Obama's Poor Debate Performance

The New York and Lost Angeles Times in reports released hot off the press this morning that Obama was squarely on the defensive during much of last night's debate, in what is being labeled as one of his poorest showings in this Presidential campaign. Obama consitendly was parrying questions and criticism on issues including values, patriotism and his association with onetime radicals from the 1960s.

He at times appeared annoyed as he sought to answer questions about his former pastor, his reluctance to wear an American flag pin on his lapel and his association in Chicago with former members of the Weather Underground, a radical group that carried out bombings in the 1960s that were intended to incite the overthrow of the government.

Mrs Clinton for the most part appeared calm and in control during most of the debate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/us/pol itics/17debate.html?em&ex=1208577600 &en=5b0ead7db2f73f5e&ei=5087%0A
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition /front/la-na-debate17apr17,1,1222469.sto ry

Tags: Debate, obama, pundits (all tags)



Re: Obama's Poor Debate Performance

Clinton acted like a petulant child and continued to insult african-americans.


by CaptMorgan 2008-04-17 03:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Poor Debate Performance

How exactly did she insult African-Americans? And how did she insult them in the first place? By "continued" you implied this started before the debate ...

by VAAlex 2008-04-17 05:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Poor Debate Performance

I thought the flag pin thing was the stupidest "scandal" ever until the mass hysteria over his bitter comments.

There are tons of politicians that don't feel obligated to wear a silly little pin to "prove" their patriotism.  Only Obama gets singled out, because the media is determined to paint him as some radical America-hater.  And Clinton supporters buy right into it.

by Skaje 2008-04-17 03:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Poor Debate Performance

Yes, I agree with you.  However, the thousands of politicans you reference...are not running for the office of President of the United States of America.

by TxDem08 2008-04-17 03:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Poor Debate Performance

Ahh, so, in this case, it's important to have a debate about flag-pin wearing.

by ragekage 2008-04-17 04:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Poor Debate Performance

Big fucking deal, Tex.  How many people wore flag pins after 9?11 and now do not?  Most of them.  

You could do well to go read a thing or two by John Adams about Patriotism.  

Patriotism is standing up for your country, serving it, fighting to preserve its ideals of civil liberty and freedom.  It's about being a citizen.  

Obama has done that through community organization, public service, and teaching.

Who the hell demands that our politicians wear flag pins?  

This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.  

by LarsThorwald 2008-04-17 04:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Poor Debate Performance

It's goofy as hell to believe that wearing a little mini-flag on your collar makes you patriotic.  The fact that this is even an issue just shows that the talk radio wingers have been successful in this line of attack.  Democrats and progressives should push back at every opportunity against such rightwing BS.

by Skaje 2008-04-17 04:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Poor Debate Performance

I wonder how many were wearing flag pins while voting for this war.

by freedom78 2008-04-17 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Poor Debate Performance

I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure there were no flag pins present at all last night, either on Obama, Clinton, Steph or Gibson.

Hell, the lady asking the question on the video wasn't even wearing one.

So what the fuck is your point?

by bawbie 2008-04-17 04:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Poor Debate Performance

Hey Listen, I know your upset because Obama looked bad last night, but the facts are what they are. That was a fair question posed to him and he failed to answer it appropriately. Doesn't it seem a bit peculiar that he refused to wear the flag pin for all this time, and only did so because he had heard it was creating such a flack. In fact he said last night that some supporter at a rally handed him that pin and he put it on. This doesn't bode well for him at all, especially when you beat around the bush about patriotism. What are his ties to the radical religious groups, aren't you in the least bit interested in knowing where this guy is coming from. Thanks to ABC, I think we are all about to find out some very disturbing things about Obama. He won't even answer questions about his ties now, as was reported this morning. I don't trust him in the least, and neither do many other voters.

by steve468 2008-04-17 07:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Poor Debate Performance

Wow, that post makes no sense whatsoever.

by bawbie 2008-04-17 07:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Poor Debate Performance

Two of those politicians are Hillary Clinton (not wearing a flag pin last night, or on many occasions) and John McCain (often photographed not wearing a flag pin).

I think they are running for President, last I heard.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-04-17 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Poor Debate Performance

And why doesn't anyone mention that Clinton doesn't wear one if they think it matters. It's weird.  Is it because she's a woman? Because why should that make any difference?

by Becky G 2008-04-17 04:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Poor Debate Performance

Does McCain even wear one?  I don't know, because honestly I'm not staring at everyone's collar making sure they have their flag pins on.  The whole thing is inherently ridiculous.

by Skaje 2008-04-17 04:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Poor Debate Performance

No, he doesn't.

by Mostly 2008-04-17 05:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Poor Debate Performance

What the hell does it even mean to be "on the defensive"? He had to defend himself, right? He was asked dumbass questions and ABC is being trashed all over for them. So Obama answered them. I though this Ayers response was very effective.

by politicsmatters 2008-04-17 03:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Poor Debate Performance

Obama nailed Wright and Bittergate. He pretty much nailed flag pins. I think by the time they threw Ayers at him he was getting tired of it, and it threw him off in the second half of the debate; he's normally a lot stronger on policy than that.

Overall Clinton "won", in that even with her bungled response to Bosnia, she did quite well in the last 30 minutes where actual policy issues were discussed (with the exception of Iran, where I think her response had a few constitutional issues). But that's really comparing Obama vs. the moderators, right-wing frames, and Clinton and giving Clinton credit for the "win'.

Obama did a far better job of trying to get the first hour back on track by repeatedly talking about policy issues during his responses to the noise "issues". I agree, really, that Wright and Bittergate were legitimate topics (though the moderators went well out of their way to frame them as right-wing kneecap attacks), and Obama nailed them. Flag pins and Ayers are complete nonsense and again Obama nailed them, but it did wear him down.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-04-17 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Poor Debate Performance

LOL: Nailed Wright? Doesn't sound like he nailed anything last night according to most analyst and newspaper reports. Your still living in a fantasy land, how bout coming out in the real world. Obama found out what the real world was last night. He has been exposed.

by steve468 2008-04-17 07:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Poor Debate Performance

Yes, nailed Wright. Ignore the pundits; look at the answers, and if you must, look at the silly focus-group thing ABC had. Obama consistently was perceived very positively while answering his "gotcha" questions.

The only people who think he didn't nail Wright are the two groups of people who benefit from this race dragging on: Clinton supporters and the media. They're both still desperately hoping it somehow becomes an issue.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-04-17 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Poor Debate Performance

And Obama picked up 5 superdelegates between yesterday and today!

by politicsmatters 2008-04-17 03:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Poor Debate Performance

And Hillary picked up 4, so what's your point. Sounds like SD are keeping their distance for now.

by steve468 2008-04-17 07:20AM | 0 recs
ABC's poor debate performance

In Pa. Debate, The Clear Loser Is ABC

By Tom Shales
Thursday, April 17, 2008; C01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2008/04/17/AR2008041700013. html?hpid=topnews
When Barack Obama met Hillary Clinton for another televised Democratic candidates' debate last night, it was more than a step forward in the 2008 presidential election. It was another step downward for network news -- in particular ABC News, which hosted the debate from Philadelphia and whose usually dependable anchors, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances.

For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with.

The fact is, cable networks CNN and MSNBC both did better jobs with earlier candidate debates. Also, neither of those cable networks, if memory serves, rushed to a commercial break just five minutes into the proceedings, after giving each candidate a tiny, token moment to make an opening statement. Cable news is indeed taking over from network news, and merely by being competent.

Gibson sat there peering down at the candidates over glasses perched on the end of his nose, looking prosecutorial and at times portraying himself as a spokesman for the working class. Blunderingly he addressed an early question, about whether each would be willing to serve as the other's running mate, "to both of you," which is simple ineptitude or bad manners. It was his job to indicate which candidate should answer first. When, understandably, both waited politely for the other to talk, Gibson said snidely, "Don't all speak at once."

For that matter, the running-mate question that Gibson made such a big deal over was decidedly not a big deal -- especially since Wolf Blitzer asked it during a previous debate televised and produced by CNN.

The boyish Stephanopoulos, who has done wonders with the network's Sunday morning hour, "This Week" (as, indeed, has Gibson with the nightly "World News"), looked like an overly ambitious intern helping out at a subcommittee hearing, digging through notes for something smart-alecky and slimy. He came up with such tired tripe as a charge that Obama once associated with a nutty bomb-throwing anarchist. That was "40 years ago, when I was 8 years old," Obama said with exasperation.

Obama was right on the money when he complained about the campaign being bogged down in media-driven inanities and obsessiveness over any misstatement a candidate might make along the way, whether in a speech or while being eavesdropped upon by the opposition. The tactic has been to "take one statement and beat it to death," he said.

No sooner was that said than Gibson brought up, yet again, the controversial ravings of the pastor at a church attended by Obama. "Charlie, I've discussed this," he said, and indeed he has, ad infinitum. If he tried to avoid repeating himself when clarifying his position, the networks would accuse him of changing his story, or changing his tune, or some other baloney.

This is precisely what has happened with widely reported comments that Obama made about working-class people "clinging" to religion and guns during these times of cynicism about their federal government.

"It's not the first time I made a misstatement that was mangled up, and it won't be the last," said Obama, with refreshing candor. But candor is dangerous in a national campaign, what with network newsniks waiting for mistakes or foul-ups like dogs panting for treats after performing a trick. The networks' trick is covering an election with as little emphasis on issues as possible, then blaming everyone else for failing to focus on "the issues."

Some news may have come out of the debate (ABC News will pretend it did a great job on today's edition of its soppy, soap-operatic "Good Morning America"). Asked point-blank if she thought Obama could defeat presumptive Republican contender John McCain in the general election, Clinton said, "Yes, yes, yes," in apparent contrast to previous remarks in which she reportedly told other Democrats that Obama could never win. And in turn, Obama said that Clinton could "absolutely" win against McCain.

To this observer, ABC's coverage seemed slanted against Obama. The director cut several times to reaction shots of such Clinton supporters as her daughter, Chelsea, who sat in the audience at the Kimmel Theater in Philly's National Constitution Center. Obama supporters did not get equal screen time, giving the impression that there weren't any in the hall. The director also clumsily chose to pan the audience at the very start of the debate, when the candidates made their opening statements, so Obama and Clinton were barely seen before the first commercial break.

At the end, Gibson pompously thanked the candidates -- or was he really patting himself on the back? -- for "what I think has been a fascinating debate." He's entitled to his opinion, but the most fascinating aspect was waiting to see how low he and Stephanopoulos would go, and then bei

by politicsmatters 2008-04-17 04:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Poor Debate Performance

I watched the rerun of the debate and the questions asked were no different from the crappy gotcha questions that have been asked in almost all the debates that they have had , the only difference and the reason for the outrage by Obama supporters , his news network and these liberal opinion writers is because it just happened to be Saint Obama that was on the receiving end this time around.

I am not impressed.

They wouldn't be bothered if it was Clinton that was on the receiving end.

Why hasn't any of these folks lifted their pen to write about these debates and the press treatment Clinton has been receiving for almost a year now.

But no lets not ask Obama tough questions , Obama himself probably thought he wasn't going to get any tough questions thats why he went there woefully unprepared.

The questions that were asked aren't going to be ignored by the republicans and if Obama is going to be this rattled how is he going to be able to handle the attacks if he is the nominee.

I had Msnbc has been attacking abc & stephanopolis , maybe someone should remind them what russert did at the philly debate.

by lori 2008-04-17 04:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Poor Debate Performance

Ahh, I think the general consensus is that ABC spent the whole time talking about things like Bosnia, Wright, et cetera, and not on important issues.

But if you don't mind that, hey, I'm game. Let's talk about Clinton's stupid issues some more. Bosnia, Norman Hsu, Our Lady of the Second Amendment, so forth and so on- 'kay?

by ragekage 2008-04-17 04:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Poor Debate Performance

I'm not being flip.  Can you remember any of the questions that you think are particularly egregious that Hillary got hit with, any particular topic?

by LarsThorwald 2008-04-17 04:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Poor Debate Performance

Not last night, but in previous debates.

by LarsThorwald 2008-04-17 04:17AM | 0 recs
It does sound like he got the same treatment that

Hillary got from NBC.

So when the Washington Post says the NBC debate was better, they are really saying the best debates are the ones in which Hillary Clinton gets savaged, and Barack Obama, for the most part, spared.

by PJ Jefferson 2008-04-17 05:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Poor Debate Performance

I haven't watched all 20 debates. Are you referring to Russert at the Ohio debate, or was there another Philly debate that I missed (legitimate question -- like I said, I didn't see all 20)?

If you're talking about the Ohio debate, that was a Clinton lovefest compared to last night. What was she asked in Ohio that was particularly difficult? Celestial choirs? That was silly, but they didn't ask the question in a right-wing-frame style that assumed guilt and disaster from the get-go. Giving her the first question? That's the power position in a debate.

The funny thing is that Obama nailed all of the "tough questions" you're referring to. Clinton did a great job on policy, but completely fumbled her "tough question" on Bosnia and probably made the whole thing even worse. I'm assuming she didn't think they'd ask it, otherwise I can't imagine why someone who's usually so well prepared clearly wasn't ready for it.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-04-17 06:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Poor Debate Performance

The Page reports;

The Obama campaign tells Stephanopoulos that "prominent Pennsylvania supporters" will switch their support from Clinton to Obama Thursday morning due to Clinton's negativity.

by politicsmatters 2008-04-17 04:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Poor Debate Performance

I hope that's true. I really feel that Clinton's negativity in the debate last night and the moderator's ganging up on Obama might backfire and end up helping Obama. I know most people were appalled by the type of questioning.

by Becky G 2008-04-17 04:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Poor Debate Performance

Ru-roh! The Obama campaign says that UNNAMED PEOPLE are switching support from Obama to Clinton! Are these the same "people" that include the 50 superdelegates that Axelrod swore he had in his back pocket, ready to whip out at any second?

by zcflint05 2008-04-17 05:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Poor Debate Performance

does no one realize the best thing?

Wright was brought up and this was a bad debate.

The broguht up wright and just about everyone said ugh, why this was settled.

its been 2 weeks, and wright was already getting groans

can you imagine how you will feel with we don't talk about wright for 3 months and out of no where the GOP brings it up? I think its the first signs that people are tired of talking about Wright nothing new came up, we don't want to keep rehashing it.

by TruthMatters 2008-04-17 04:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Poor Debate Performance

ABC was the loser here. Bloggers are mobilizing this morning to collectively express disgust and outrage over the treatment of Senator Barack Obama by the moderators. At ABC.com 13,000 comments are posted.

Most are letting ABC know of their disdain and contempt for the network and some provide lists of sponsors who advertised during the 2 hours of "so-called" debate. Ambush is more synonomous.

George Stephanopoulos and good ole Charlie owe Mr. Obama a public and formal apology.

P.S..Ofcourse Hillary comes out looking rosy. When its 3 to 1, ya know...not that hard...

by april34fff 2008-04-17 04:55AM | 0 recs
Are these same 13,000 people boycotting MSNBC's

sponsors for the same crap that was pulled on Hillary in a prior debate?


Color me really surprised.

And coordinated efforts by Obama supporters to gang up and punish ABC, its sponsors, etc., for daring to challenge Barack Obama instead of Hillary Clinton?

Again, color me really surprised.  

In my mind, I see people from Daily Kos with pitchforks and torches, heading to ABC headquarters to burn it down in the name of Obama... err... I mean "democracy".  

by PJ Jefferson 2008-04-17 05:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Poor Debate Performance

Obama's lowest point was when he compared working with Senator Coburn to being friends with Willian Ayres.  That should go over well with the Republicans he's courting.  Does Obama do any debate prep?

by Upstate Dem 2008-04-17 05:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Poor Debate Performance

How exactly is it any different?

by bawbie 2008-04-17 05:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Poor Debate Performance

I fail to see your point. He said he was friends with Mr. Coburn but that he didn't agree with everything he said in the past. He looks past issues where they don't agree to find common casue on issues that they do agree. How exactly is that a low point? Having to defend against things that other people said is impossible and Obama's point was that he shouldn't have to do so.

by AHunch 2008-04-17 05:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Poor Debate Performance

Yes, his friendship with Coburn is a concern.

Hopefully Ayers isn't too insulted

by wrb 2008-04-17 06:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Poor Debate Performance

If you're a Clinton supporter, do not go there. Seriously. Not kidding and not being snarky.

You do know that Clinton, Coburn, Rick Santorum, and a number of other interesting people belong to the same religious group, and discuss more than religion there? They have far more of a "friends" relationship than do Obama and Ayers.

As for offending any Republicans, Republicans who like Coburn's argument that doctors who perform abortions should be executed are not going to vote for Obama or Clinton under any circumstances. He loses no votes for mentioning it.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-04-17 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Poor Debate Performance

Charlie Gibson, a Rockerfeller Republican, again bothered the Democrats on tax increases.  Here's an older exchange from a few months ago - the guy always brings this stuff up and does not know what he's talking about:

GIBSON: We have an energy problem in the cost of energy, and we now have a jobs problem. We have, when we are -- and you raised the 'R' word, recession -- when we are approaching recession, it is consumers who have spent us out of recession in most cases. You're all talking about letting some of the Bush tax cuts lapse.

CLINTON: Yeah, but Charlie, the tax cuts on the wealthiest of Americans, not the middle class tax cuts. One of the problems with George Bush's tax policy has been the way he has tilted it toward the wealthy and the well-connected.

GIBSON: If you take a family of two professors here at St. Anselm, they're going to be in the $200,000 category that you're talking about lifting the taxes on. And --


EDWARDS: Oh, I don't think they agree with you.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL): I'm not sure that that --

CLINTON: That may be NYU, Charlie; I don't think that's St. Anselm.

GIBSON: Two public schoolteachers in New York?

by Mostly 2008-04-17 05:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Poor Debate Performance

Now your attackng Gibson? How pathetic can you get?


Go take a look at all the headlines....doesn't look good...Like I said many times on MYDD, if you can't stand the heat of being scrutinized, then get the hell out. It's time that we found out a few things about Mr. Obama now instead of later. That is why the supers aren't flocking to him, they know he has some serious credibility problems that the Republicans are going to chew him up with.

by steve468 2008-04-17 07:27AM | 0 recs
ABC's Poor Debate Performance

When a "debate" goes for almost an hour before any domestic issues that will actualy affect peoples lives the loser is, as Mr Shales said, is ABC.

With gas, Iraq, education and the new specter of glogal food shortages, the first hour of a debate between people who want to assume the highest office on the planet was taking up with flag pin wearing, caustic preachers and who knew what Weatherman when.  

No wonder Network News is in so much trouble

by xenontab 2008-04-17 05:26AM | 0 recs
Massive Obama Hack Josh Marshall says it all.

Joshua Micah Marshall, of TalkingPointsMemo.com, is one of the biggest Obama propagandists on the market.  

This is what he had to say about his master's performance last night:

Debate Sum Up

Setting that aside though, on the questions that touched in some way on policy -- taxes for instance -- Obama looked weary and had what I can only think to compare to the look of a staggering boxer. The discussion of the capital gains tax was a painful example. Most of what Charlie Gibson said was complete nonsense and there were fairly clear, good responses. But Obama stumbled through them.

On the policy questions, on the other hand, Hillary had what she almost always does in these settings which is a series of well prepared and clear answers which hit on the political points she's trying to make.

In this sense I don't think there's much of any way to say that Clinton wasn't the winner on points. And this isn't even taking into account that a lot of the debate was taken up with the moderators teeing up virtually every attack that's been made during this campaign against Obama.


--Josh Marshall

Funny thing is, if he weren't so disgustingly in the bag for Obama for so long, he would have realized that all twenty something debates have gone like this so far.  

In more than twenty different debates so far, Obama has "looked weary and had what I can only think to compare to the look of a staggering boxer."  In more than twenty different debates, Obama has "stumbled through them", because as absolutely amazing of a writer that he is, he is not as good at thinking on his feet, and he is not a very good public speaker.  That's been another one of the media memes that has driven me crazy.  They constantly lie and claim he's a great speaker, that he has the cadence of Martin Luther King, Jr, etc.  He doesn't.  He's a great writer and poor public speaker.  The reason his speech to the Democratic Convention was so good in 2004 was that HE WROTE IT, not that he SAID IT. That's why I fell for Obama in the first place.  I didn't even see his speech.  I read it in his book, Dreams From My Father.  What a great writer that guy is.  But when the debates started, I decided I wanted someone who could think on their feet in an emergency, not someone who could sit up all night and come up with an eloquent written response to the emergency. In other words, before Edwards dropped out, Obama was my #2 and Clinton my #3, but after the debates and after Edwards dropped out, Clinton jumped to #1 in my book (which made me a traitor at Daily Kos, a concern troll, and someone who should fuck off and die, so I came here).

And in over twenty debates so far "on the policy questions, on the other hand, Hillary had what she almost always does in these settings which is a series of well prepared and clear answers which hit on the political points she's trying to make."

I give him some credit.  While he's buried his head in the sand for over twenty debates about how bad Obama is in such formats, at least he has noticed that Hillary has been good in every one so far, and that while Obama could write circles around Hillary with one hand tied behind his back and broken keys on the keyboard, Hillary could out-debate him even in a hostile, Saturday Night Live style environment.  

by PJ Jefferson 2008-04-17 05:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Massive Obama Hack Josh Marshall says it all.

Josh Marshall has slanted toward Clinton in everything I read until the last couple of months, when like many of us he grew disgusted

"What I do know is that this basic thought, often expressed in much less charitable ways, is commonplace in Democratic policy and political circles. And I have little doubt they've been expressed many times by both of the Clintons and her advisors. So speaking for myself I've spent too much time over, what, 15 years now? ... defending both Clintons from similarly ginned up nonsense to have much energy left to help out as they pull the same puffed up outrage act against another Democrat. I guess I'm just not feeling it.

With the Wright business and now with this, the more nuanced version of the Clinton line has been that what 'we' think is not really the point. It's what Republicans will do with it in the fall. And that's a real concern that I definitely have. I won't deny it. I've never thought Obama was a perfect candidate. But as we get deeper into the primary calendar, increasingly so, this 'what the Republicans will do' line has become more of a simulacrum, or a license, if you will, to do what Republicans actually do do. That is to say, to grab for political advantage by peddling stereotypes about Democrats and liberals that are really no less offensive than the ones we're talking about about Americans from small town and rural America.

And seeing Hillary go on about how Obama has contempt for folks in small town America, how he's elitist, well ... no, it's not because I think she's either. I never have. But after seeing her hit unfairly with just the same stuff for years, it just encapsulates the last three-plus months of her campaign which I can only describe as a furious descent into nonsense and self-parody. Part of it makes me want to cry. But at this point all I can really do is laugh.

--Josh Marshall"

by wrb 2008-04-17 05:59AM | 0 recs
Your quote is recent and good proof of my point

by PJ Jefferson 2008-04-17 06:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Your quote is recent and good proof of my poin

Yes it is recent and that is my point. After a career as one of most effective and dedicated Clinton defenders, Josh has come to feel as in the quote

by wrb 2008-04-17 06:08AM | 0 recs
I already saw that quote, and to me, it was his

way of covering his ass over his lack of impartiality.  I think he's been reading about the hit that his own personal reputation and the reputation that his website was taking, and posted that to save face.  

Guess what?  It didn't work.  His argument makes no sense.  "I've been a supporter of theirs for so long, through all the attacks by Rush Limbaugh, that I'm tired, and I don't want to be a supporter of theirs anymore?"  

Why?  Is he bored?  Is the grass always greener?  Is he going to leave his wife and child when he gets sick of supporting them, and move on to someone younger and sexier that he met on a sex-trade junket with Rush Limbaugh?  

That's all his quote said to me - that he's weak and disloyal, and will let his opponent dictate to him who he should support.  I'd like to flash forward 15 years and see if he's "tired" of defending Obama from right wing smears on FoxNews and from Rush Limbaugh.  

by PJ Jefferson 2008-04-17 06:09AM | 0 recs
Debates, they're just words, right?
As if being a good debater has any sort of connection to what a president does. Please tell me how her debating skills are going to make her a good president?????
I seem to be forgetting the last time a say a sitting president debate with someone.
So again how does Hillary's debating skills make her a better choice for Pres.
by venician 2008-04-17 06:44AM | 0 recs
Good question. Here's my answer:

I think being a good debater means that you are good at thinking on your feet, which is an important attribute for a leader.

by PJ Jefferson 2008-04-17 06:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Good question. Here's my answer:

Sounds good, but it's not. Being a great debater doesn't mean you're great at thinking on your feet, it means you're great at expressing yourself in a polished manner on your feet.

High school debate, college debate, those are about thinking on your feet. Political debate is completely different. You can produce brilliant answers but if you can't make the words dance you don't come across well.

The best Presidential debater in recent history is pretty clearly Ronald Reagan. The man was brilliant at debates. Does anyone think he was really all that good at thinking on his feet? Of course not.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-04-17 07:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Poor Debate Performance


Obama on the defensive in a poor debate performance

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bu lletin/bulletin_080417.htm

Yahoo reports this morning in a video that Obama is refusing to answer questions about his ties to radical activists.


Looks like Obama is in trouble. Congratulations to the ABC crew for drilling this guy on this objectionable ties to these radical people Wright, Weather Underground, etc. and his insulting remarks to 'small-town' voters. They really gave Hillary a big opening and she took advantage of it.

by steve468 2008-04-17 07:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Poor Debate Performance

I have never seen such a bunch of whiners in all my life as these Obama Supporters. Anytime someone or some organization jumps on him or expects him to be honest about answering quetions, these supporters start crying foul play. What a bunch of losers they are, just like Obama will be in Pa. next week.

by steve468 2008-04-17 07:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Poor Debate Performance

Hey Steve, you freeper troll - why don't you tell us what Andy Martin, esteemed Holocaust denier, has to say about the debate? You certainly claim he's an excellent source of journalistic integrity.

by upstate girl 2008-04-17 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Poor Debate Performance

Such Sarcasm....You sound like Obama. I'm sure he would probably agree with the media and undecided voters, that Hillary SMOKED HIM!!!!

by steve468 2008-04-17 12:39PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads