Comments on: Philadelphia debate: Gotcha questionning leads Obama to stumble

By: dsimon

dsimon — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:44:00 +0000

Ayers? Are we kidding?

Here’s how one answers the Ayers non-issue. “I’ve served on Boards with lots of people. I’ve been to houses of lots of people. Some are even Republicans. Does that mean I agree with everything they say? Of course not. Once again, people without any better ideas are purposely trying to distract you from the real issues. Now let’s get back to what matters to the American people: Iraq, health care, the economy. Let’s compare what I would sign to what McCain would sign. Because that’s the job you’re electing us to do.”

It’s not that hard.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:27:00 +0000

The Obama reply doesn’t wash with the pardons because they served time and didn’t praise 9/11. Ayers escaped real sentencing and went on to say damaging things that should have made Barack steer clear of his involvement with him. In this world you are judged by whom you keep company with and Barack still refuses to get that. He’s a goner.

By: Tom

Tom — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:49:00 +0000

Jaxx I completely agree about the pressure Obama would be under if the positions were reversed. That is the unfairness of Hillary continuing if PA, NC and IN are disappointing (i.e winning PA by single digits, losing NC by more than 10 and winning IN by less than 5). We will see what happens. As Obama reaches closer to 2025 the media will switch back to that story - PA and NC are the two largest states left and Obama is likley to get 150 plus delegates out of the two states. Add in some superdelegatesa and he is then in striking position.

By: jaxx raxor

jaxx raxor — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:01:00 +0000

Tom if Hilliary was in the lead by 150 pledged delegates kinda like how Obama is right now (thier leads would have been switched if the Democratic Primary used a Winner Take all System) the primary would have already been over. Clinton (at least before this race, if not still currently) has alot of support among the party elites and if that was backed up by a lead and the possibility of the race dragging on there would have been insurmontable pressure for Obama to leave the race, althrough in a Winner Take all System the losing candidate had a much better chance of overtaking the leader by winning nearly the rest of the states, if even by a small margin in each. Netherless, Clintion is much more persistant and powerful ad the current underdog than how Obama would have been if he was behind in pledged delegates at this point.

By: Tom

Tom — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:26:00 +0000

Anon 6:55 - Clinton cannot overtake Obama in pledged delegates unless she wins 65:35 in every state and that isn`t going to happen in PA, NC or OR. So lets just get that fact out there.

It was not a great performance by either candidate but ABC seem to be getting hit for playing gotcha politics and not really dealing with proper issues like jobs, healthcare, foreign policy etc. You know the stuff normal Americans (not political junkies) wanted answered.

I think the Ayers “issue” was effectively put to bed by bringing up the pardons Clinton gave to two members. Also the “baking cookies” reference was well played. I expect Obama will agree to a NC debate afetr this unless he does better than expected in PA (ie loses by less than 10%) then there will be no need. And before Clinton supporters complain, she would do the same if she was in the lead.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:18:00 +0000

Taniel, your starting to lean a little to far to Obama. The Rezko issue was put on hold and muzzled by an ongoing investigation into influence peddling by Rezko. The links to Obama are not being exposed because of it. Barack will be either cleared or indicted later. That’s why the letters he wrote on behalf of Rezmar were dropped by the press. It would be inappropriate and possibly damaging to the criminal investigation to allow the press to reveal them. Patience. In Barack’s case-anguish.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:55:00 +0000

No one who saw that debate can honestly say that Barack is up to the job of president. Putting him on a pedestal and shouting about inevitability drove the questioners into him like a carving knife into a thanksgiving turkey. He got sliced up and served. When the same happened repeatedly to Hillary, you foolish Obamans thought he was untouchable and got cocky. Welcome to reality. He was supposed to be prepared for adversity. I spent plenty of time here playing the devil’s advocate to help you get ready. I guess none of you have a voice in his campaign. If your english skills were as bad as you displayed here, I guess I can’t blame them for deleting your input. He’s in the fire now until Hillary overtakes him in pledged delegates. Since that isn’t going to be quick or even possible, perhaps you should expect the rest of this primary to be brutal and unrelenting.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:26:00 +0000

jaxx raxor: I agree with you that the GE debates will be much more isssue oriented. Comparing them to primary debates is apples and oranges; different rules of engagement. It wasn’t that Obama’s performance was that terrible, it was that the questions in the first half were all of the “When did you stop beating your wife?” type with no good answer. The flag pin question is a good example of this type of query.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:14:00 +0000

the GE debates won’t be about important issues if ABC has anything to do with them.

By: jaxx raxor

jaxx raxor — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 05:02:00 +0000

The primary debates are not exactly low-stakes, you are right about that. However in my opinon the earlier debates were more important because while Clinton had the lead in public opinion polls early in the season, there was a need by other candidates to test this. These later debates don’t mean as much because so much of the country has already voted, many democrats are anxious to end the primary to prepare for the general, and Hillary Clinton is very unlikely to overturn a pledged delegate lead because of the backlash it would create.

So in a sense, I think that the earlier debates were important but now Obama is frontunner and very unlikely to lose this status…. a weak debate performance doesn’t mean as much now then it would have back in December or January for example.

In terms of your question of needing to win the primary before the general, Obama is well on his way to winning the nomination because of his pledged delegate lead and the backlash amoong Clinton supporters will be much less than those by Obama supporters if Clinton gets the nomination, sans a massive impolosion of Obama’s candiancy. A debate that according to reports I’ve seen was mostly about ‘gotcha’ questions and less about issues is a less important debate in my book. In the GE the debators can’t afford to do such a thing.

Sorry for my long comment :P