can't tell someone who thinks I am a good guy to get lost".  Even if it is Louis Farrakhan.  

Yes, you can tell them to get lost.  And that was exactly Hillary's point.  And I think it is a great point - and something that Obama looked very naive to me in that he, as a Law professor, did not seem to understand.  Give me a break - he understands the difference perfectly well.

No, he didn't want to alienate anyone from his side, even if they are racist bigot supporters that have no place being his supporters.  They are "his" racist bigot supporters.  And I think he reluctantly said that he "rejects" them, for whatever that is worth, and only when forcefully prompted to do so by Senator Clinton.

I hope he doesn't need such tutoring when it comes to Hamas, Iran, et al, even if they "think Obama is a great guy".

FYI - Ohio is probably about 3% Jewish and Texas 1%.  Probably doesn't matter to appeal to them, but there are a lot of people out there who think we have no business with Farrakhan, myself included.

by mikes101 2008-02-26 06:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

So what is the difference between rejecting and denouncing someone?

by dmc2 2008-02-26 06:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Denouncing the support to me means:
"Hey, I don't like it, but I didn't say it, somebody else did.  That statement still stands.  I can't take away what the guy said, although I dislike it"

Which is basically what Obama's longer answer was: "Look I can't tell the guy he can't like me".

Rejecting the support to me means:
"Hey, I don't want your support.  I refuse your support - go somewhere else.  Your support is no good to me.  You have no influence in my presidency or in my ideology."

That is the difference.  I think Obama wanted to have to reject the support of Louis Farrakhan and his followers about as much as Hillary wants to break out her tax return for us, but I am glad he was forced to do so, if only half-heartedly, jokingly, and under the glare of the national media spotlight.

by mikes101 2008-02-26 06:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

I'm glad that you got what you wanted. I hadn't realized that the voting preference of Louis Farrakhan and his small group of generally apolitical supporters was such a burning issue on the national scene.

by dmc2 2008-02-26 07:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

It is a larger question than that.  It is: "if a known bigot / racist supports you, are you willing to reject that support?"

Obama has huge black support.  But should that support include Nation of Islam?  Well, he cannot reject them at the polling booth, but he can tell them to get lost.

If, for instance, a KKK leader endorsed anyone, I should hope that their support would be soundly rejected, not tacitly accepted like the Republicans routinely do, and like I think Obama would like to be able to do with his Nation of Islam supporters - even though they are just as bad as the KKK.

I am wary of Obama as a Jewish voter for his ties to his pastor, Farrakhan, and his statements like "Israel is one of our most important allies in the Middle East", not "the most important ally in the Middle East".  Also, by his willingness to negotiate with presumably anyone and everyone, which in the past has not always worked out so great for the Jewish people.  See Neville Chamberlain.

I think it is pretty easy for the Jewish voter to see how naive Obama's policies sound - because we have dealt with the issues of peace in the Middle East, terrorism, and national self-defense for 60 years, against parties like Ahmadenijad who want to wipe Israel off the map.  Our world view is more "realist" than "idealist" for that reason.

I think Obama is a really smart guy I am just worried that if he is really going to gloss over distinctions like this, and advocate such a weak foreign policy, maybe he is not cut-out for the big time.

Otherwise, I am OK with Obama - I just think his policies are weaker than Hillary's on health care, trade, etc.

by mikes101 2008-02-26 08:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

1. The Nation of Islam is not the KKK. I challenge you to find me one single white or Jewish person who has ever been physically harmed by this organization. The KKK has the blood of thousands on its hands.

2. Obama's been strong and clear about the special relationship between the U.S. and Israel.

3. The Neville Chamberlain canard can be thrown around any time anybody suggests negotiation instead of war.

4. The "wipe Israel off the map" quote has been debunked as a mistranslation by Juan Cole. As a Jewish voter, your "realism" does not speak for me.

5. If GW or AIPAC is your idea of strong foreign policy, then yes, I'll take weak. Same goes for health care and trade WRT Hillary.

by dmc2 2008-02-27 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

This debate is absolutely terrible.

by RussTC3 2008-02-26 05:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Suppose Cobra Commander orders his troops into Kosovo. What will you do?

by OrangeFur 2008-02-26 05:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

I would like to answer this.  Obviously, I would send in Scout first, with some explosive fire-arrows....

by mgee 2008-02-26 05:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Russert "if Medvedev asks Russian troops to help Serbia retake Kosovo" - again with the crazy hypotheticals.  How about asking about something that could actually happen!

by Mr DC 2008-02-26 05:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

At the risk of stating the obvious:  Russert sucks

by Ms Bluezone 2008-02-26 05:28PM | 0 recs
Hillary Won

There was so little audience participation (which has always helped Obama) and so many polite, nuanced  nudges from Hillary to Obama on why they are so different, that Hillary won.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-26 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Won

I have got to disagree. I think Obama pulled off looking WAY better than Clinton especially at the beginning. All the crowds reactions (as few as they were) were from something Obama said.

by Pickcorrectly 2008-02-26 05:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Do Obama's myriad irresponsible present votes count toward those he could take back?

by arkansasdemocrat 2008-02-26 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

The moderators had a stranglehold on this debate. They are showcasing themselves and not the candidates. They wanted a gotcha moment and they robbed the American people.

by LadyEagle 2008-02-26 05:28PM | 0 recs
A question for Tim Russert

If all the viewers today decided that you were an idiot and asked MSNBC to fire you, what would you do?

by praxis1 2008-02-26 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: A question for Tim Russert

Show them a graphic

by gil 2008-02-26 05:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Sigh. This is a tiny, tiny, tiny point. But Obama was not a law professor. He was a lecturer. Colloquially, yes. But in the university setting, he was not.

by OrangeFur 2008-02-26 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

I was botherd by that, too. It's not tiny. It tells you a lot about his self-esteem.

by praxis1 2008-02-26 05:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

I agree that no lecturer would ever call him/herself a professor at a faculty meeting, or sign a recommendation letter using the term professor. It is giving yourself a promotion, in a way.

by OrangeFur 2008-02-26 05:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Sure. But a student would still call him professor and, to the general public, it is a meaningless distinction.

by mainelib 2008-02-26 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Is it NOT over? He just gave an ending statement. How weird!

by praxis1 2008-02-26 05:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Obama is such a sleaze...His closing statement is a completely tacky thing. "Maybe more" contests...

Usually you don't give someone's damned obituary when they are SITTING RIGHT NEXT TO YOU! Asshole. I hope she beats expectations and beats his pants off next week in Texas and Ohio.

by arkansasdemocrat 2008-02-26 05:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Obama is making a pitch for Hillary as VP.

by NJIndependent 2008-02-26 05:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Obama hijacks a question and gives a closing argument. Then Williams asks him to give another closing statement.

And by the way, he honors Hillary Clinton. And John McCain. And Hillary Clinton. He's unique. A short bio. More uniqueness.

Between this answer and his closing statement, earlier, I think it's been ten minutes straight of Obama.

by OrangeFur 2008-02-26 05:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

I miss debate clocks.

by LandStander 2008-02-26 05:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

No home run for Clinton = Obama momentum continues.  This debate looked a lot like all the others, except for the increased Tim-Russert-dick factor.  Status quo is maintained, I think

by Ms Bluezone 2008-02-26 05:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

I agree, mostly because debates hardly ever change anything, unless they're completely one-sided, like the first Kerry-Bush debate. And even that wasn't enough in the end.

by OrangeFur 2008-02-26 05:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

i just wanted to be the 259th person to state that Russert sucks.

by alex100 2008-02-26 05:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

amen

by sepulvedaj3 2008-02-26 05:38PM | 0 recs
Without a crowd

Obama looks weak. Hillary is crushing him, and she's a girl. John McCain can really unload on him--he won't have to worry about appearing unladylike in front of the boys.

by Upstate Dem 2008-02-26 05:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Without a crowd

Um.... why did he look weak?

Post examples please...

Personally I think his debate strategy was perfect. He didn't let Hillary score any real points and didn't make any mistakes his own.

by JDF 2008-02-26 05:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Without a crowd
He basically repeated her answers without adding anything new.  She confronted Russert on his obvious bullshit while Obama seemed to be looking for a pat on the head.  Her answers contained a wealth of detail and foreshadowed a President who would have mastery over her office rather than one who would always be on the lookout for someone to compromise with.  Her general demeanor
projected strength, particularly on the crucial foreign policy questions that will determine the winner of a race with McCain.  She simply looked far more up to the job than he did.
by Upstate Dem 2008-02-26 05:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Without a crowd

that doesn't really matter at this point. Most people are going to talk about the reject/denounce line.

horrible moderation.

by alex100 2008-02-26 05:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Without a crowd

"and she's a girl"?!?!?!

Care to explain that or are you just trolling?

by gil 2008-02-26 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Without a crowd

Men can be as nasty as they wanna be.  For the Tweetys of the world it makes them look tough.

by Upstate Dem 2008-02-26 05:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

He ALWAYS tries to help her get out of her chair.. every fricken time. Anyone else notice that?

by devoted1 2008-02-26 05:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

After the crap about the "snub" he pretty much has to do anything polite.

by Socraticsilence 2008-02-26 05:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

It's called being a gentleman. Sorry if you haven't had experience with it.

by EMTP democrat 2008-02-26 05:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

I noticed it for the first time after the Snub. Not sure if he did it before that. I couldn't care less either way.

by OrangeFur 2008-02-26 05:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Its a show of power. I'm sure you already knew that.

by devoted1 2008-02-26 07:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

She crushed him on healthcare and she actually won the Iraq debate if the websites are any indication.

by americanincanada 2008-02-26 05:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Well, Mr. Beeton, how about it?  Jonathan is pretty disgusted by Hillary's attempt to paint Obama as anti-Semitic.  

How do you defend her actions?  This is gutter politics.

by leveller 2008-02-26 05:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

She was hardly doing that. She was pointing out what she did differently in a similar situation. it may not resonate with you but there are those for whom it will.

by americanincanada 2008-02-26 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Look, I support Obama and I find no merit to your charge.  It's not clear if she was trying to support Obama or appear more enthusiastic in her denunciation of hate groups.  Eithe way, she was not implying that Obama was anti-Semitic.

by rfahey22 2008-02-26 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Did you even hear what she said? She said that she was endorsed by people she though were hateful and not only did she "denounce" their words as Obama said he's done, but she "rejected" their support, as Obama said he can't. It's really easy to reject someone's support. You say, "I reject Farrakhan's endorsement of me, because his support symbolically or no is not the kind of support I want."

by bowiegeek 2008-02-26 05:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

"Jonathan is pretty disgusted by Hillary's attempt to paint Obama as anti-Semitic.  
How do you defend her actions?"

I had the exact opposite reaction to her pushing him on categorically rejecting the Farrakhan endorsement (note: my background is half Jewish, and this has been an issue for me). Her campaign here in NY has many people in it who have pointedly rejected Obama specifically because of his history of contact with Farrakhan which gives the appearance of tacit acceptance of his views, regardless of what Obama called his "denunciation" of him. This is specific feedback that his campaign supporters will not give him, because they are not in his campaign. It is a huge deal to some people, who can be extremely vocal and organized if they want to be. Quite a few articles have been written about this issue, because there are those in the Jewish community who do not trust Obama due to this Farrakhan connection. It is a political time bomb.

Hillary actually pushed him into outright public rejection of that Farrakhan endorsement, which may be to his long term benefit , and to the Democratic Party's benefit. The party leaders cannot be seen as soft on anti-semitism, it won't fly. Obama appeared to me to be hedging and refusing to reject that endorsement when asked to, and I could easily see that hedging blossoming into an ugly and divisive fissure in the party in the future.

There is a point where if Barack Obama want to be the nominee for president his views are no longer entirely his own to determine - he becomes the head of the Democratic Party, and must reflect basic core values without compromise or weaseling out. We have many Democratic elected officials who's seats also depend on their constituents feeling comfortable and trusting in the Democratic Party commitment to equality, and condemnation of anti-semitism. That is not to say there is not room for vigorous disagreement between party members and our standard bearer on other issues, but on some issues we must remain strongly united.

There is no reason to be soft on anti-semitism, or to think it can be coddled in a endorser. If someone was being equivocal about rejecting a white supremacist's endorsement it could not help but backfire.

There should be no question on Barack Obama's stand on Farrakhan, there is much too much rumbling going on in the background about his relationship with him. He may be glad in the end to have rejected that endorsement publicly. It was a trap set for him that he did not escape on his own when it was sprung on him, so going that extra mile to "reject" the endorsement was valuable.

That was my sincere impression of that very awkward and unfortunate exchange. Personally, I would have liked to swat him for refusing to publicly reject Farrakhan's endorsement. It was unacceptable to me, and his not "getting it" seemed very out of touch.

by 07rescue 2008-02-26 07:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Interestingly enough, the same applies to many in the LGBT community who were throughly elicit in their condemnation of Obama for his choice to lead his Southern march into Virginia- the gay-hating mongering Donnie McClurkin.

He is much to intelligent a man to not understand the implications of his actions. This is precisely what has substantially altered my ability to absorb the Obamamania.

He acts incredibly side-ways for someone preaching to act independent of the so-called "establishment".

by devoted1 2008-02-26 07:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Thanks for a great, detailed, well-reasoned response.  I can see your points, definitely.

by leveller 2008-02-27 05:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Do any of you actually think that IF it is Obama vs. McCain - that Obama can convince the media once again that experience doesn't matter?

by devoted1 2008-02-26 05:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Yes.

Because McCain is an awful debater.

I watched most of the GOP debates.  He comes across as angry and somewhat hot-tempered... even irrational.

by zonk 2008-02-26 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

You use the term "experience" as if it means a single thing.  Well, neither McCain nor Obama has experience being president.  Moreover, sometimes people have the wrong kind of experience, such as being the waterboy for a terrible president.  McCain is one such example.

by rfahey22 2008-02-26 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Agreed.

Well, lets hope that the Democratic nominee will be able to define "experience" better than the way the Repigs will. Our nominee will have to frame a solid response to the question on our response to global terrorism (which McCain will use his "experience" as a strength).

by devoted1 2008-02-26 05:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Agreed.

by rfahey22 2008-02-26 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

If the debate is held after 7pm Eastern time.

Senator McCain gets cranky if he's up past his bedtime.

Seriously, he looked terrible and tired at the GOP debates.

by mijita 2008-02-26 05:52PM | 0 recs
Jonathan Singer and Josh Marshall

I urge you to immediately take back your insinuations that Hillary Clinton was accusing Barack Obama of being insufficiently hostile towards anti-Semitism.

If there's one thing this campaign doesn't need any more of, it's overheated, irresponsible accusations of race-baiting or religion-baiting. Enough already.

The way Josh Marshall phrased it (via Breaking Blue, above) is especially noxious and deserving of wholesale contempt.

by OrangeFur 2008-02-26 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Singer and Josh Marshall

So Hillary can make those insinuations, but we're not allowed to address them?

Quite frankly, what she did there made me sick. Especially since it looked like she was going to chime in and back up Barack much like Barack did for Biden in the Des Moines debate, but she used it to score some cheap points.

by animated 2008-02-26 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Singer and Josh Marshall

She didn't insinuate it. If she said anything critical, it was that sometimes you have to be really forceful about this. Obama makes a similar point when he says you can't just talk about lobbyists, you have to not take their money too.

Somehow I don't think you were going to look too kindly on her no matter what she said.

by OrangeFur 2008-02-26 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Singer and Josh Marshall

Here's the bottom line for me:

When it comes to sensitive, racial, potentially divisive issues like this, there's no reason at all for another Democrat to even attempt to impugn one of their opponents on it, let alone the potential Democratic nominee.

There is no reason, from his past actions, or from his statements tonight, to think that Obama supports Farrakhan.

When Hillary began to speak, I thought she was going to do what Barack did when Biden's words were questioned in that earlier debate. Instead, she took a cheap shot that was divisive, damaging to our possible nominee, unfounded in fact and didn't really speak well of her.

by animated 2008-02-26 05:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Singer and Josh Marshall

Who said Obama supports Farrakhan? That is complete bs. Listen to what she said: She was in the same situation as he and not only did she denounce the speech of the people in question, she rejected their support. Why is it wrong to say that it's good to explicitly reject Farrakhan's endorsement?

by bowiegeek 2008-02-26 05:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Singer and Josh Marshall

Dude. She was clearly trying to note a difference - she "rejected" her anti-Semitic supporters, and Barack merely "denounced" his. Coupled with the Muslim e-mails, the "native garb" smear, and the mere fact that an AA candidate has to go out of his way to denounce Farrakhan while no one asks McCain about Trent Lott, or George Allen's support - it was an attempt on her part to capitalize. Please look at this rationally.

by amiches 2008-02-26 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Singer and Josh Marshall

Let's not get started about insinuating that one's opponents are race-baiting. I'd start typing and not stop for a while.

She didn't suggest Obama supports Farrakhan. If she was criticizing him at all, she was saying, look I know you didn't want his support. Go all the way and say you reject it, even if it ruffles some feathers among Farrakhan's supporters.

by OrangeFur 2008-02-26 05:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Singer and Josh Marshall

The extent or focus of her criticism is beside the point. There was no need for her to say anything, except to stand up for a fellow Democrat, her party's likely nominee, on such a sensitive issue. It wasn't even her turn to speak. She spoke up solely because she apparently thought she could somehow score points on this, and that is objectionable to me.

by animated 2008-02-26 06:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Singer and Josh Marshall

She said he wasn't strong enough in his negative response.  

by mainelib 2008-02-26 06:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Singer and Josh Marshall

She said he can "reject" the endorsement rather than simply having a history of denouncing his words.

by bowiegeek 2008-02-26 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Singer and Josh Marshall

A distinction without a difference as Obama showed.

by animated 2008-02-26 06:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Singer and Josh Marshall

No, he changed the subject. The question was not about whether denouncing or rejecting was the right word. The question was whether simply denouncing words in the past was satisfactory, or rejecting a recent endorsement was better.

by bowiegeek 2008-02-26 06:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Singer and Josh Marshall

Yeah, but Farrakhan didn't endorse Obama.

by animated 2008-02-26 06:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Singer and Josh Marshall

Yes he did. Endorsing isn't simply the act of saying "I endorse..."

by bowiegeek 2008-02-26 06:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Singer and Josh Marshall

And was it really necessary? On such a sensitive issue where Barack already gave a fine response? The only reason she spoke up was because she thought she could score points on it.

I don't know. I'm with Singer on this - it disgusted me.

by animated 2008-02-26 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Singer and Josh Marshall

I guess I don't think of the issue as that sensitive. Nobody seriously thinks Obama supports Farrakhan or any of his anti-Semitism, nor do I think she was suggesting in any way that he did.

by OrangeFur 2008-02-26 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Singer and Josh Marshall

Not sensitive? Really? My experience is that I see HRC supporters posting on supposed ties between Obama and Farrakhan on this site. I hear that Clinton staffers are trying to raise doubts about Obama's commitment to the Jewish community.

And then I see that even further out there, people are floating these ideas that Obama is a secret Muslim or some other BS, with some of them even making death threats. It's all fear-mongering BS, which is why it would have been great to see Hillary herself put an end to the nonsense by making a strong statement of support (on the Jewish issue). But nope, she had to try to stick the knife in instead.

by animated 2008-02-26 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Singer and Josh Marshall

I don't see that as much as you do, apparently. I've never heard it discussed as even a tiny factor in any analysis of the campaign.

I have to say, Obama certainly took his time in tamping down the wildfire criticisms of race-baiting earlier this year.

by OrangeFur 2008-02-26 06:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Singer and Josh Marshall

"There is no reason, from his past actions, or from his statements tonight, to think that Obama supports Farrakhan."

There are many Democrats in my acquaintance who feel very differently, and do not trust Obama at all because of his history of contacts with Farrakhan.

Hillary would have been attacked by many of her constituents for not nailing him on this issue. It would have been one of those times when "inaction can be as bad as action." It was important and meaningful to me that she did so, and I was very happy to see Obama publicly reject Farrakhan's endorsement. I was totally creeped out by Obama's appearance of refusing to reject it outright. It would have been much better if he had not been embarrassed into doing it, but he did finally back down and say what needed to be said. Had he refused to, and insisted on hedging his position, it would have created immense problems in the party in the future.

by 07rescue 2008-02-26 07:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Singer and Josh Marshall

Don't waste your breath. This is has been the MO of the Obama blogosphere since the campaign started.

Wonderful strategy for his campaign. The candidate stays above the fray while benefiting fully from the divisive, racist, and sexist tactics of his supporters.

How unfortunate for him and his supporters that no one will care when the GE starts. Right now the blogosphere looks important given his string of victories. But that is based on the media lying low until the General. His blogosphere support will mean nothing to the General Public.

I still believe that she will pull it out. But if she doesn't, a real evil part of me will love watching the take down that's coming.

(Given McCain's increasing erratic nature, Obama will pull it off. But it will be without the mandate he craves after months of press sliming. He's not USED to it. Wild adulation from his supporters doesn't help.)

by cath 2008-02-26 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Singer and Josh Marshall

Wow, really positive outlook you got going there.

by dmc2 2008-02-26 06:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Singer and Josh Marshall

"I urge you to immediately take back your insinuations that Hillary Clinton was accusing Barack Obama of being insufficiently hostile towards anti-Semitism."

As a Jewish liberal Democrat, I thought what Jon Singer said was beyond belief. Where in the hell do you come up with this crap? Hillary made an excellent point about condemnation vs. rejection and Obama was forced to concede the point. You don't just accept all the nice things Farrakhan said about Obama and simply fall back on a previous statement condemning his anti-Semitism, you should reject him outright.

by Nobama 2008-02-26 06:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Singer and Josh Marshall

"As a Jewish liberal Democrat, I thought what Jon Singer said was beyond belief"

I agree completely, and I am proud of Hillary for standing up for the right thing, even when it would have been easier to just let Obama hang himself.

Obama refused to reject the grotesquely homophobic Donnie McClurkin, also.

by 07rescue 2008-02-26 09:31PM | 0 recs
I'm still

not 100% sold that Clinton was trying to use the Farrakhan question to her advantage -- but I'm definitely thinking I just missed it.  Most everyone else seems to disagree with me.  

I thought Clinton didn't do very well with her SNL whine.  Not saying she doesn't have a point, just saying that it came off as a whine.  

I thought she did well on NAFTA.

I thought Obama was his usual solid self on Iraq - and also some good answers on Pakistan/foreign policy.

I thought he missed a bit on the public financing question.

This is the first time I think Obama technically "won" a debate - even beyond point spreads - but just because I thought Clinton's lines of attack fell completely flat.

by zonk 2008-02-26 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm still

She pointed out the fact that she got the first question a LOT is not to impress the audience. It is to warn Brian Williams and Tim Russert. It worked fine. I like that she tamed them.

by praxis1 2008-02-26 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm still

I agree with you. Had Russert not followed up, it would have been left at that and nobody would have thought twice about it.

If she was being critical of Obama, she simply was chiding him for not going all the way in condemning Farrakhan. He hesitated just a little when Russert/Williams asked him if he would reject his support. There's a far cry from that and her saying that Obama actually agrees with Farrakhan.

It's a lot like when they talk about special interests. Both talk about how much influence they have. Then Obama says, well, you take their money. Is he implying that Clinton thinks lobbyists should be declared saints and will do whatever the lobbyists tell her? No, just that she should go further and cut them off altogether.

Of all the things that have irritated me this campaign, the casual and reckless throwing of charges of racism and race-baiting have annoyed me the most by far.

by OrangeFur 2008-02-26 05:53PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm still

How about the equally idiotic charges of sexism? Oh, that's different...

by amiches 2008-02-26 06:07PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm still

False charges of sexism are wrong, too. I don't think there have been as many of them.

But the truth is that racism is a much more serious charge in our culture than sexism. Racism ends your career in public life, and you're never forgiven for it. And appropriately so. People are forgiven for sexism much more easily.

I'm not saying that's the way it should be, but that's the way it is.

by OrangeFur 2008-02-26 06:14PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm still

The entirety (the diaries, at least) of MyDD these days is basically a claim that Obama, his campaign, the mainstream media, and Obama supporters are sexist, and that is why Hillary is losing the election. I look forward to seeing you denounce those claims.

On the other hand, it is curious that a black guy is asked to denounce Farrakhan's "support", but McCain hasn't, and likely never will be asked to denounce George Allen's, or Trent Lott's. Again, this is an argument for the GE, but primary opponents shouldn't be throwing the nuclear grenades of racism and sexism at each other without very, very good reason.

by amiches 2008-02-26 06:24PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm still

Denouncing and condemning is the same thing!

by mainelib 2008-02-26 06:24PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm still

It sounded to me like Obama hesitated at first when asked if he would reject Farrakhan's support. (Maybe it was the audio dropping out.) He then said he couldn't stop someone from saying that he's a good guy.

Hillary, responding to a followup from Russert, simply said you need to go further than that. So he did.

by OrangeFur 2008-02-26 06:28PM | 0 recs
I think Hillary won again

Obama was extremely boring, I am puzzled why people think he is an inspirational speaker

by WeNeed3rdParty 2008-02-26 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: I think Hillary won again

You would need to know the difference between inspiration and emotionalism.

by ImpeachBushCheney 2008-02-26 05:47PM | 0 recs
Re: I think Hillary won again

If you want an inspirational speech, go his site and watch his speeches

If you want to hear him be a wonk, watch him be specific in a debate or read his policy positions

by gil 2008-02-26 05:52PM | 0 recs
Re: I think Hillary won again

Obama's answer to the Hillary "sarcasm speech" was boring and flat... I wanted him to push back harder.  

After that?  He did great.  It seemed like he got easier questions.

Let's all trust the people and the process to decide who's ready to be president.  

by Cloudspitter 2008-02-26 05:57PM | 0 recs
Re: I think Hillary won again

His job in this debate was to show that he can do more than give an inspiring speech.  He did that. He handled policy details in a clear and direct way and demonstrated that he is most certainly not all fluff, all hat/no cattle.

by mainelib 2008-02-26 06:26PM | 0 recs
Re: I think Hillary won again
actually he demonstrated NO cattle:
every time he attempted to give details it was obvious that he does not know specifics and he demonstrated no cattle. Hillary on other hand was specific every time she needs too. The difference was very clear: she is qualified and he does not.
by WeNeed3rdParty 2008-02-27 01:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Hillary's problem is that most people don't cast their vote after a sober and rational analysis of policy points.  Most voters shoot from the gut, and it really boils down to which candidate you'd rather have for an uncle (or an aunt).  And when that is the dynamic, she loses.  Obama is simply a more attractive personality.  Shallow and insipid that may be, but it's worth a lot at the ballot box.  Ask Reagan.

by global yokel 2008-02-26 05:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

or George W.

by devoted1 2008-02-26 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Or in all Honesty Bill Clinton.

by Socraticsilence 2008-02-26 05:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Except that the country actually IMPROVED during the Clinton years.

by devoted1 2008-02-26 05:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

What's your point?  Are you commenting from the future, after the next presidential administration?

by rfahey22 2008-02-26 05:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Yeah, remember when George Bush put himself through Columbia and was elected president of the Harvard Law Review and taught Constituional Law at the University of Chicago....

Please. Give it up.

by BlueinColorado 2008-02-26 06:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Come on!

What answer did he give that was shallow and insipid?  

by mainelib 2008-02-26 06:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

CNN is better right now.

by americanincanada 2008-02-26 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

by molly bloom 2008-02-26 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Obama won folks. Hillary Clinton needed to win this, and she didn't even tie it.

by mecarr 2008-02-26 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Does announcing your candidate as a winner makes your candidate a winner?

by praxis1 2008-02-26 05:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

No...it doesn't. Clinton clearly won.

by americanincanada 2008-02-26 05:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

That was a great bit of satire there my man, No it doesn't... do the exact same thing yourself, good times, good times.

by Socraticsilence 2008-02-26 05:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

That's either great sarcasm or unintentional irony.

by rfahey22 2008-02-26 05:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Of course not. I'm just saying what I think as an objective observer. Even as an Obama supporter, I can tell when Obama has a poor night and it just didn't happen tonight.

by mecarr 2008-02-26 05:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

I really don't think any of us is a truly objective observer. But your opinion is still worthwhile.

by OrangeFur 2008-02-26 05:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Well, pay better attention. He had a poor night. Always getting the second answer let's him just keep saying, "me too."

If Hillary's judgement is so bad then why was he saying, Clinton is right, so often tonight?

by americanincanada 2008-02-26 05:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

I'm wondering if you've ever said one thing negative about Hillary CLinton or have ever once criticized anything that she or her campaign has done. I'm not criticizing you but instead offering a piece of advice: if you want to be taken seriously, show an ounce of objectivity every now and then.

by mecarr 2008-02-26 05:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Please don't give me any advice on how to support my preferred candidate. I don't always post here, I post many places. there are things about which I disagree with Hillary. However, she is the better candidate and I will back her in the way I feel is best for me.

Do you say bad things about Obama? How often?

by americanincanada 2008-02-26 06:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

That was some sure defensive

by inexile 2008-02-26 06:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

As a Clinton supporter, I will say that it seemed she had a better night. However, Obama didn't do bad. I don't believe it was his goal was to "win". His aim was to just not make a mistake - and he succeeded. With the moderators allowing him to filibuster the whole time, it wasn't a very tall task.

by devoted1 2008-02-26 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

This has got to stop. The first question went like ten minutes over because they let Hillary talk at length. Barack got interrupted in the question about the recent speeches. The moderation sucked but it didn't benefit either candidate and the face time for each was about even.

by amiches 2008-02-26 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

So can you honestly say that the media (in general) has treated each candidate equally? Do you believe that MSNBC, specifically, has been fair?

by devoted1 2008-02-26 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Well, no, not really, I don't think it's been substantively unfair, and Chris Matthews anecdotes don't prove a general point. But don't change the subject. I'm talking about the debate. Roughly equal amounts of talk time, both candidates interrupted by terrible moderation. This was not a skewed debate.

by amiches 2008-02-26 06:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Actually, this was brilliant.  Clinton needed to sharpen the differences between them and Obama prevented her from doing that -- except in issues where he had a clear advantage, such as NAFTA and Iraq.

by mainelib 2008-02-26 06:28PM | 0 recs
Of this I am sure...

HILLARY WON.

by Scan 2008-02-26 05:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

OBAMA WON.

by mecarr 2008-02-26 05:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

TIM RUSSERT'S GIGANTIC HEAD WON.

by rfahey22 2008-02-26 06:03PM | 0 recs
no questions on education?

these motherfukkers (sorry for language but I am jut livid) wspent god knows how long on farrakhan, and improbable foreign policy scenarios out of a badclancy novel, but couldn't ask a question about one of our nations greatest liabilities????  

by highgrade 2008-02-26 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: no questions on education?

did you miss ALL 19 of the previous debates?

by fightinfilipino 2008-02-26 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: no questions on education?

I would have really liked to see that focus, but O and C are just not substantively that different enough on education to have a decent debate, especially right now.  They would have just tripped over themselves saying that NCLB isn't good enough and that our kids need music and art and science too... wouldn't have gone anywhere.  

We'll see the Dem contender match up (and hopefully embarrass) McCain on the issue.

by Cloudspitter 2008-02-26 06:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

MyDD lost its marbles.

by fightinfilipino 2008-02-26 06:04PM | 0 recs
Repeat after me

President Barack Obama.

Yep, that's pretty much it.

McCain is going to have his clock cleaned, no doubt about it. Obama projected a presidential air all night.

by Walt Starr 2008-02-26 06:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

"Of course while Clinton may have looked more confident and more presidential, several of her lines didn't really work, and Obama's taking the high road may have come off better ultimately."

I'm really wondering which debate you were watching.  I've always thought that Hillary has done better in the debates... I've certainly never thought she did poorly.

Tonight, I really thought she did, at least through the first half of the debate.  She didn't seem presidential to me at all, but rather just shouting the whole time.

I realize not everyone thinks the same thing and this will just come off as my pro-Obama bias, but again, I've never thought she came off poorly in a debate, and I really thought she did tonight.

by leshrac55 2008-02-26 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

I agree. The fraying around the edges was showing. But, everyone brings their own bias to these things and I'm sure we all thought our own candidate won.

by animated 2008-02-26 06:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Agree on the bias, except that it didn't seem to sway my opinion on the earlier debates I watched.  I thought she did quite well in the last debate (except for her silly "xerox" comment), and even more so in the debates before.

I honestly felt embarrassed for her during the first half of the debate... I really thought it was that bad.  Then again, Pat Buchanan just said that he thought that she was "winning" in the first half, so who knows.

by leshrac55 2008-02-26 06:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

They both did well, but more importantly, I think think they are dog tired and are just ready for this to be over. No one expected this to dragon this long.

by LadyEagle 2008-02-26 06:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

This whole thing is a sham.  McCain will win because America is still racist in many ways.  We are receiving false hope from the dem primary.  Because us as dems are multicultural and excepting of everyone.  But when we look at the GOP and the rest of the nation the ignorance and stubbornance is apparent.  I have come to the conclusion that a woman will NEVER be elected as a president of these United States.  Nat Turner  could vote back in the late 1800's while it took the Woman Suffrage of the early 1900's for the simple right to vote.  Our only hope for a Obama candidacy is that we go into a recession, (unfortunately) more casualties in Iraq and greater sense of disparity in our Nation.  For example take a look at the two battleground states of OHIO and FLORIDA, these two states WILL decide this election.  BOTH STATES HAVE NOT GONE BLUE IN A G.E IN THE PAST 2 ELECTION CYCLES why will this change now with a A.A or White woman candidate?  I just don't see it.  God bless yall, and Todd, Hillary was not trying to make Obama to appear be anti-semitic by know means.  PEACE ON EARTH...

by nzubechukwu 2008-02-26 06:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Whoever won  the debate during the debate hardly matters.  Olbermann and Tweety are working hard to clean up after Obama and make sure he won in the after game.  I finally had to turn it off.  My God what crap.

by dhonig 2008-02-26 07:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

dhonig to further prove your point Olberman and Matthews were having a feast on the fact that HRC regretted her Iraq vote.  And when you go over to the ticker at cnn.com they are bashing Clinton over nothing.  

by nzubechukwu 2008-02-26 07:16PM | 0 recs
Re: A Jew on Farrakhan

"As an American Jew I am disturbed that Obama chooses to attend Rev. Wright's church. He should stay far away from it and from Rev. Wright.  Hillary was right.  I wish she had stated this more effectively."

I agree completely with your discomfort with Obama's connections with Rev Wright"a church and what appears to me to have been past tacit acceptance of Farrakhan's views. I also needed him to make a strong and unequivocal statement on rejecting Farrakhan's endorsement, and I am very glad Hillary virtually forced him to do so in public and on the record. It was a meaningful difference, not immaterial as Obama maintained.

I know that many party leaders have threatened Hillary not to attack Obama substantially enough to hurt his chances in the GE, so I believe she pushed him by making an example of what she wanted him to do, rather than beat him over the head with this issue. She practically passed him a note under the desk (metaphorically) saying, "Wake up, you are committing a huge gaffe right now", and I think she saved his butt, being as diplomatic as she could be about it, with no time to prepare.

by 07rescue 2008-02-26 07:46PM | 0 recs
Mutual support?

It was an interesting atmosphere, with Russert playing a crude and relentless game of "gotcha" with both candidates. I often spotted each candidate carefully watch the other field a "gotcha" question with a hopeful and approving expression. They both know it's close to over, and neither one wants to see the Democratic nominee feed any ammo to McCain.

by Mark Wallace 2008-02-26 09:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Mutual support?

"It was an interesting atmosphere, with Russert playing a crude and relentless game of "gotcha" with both candidates. I often spotted each candidate carefully watch the other field a "gotcha" question with a hopeful and approving expression."

I agree that it was a curious debate, and both pulled their punches, while I know Hillary sincerely disagrees with Obama, and my sense is that she genuinely thinks he is not prepared. He will need more support to pull off the presidency than any party can give. I completely agree with her for trying to prevent his getting the office, and I believe that had he the patience and maturity to wait for another 8 years he would have a much better presidency bringing much more wisdom and skills to the position, as well as a better shot at actually being elected.

Honestly, I thought Russert was doing his job as a journalist rather well. One of the signs of a good journalist is that both sides end up hating you at the end of the interview. Journalists are not supposed to ask softball questions, they are supposed to hold people's feet to the fire in these candidate debates. If a journalist is winning a popularity contest he likely isn't doing his job well. He did his best to get to them, and as obnoxious as it may have sounded, he tried to pin them down. Voters deserve to know where candidates are coming from, and how they will perform under pressure, so Russert was performing a public service, and it took guts to do that. He knew he would be disliked for it.

by 07rescue 2008-02-26 10:02PM | 0 recs
The company that you keep...

bambi sure does associate himself with some mighty divisive people. what is it they say about the company that you keep?

yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2008/02/barak-ob ama-and-his-mentor-jeremiah.html
illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisrevie w/2008/01/obama-feels-the.html
w w w.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59 887

by Levon 2008-02-26 09:09PM | 0 recs
Re: A Jew on Farrakhan

At one point in the debate, obama claimed that he would not tolerate anti-Semitism. If that's the case, wouldn't he need to denounce/reject his mentor and pastor Jeremiah Wright, along with his church? Wright has praised Farrakhan with gems like this: "He brings a perspective that is helpful and honest," Wright said. "Minister Farrakhan will be remembered as one of the 20th and 21st century giants of the African-American religious experience." and this: "His integrity and honesty have secured him a place in history as one of the nation's most powerful critics," he continued. "His love for Africa and African-American people has made him an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose."

His continued relationship with his pastor and church indicates he's been tolerant of this support of Farrakhan and his ideals.

by Levon 2008-02-26 09:11PM | 0 recs
Re: A Jew on Farrakhan

A lot of other consideration goes into choosing a church beyond the pastor or even the denomination.

It also occurs to me, a complete outsider on this subject (I am both white and completely non-religious,) that from an African-American Pastor's point of view there is a great deal more to Farrakhan than his anti-semetic views. I am not willing to throw Obama under the bus because his pastor happens to respect and admire Farrakhan (and I thought it was ridiculous that Hillary attacked Obama for not rejecting Farrakhan after he used the word denounce. I have the distinct feeling that if he had used the word reject she would have made the same attack and said "You should denounce him, Barack.")

by JDF 2008-02-27 07:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

Are we really going to talk about associations with "divisive people" and not mention Hillary?

You mention her name and the room splits in half, no matter what room you are in.  Obama is not hated as much as Hillary is.  And I'm not saying she deserves it, but she IS a polarizing figure.  How is that good for the country?

by shoeshine boy 2008-02-26 09:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread

"I'm not saying she deserves it, but she IS a polarizing figure.  "

Hillary is considered "divisive" because she has been demonized for the past 20 years by the right wing, who have told lies about her over and over and over until the lies cannot be easily undone. Democrats should have stood up long ago to that right wing demonization, but they didn't. It always blows me away when Democrats then call her "polarizing" instead of backing her up. Obama using it against her is one of the most unfair and unjust maneuverings I have ever seen.

by 07rescue 2008-02-26 09:39PM | 0 recs
My Honest Assessment

From the comfort of my home, I watched the replay of the debate in it's entirety, but didn't watch the talking heads or spinners at the end.

My first observation is that we are damned lucky to have two integrity laden and intelligent candidates.  EITHER are worthy opponents to McCain, and either will make a fine President.  It filled me with pride to hear repsonses from both candidates (most of the time...there were a coiuple clunkers) as they clearly have a firm hold on reality and solutions.

Secondly, by points you could make the agrument either way that a given canidate out-perfomred the other.  Hillary won on heathcare, Barack on Iraq. On connecting with voters and broadcasting a sense of Presidential confidence and class, I give Obama the edge.  Don't get me wrong, Hillary had her moments (refuting the African garb picture, etc.)...but given his momentum and the dynamics of the race to date (delegate lead, polls) Obama had the luxury of being able to be graciously above the fray, while HRC simply HAD to attack and "fight".  The Luois Farakahn moment was a very good one for Obama, and Hillary's mystifying use on the SNL skit and complaining about taking the first question did her no favors.

Thirdly...Hillary did NOT force an error that will undo the dynamics of the race.  To her credit, she did not try to manufacture one either.  

This morning, the talking heads seem to be mostly calling it a draw or a slight Obama win, presumably for the reasons I outline above. This means that if trends hold or unless some sort of tragedy befalls Obama, there is no way that HRC can get the 20+ point wins she needs to remain a vialble candidate.

I applaud BOTH their preformances, though.

by a gunslinger 2008-02-27 05:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Second Debate Thread
Americans who're interested in making an informed decision regarding these two Senators should check out the following links.
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_ wings/2008/02/obama-actually.html and http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_ wings/2008/02/all-the-rest.html and http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_ wings/2008/02/solutions-adden.html
by Texasforobama 2008-02-27 07:56AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads