Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Clinton attacks, Obama doesn't - for a darn good reason
I'm amazed at the shallow analyses of much of the MSM regarding this debate last night. Many pundits pronounced that Clinton was more on top of her game while Obama wasn't and that somehow his lack of attack was indicative of trouble ahead in the GE.
Indeed, the attack "game" played for irrelevant issues like Ayers and Bittergate is where Clinton wants to take her campaign into these waning hours, as she feels the negative way is her only way to the GE. Obama, on the other hand, facing a fellow Democrat with voters he will really need in November, holds back and doesn't drum us in Clinton-like fashion with snide remarks about her Bosnia gaffe, Penn's disgraceful Columbia activity, her campaign mismanagement, etc. He HAD to stay above the fray because he is not facing a Republican. He is facing a fellow Democrat with an important group of supporters for whom he must maintain respect!
A debate of Democrats is not the same thing as a debate of a Democrat and a Republican, and certainly not when the end is so very near for the Dems and a frontrunner must keep an eye on the Big Picture. Obama did that last night and I think it was a very smart move.
Comments (13)
Obama did well not to throw up his hands and walk out in protest, as I would have done. And Clinton was in for the kill. As Michael Grunwald writes:
She [Clinton] constantly salted Obama's wounds, all the while insisting that she was merely concerned that Republicans would salt them in the fall...
April 17, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
There was only one Democrat at that Democratic Primary debate last night, and that was Obama. In fact he was the only one with any integrity whatsoever.
April 17, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, the contrast was clear when asked about snipergate: "You know, we are being recorded 24/7 and over the course of this campaign we are all going to make mistakes, I know I have. I see no reason to comment on Bosnia, but really this distracts us from the bigger issues..." When people comment about who's tearing the party apart, it will be moments like those that define the candidates.
April 17, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also,
if he ever personally goes on the attack against Clinton, he would immediately be accused of mysogyny. In fact, being AA, he can never personally play the race card. He would be accused of being an "angry black man" in the mold of Jackson or Sharpton. The restraint he has thusfar shown is incredible - it's a fine line that man walks.
April 17, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
HRC came off like a passive-agressive adolescent and BO like the sensible parent who refuses to be drawn into the adolescent games.
However, it's the so-called moderators who really deserved a good woodshedding (a.k.a., a spanking for those of the younger generations who are no acquainted with the dual purpose of woodsheds).
April 17, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the key part of the debate was that HRC was forced to say that Senator Obama was electable...So if it is found again that she or her campaign says that he is not, it will back fire...
I want to believe that the voters are smarter than we think...
I saw the debate, and I found that Senator Obama did a great job pounding his message for a different politic, and unity...
Besides the cooky phrase was excellent...A very good one...
And so despite the ABC bashing with the support of HRC, I believe that the voters will prove that the media have lost their credibility...
April 17, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought he attacked her soundly when he said she had learned the wrong lesson from the trivial attacks she had endured in the 90's.
It was subdued and hit home. To bad the talking heads every where but PBS that I have listened to were not smart enough to notice.
April 17, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're spot-on about this. It is a central difference between the candidates. Hillary and her supporters keep coming back to the fact that she has "been there", we know what is in her past, we know how she will be attacked, and it is a part of her experience. But it's not just having an experience that is important: It is what you do because of that experience, and how you are shaped by it. People who want "revenge" see her as a fighter who will use the Oval Office to bloody Republicans for the last 16 years. I don't want to attack Republicans. I don't want a President who is dedicated to "beating them at their own game". I don't want to play their game at all.
I want a President who will grow the Democratic Majority by advocating for policies that represent our ideals. I want a President who will marginalize right-wing extremists and neo-cons by presenting independents and moderate Republicans with common ground that they can share with our party. I want to see the GOP diminished because people have rejected their party on its merits. A temporary victory that represents 50% + 1 is not enough. We shouldn't be the party that represents moving the country. We should be the party that represents changing the country.
April 17, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree 100%
April 17, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great point there.
April 17, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you.
April 17, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I think the key part of the debate was that HRC was forced to say that Senator Obama was electable...So if it is found again that she or her campaign says that he is not, it will back fire..."
I agree... and it will backfire badly.
April 17, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I'm amazed at the shallow analyses of much of the MSM regarding this debate last night. "
I'm amazed that you are amazed. The MSM has been hammering Obama for a month and a half. They are clearly shilling for McCain and Hillary at this point for several reasons. Helping Hillary prolongs this, and helping McCain ensures low corporate taxes.
The status quo is fighting back. OBama's pledge o not take money from PAC money put him on the lobbyists' hitlist.
April 17, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment