April 16, 2008
A Final Thought
Barack Obama did not have a terrific night. He did, as David Axelrod complained in the spin room, get hit with harder questions -- on Jeremiah Wright, his absent flag pin, Bill Ayers and more. But he tended to ramble this evening. The moral clarity, the high ground stuff he can usually muster on a dime no matter the question, seemed to evade him. His guns answer was lousy. His reply to the taxes pledge inquiry was even worse.
Was Clinton stellar? No, not particularly. But she was even, which she hasn't been in recent past debates. The most expression she offered this eve amounted to her usual metronomic head bob. Clinton managed to quell any inclination to bark at Obama unnecessarily. But she didn't need to. The moderators did the probing for her.
(JENNIFER SKALKA)
Posted at 11:06 PM
Comments
At aol.com, 44,056 said Hillary won, and 40,853 said Obama won.
At ABC News, 4,305 said Hillary won, and 11,779 said Obama won.
At youpolls.com, 1,100 said Hillary won, and 1,101 said Obama won.
cettel | 04.17.08 01:08 AM
 |
I agree it wasn't Obama's best night but this was almost the worst so-called "debate" as well. Maybe one of the very 1st that had about 15 candidates was a little worse but I doubt it. Idiotic questions, poor pacing, uneven time distribution, were all some of the problems. I was especially troubled by Charlie Gibson as I had little expectation of Georgie and he didn't disappoint: it was a forgettable performance from both moderators.
Obama for the World | 04.17.08 01:14 AM
|
Obama was dreadful tonight. He collapsed under just a bit of probing. The questions tonight were pointed, but they weren't brutal. Clinton has faced much worse, every day for years. But Obama deflated like a delicate souffle. He acted like no one has ever had the audacity to question him before.
He just cannot handle being on the defensive. He makes those childish pouting faces, and if its not that its the smirk. He starts to stammer and gives the impression that he is annoyed that someone would dare challenge him.
Gibson was right when he pressed him on the tax question - Obama said he wouldn't raise taxes on people earning less than 250K - 200k, then a few minutes later said he'd raise payroll taxes on people earning more than 100k. What the?
Once again he said he didn't think what Wright said about 9/11 was that big a deal, wouldn't admit fault for his insulting comments about lower income voters, repeatedly refused to give straight answers to direct questions... dreadful. Just dreadful.
And Axelrod - what a joke. He can't handle being on the defensive either. It sounds like he did a lot of whining tonight.
Given the chance, McCain would eat these guys for lunch... possibly barbecued with his secret sauce.
Ciccina | 04.17.08 01:52 AM
|
He did, as David Axelrod complained in the spin room, get hit with harder questions...
Right on cue, the Obama campaign whines. Obama didn't get hit with harder questions. He was asked questions that should have been asked a long time ago if it weren't for the media's genuflecting before him.
Clinton performed better, comparatively, because she was more in command than he. Obama has real difficulty making a clean punch (comparing Tom Coburn to William Ayres?!) while the best Clinton moment was her “cling to” response.
corinne | 04.17.08 08:15 AM
|
Clinton revealed herself to be a craven, lying shell of a human being. The whole debate proved Obama's point about how vacuous our politics has become; an utterly pointless 1988-era gotcha politics that Hillary revels in but in which America loses. 51 minutes were spent on crap. Does Rev. Wright love America as much as you do? What an absurd question. How does one answer a question like that?
This will do for Obama what the MSNBC debate in NH did for Hillary. It will create a backlash. People see a hit-job for what it is.
Elrod | 04.17.08 08:43 AM
|
Here is an excerpt from a Philadelpha repoter outraged at the unprofessionalism of ABC's George & Charles. I say boycott George & Charles!
Excerpt
It's hard to know where to begin with this, less than an hour after you signed off from your Democratic presidential debate here in my hometown of Philadelphia, a televised train wreck that my friend and colleague Greg Mitchell has already called, quite accurately, "a shameful night for the U.S. media." It's hard because -- like many other Americans -- I am still angry at what I just witnesses, so angry that it's hard to even type accurately because my hands are shaking. Look, I know that "media criticism" -- especially when it's one journalist speaking to another -- tends to be a genteel, colleagial thing, but there's no genteel way to say this.
You implied throughout the broadcast that you wanted to reflect the concerns of voters in Pennsylvania. You asked virtually nothing that reflected our everyday issues -- trying to fill our gas tanks and save for college at the same time, our crumbling bridges and inadequate mass transit, or the root causes of crime here in Philadelphia. In fact, there almost isn't enough space -- and this is cyberspace, where room is unlimited -- to list all the things you could have asked about but did not, from health care to climate change to alternative energy to our policy toward China to the deterioration of Afghanistan to veterans' benefits to improving education.
You ignored virtually everything that just happened in what most historians agree is one of the worst presidencies in American history, including the condoning of torture and the trashing of the Constitution, although to be fair you also ignored the policy concerns of people on the right, like immigration issues.
Angellight | 04.17.08 08:44 AM
|
Here is an excerpt from a Philadelpha repoter outraged at the unprofessionalism of ABC's George & Charles. I say boycott George & Charles!
Excerpt
It's hard to know where to begin with this, less than an hour after you signed off from your Democratic presidential debate here in my hometown of Philadelphia, a televised train wreck that my friend and colleague Greg Mitchell has already called, quite accurately, "a shameful night for the U.S. media." It's hard because -- like many other Americans -- I am still angry at what I just witnesses, so angry that it's hard to even type accurately because my hands are shaking. Look, I know that "media criticism" -- especially when it's one journalist speaking to another -- tends to be a genteel, colleagial thing, but there's no genteel way to say this.
You implied throughout the broadcast that you wanted to reflect the concerns of voters in Pennsylvania. You asked virtually nothing that reflected our everyday issues -- trying to fill our gas tanks and save for college at the same time, our crumbling bridges and inadequate mass transit, or the root causes of crime here in Philadelphia. In fact, there almost isn't enough space -- and this is cyberspace, where room is unlimited -- to list all the things you could have asked about but did not, from health care to climate change to alternative energy to our policy toward China to the deterioration of Afghanistan to veterans' benefits to improving education.
You ignored virtually everything that just happened in what most historians agree is one of the worst presidencies in American history, including the condoning of torture and the trashing of the Constitution, although to be fair you also ignored the policy concerns of people on the right, like immigration issues.
Angellight | 04.17.08 08:44 AM
|
Hmm, with not many differences between them on substance, what did you expect them to be asked about?
The problem with Obama: he's like the New England Patriots last January -- going for a record and everyone's gunning for him. He needed to be perfect, and he wasn't. His answers were polished and practiced, but he just didn't handle the vigorous assaults.
The problem with Hillary: her popular Achilles Heel is that she will say anything, and she did again last night. But she was definitely wiping the floor with Obama on some issues: the "clinging to" answer was, as Jennifer likes to put it, "pitch perfect." That's an issue that's really hard to refine into something meaningful, but she pulled out the way to distill the damage.
Pining for Chuck Todd | 04.17.08 09:31 AM
|
Obama was treated like Hillary was treated in the earlier debates..as the front runner. And he failed miserably. He looked tired throughout most of the debate.
William | 04.17.08 10:14 AM
|
Post a comment
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
