Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
No Debate For Hillary: Obama Is Right
Generally speaking I like debates and think they have been instructive during the presidential campaign. But after the deplorable Pennsylvania debate, I find it almost laughable that Hillary is clambering to schedule a new debate.
Perhaps if Hillary had recognized the severe bias of the ABC commentators and admonished them to focus on more substantive issues, she might deserve another debate.
Perhaps if she had shown some self-restraint during the first 45 minutes, she might well deserve another debate.
But no, not only was there no self-restraint, but Hillary was glutinous for more! She relished twisting the knife in Obama's back with each and every non-issue ABC raised, including invoking Farrakhan's name out of the blue, to deliberately smear Obama.
Obama, on the other hand, when asked to respond directly to Hillary's Bosnia LIE, he demurred. In a moment of pure restraint, Obama indicated that all politicians make gaffes. That instead of playing "gotcha" politics, that they should focus instead on the many grave issues that plague America.
Hillary Clinton was ugly as hell in that last debate. And the fall-out from it demonstrates that, even as she received votes from the ignorant racists whom her veiled attacks were designed to appeal to, the cost of such a tactic will cripple her in the end, and mar her "legacy" for millions of people.
And what of the fact that Hillary's chief surrogate in PA, Gov Rendell had had audience with AND praised Louis Farrakhan in 1997? Why is there no comment from the Clinton campaign after the fact, since she was so eager to raise his name to inflict harm? This is the height of hypocrisy.
So for all that and a hell of a lot more, no debate for Hillary.
Comments (47)
IS HIS SUIT BOOKED TOO?
Frankly we don't mind debating his Brooks Brothers and an audio tape of platitudes. What's the difference?
(insert furtive look of shame here)
Thank you
HRC
VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE
NOT YOUR GUILTY CONSCIENCE
April 27, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Karl Rove "limousine liberal" line always annoyed me because he got to his speeches in limos.
You're doing the same thing. The Clintons have expensive clothes, no? They have a hundred million dollars and no small children to pay for. It's just an annoying put-down, the way it trucks in propaganda.
April 27, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, by the way, Hillary's entire campaign is built upon the idea that, having wrongfully voted for Iraq and having failed in health care, her guilty conscience is what makes her a stronger and better candidate.
Bush Sr.'s argument was the same about taxes.
Beyond that, your line sounds good, but it assumes that people see Obama, as you obviously do, as a person who, by his very nature (or color), evokes a sense of guilt. I think you're wrong, and I think, like most trite lines ("change you can Xerox"), it says far more about the person saying it than the person who receives it.
April 27, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it says "troll." You should try not even to get suckered into replying to this crap.
April 28, 2008 7:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have you seen her favorable ratings in New York state? It's something like 48%. Whereas Obama and McCain are at 54%. You know you have problems when 46% of your own state dislikes you.
April 27, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
RenStimpy, I keep wanting to tell you that most of us are too modest to post a nude photo of ourselves for our avatar. Fortunately I am too reserved to mention this. Or am I too glutinous(?) not to?
April 27, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
YOUR MODESTY IS GLUTTONY
You see I am naked as lurid deception, while your narcissism in posting a mug shot is instead to conceal the ruse of gawking from your an avatar as your family is left to believe you are online paying the utilities.
You are a nastly little man. Please text me.
Ciao
David
VOTER YOUR CONSCIENCE
NOT YOUR GUILTY CONSCIENCE
April 27, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Im in NY, and know a ton of people who voted for her in the primary who are disgusted with her now.
Did you see the comments of one of her fund-raiser, the billionaire here in the city who said the same thing.
Anyway, no debate, no debate, no debate.
Her team shouldn't have celebrated the ABC farce. This shows what level of discourse they are eager for. Besides, if she wanted to debate so bad why did she postpone the NC one that Obama planned?
NO DEBATE, they're nonsense and Hillary only wants them when she desperately needs them.
April 27, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
He won’t debate her because George Stephanopoulis asked him critical questions and, besides, he is busy having tea with Chris Wallace.
April 27, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don, you're obviously an alcoholic. Sober up.
April 27, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will, BS, but just long enough to explain the unintended irony in your apologia for Obama’s running from debates (then my coffee turns Irish). You offer that he can’t debate Clinton because of the last deplorable debate that was biased and didn’t focus on substance. Yet, on this day that was originally scheduled to bring us a substantive and unbiased NC debate, Obama is instead breaking the boycott of the unsubstantive and biased Fox News to project his "new politics" to a new audience. Now I need another cup of “coffee.”
Cheers
April 27, 2008 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, Elbow bender, just one thing.
Unlike Hillary and ABC during that last PA debate, Fox was actually civil toward Obama during his interview. Perhaps because ABC caught so much heat for the obvious ambush. Just a thought.
But alas, you can't read this now, because you're in a damn stupor.
Night barfly.
April 27, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure he was right at home. No need to be so touchy, BionicSoy; calm down, have a drink!
April 28, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
thats not accurate.
the debate was actually cancelled by the lier in chief who didnt like the date.
so now she crys for another.
well, they are still fake tears.
April 27, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
JadeZ
This is not a big deal but Clinton pointed out that the original date (4/19) was the first day of Passover and they agreed it would not be a good date. Obama would not agree to another date (NCDP and Clinton had accepted 4/27) and then said they would not debate before NC/Ind.
April 28, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
there is no longer a reason to debate her.
why pretend like the angry hillbots here that she is still inthe race?
she is not.
and if you think bill is going to be around to support her while she recovers from her depression i have a cigar to sell you.
April 27, 2008 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, this is why I can't see any reason for Obama to accept: he's already got her, and there's no reason to give her shrill Republican-like tactics a stage at this point in the game.
April 28, 2008 7:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps in her deep depression and despair she can debate herself, and kick back mint juleps with her new, dumb, drunk buddy above.
April 27, 2008 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the reason he is not into debating her is that it pushes her to use more of her limited funds. Debates are free ad time for her on a national level. The Obama campaign does not need free ad time since they are pretty flush with money at the moment.
April 28, 2008 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, as they said on Seinfeld, "no soup for you".
April 28, 2008 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
We need another debate in this primary like I need a hole in my cranium.
April 28, 2008 3:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Without a moderator Hillary would just run the table.
She would would ask herself the first question "Hillary how many policy facts do you know?" and then answer non-stop for an hour and a half on the assuming Obama wouldn't want the risk of being seen as rude by interrupting her onslaught and even if he did try she wouldn't stop talking unless at the end of the pseudo debate when she might ask him "who gave you the right (Wright?) to ruin my my God-given chance to be president?"
Hillary can quote obscure policy for days at a time but she doesn't have a clue where she wants to take this country. I don't actually want a pseudo-working class shot-drinking fighter who threatens to "obliterate" other countries as my president.
We have had to endure for almost eight years a pseudo-rancher, dry drunk who has lead us into a disastrous war.
April 28, 2008 5:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I'm tired of seeing her sappy face on TV lying. Remember, Obama won the prior three debates with Clinton because Hillary kept getting stuck on the war question.
Thankfully, most sane people saw the ABC "debate" for what it was, a hit job.
So I agree, let her spend more money on TV ads if she wants her message out. And what I find particularly amusing, is that she's planning to dump "big money" (from her 'limited resources') in North Carolina.
I mean how dense is her campaign?
April 28, 2008 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton has done a masterful job of self destruction in the name of looking presidential. She has been caught lying and passes it off as being only human. She has become hateful and spiteful and has turned off millions of people and she is so arrogant, she is cluess of what she is doing to herself. Bubba Boy says be tough, so she act like a jerk off thinking she is acting tough.
April 28, 2008 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary has every right to fight for the nomination. And all the Obama whiners trying to count down the clock should take a lesson from John Madden. The prevent defense only prevents you from winning. There is something just pathetic about a campaign that began based on hope and new politics being reduced to counting votes and praying Hillary doesn't overtake you. Obama's campaign has reason to be scared and they are. The voters in primary tend to want to sew up the nomination for the presumed winner particularly when the media has been running the Obama story from almost 6 weekd that the campaign is over, yet the voters disagree and keep the race going.
If I was Obama I'd take the chance to get assertive and take the debate challenge. That would actively give Hillary supporters or other voters reason to compare the two on the issues. You can do rallys which attract your most avid supporters or go door to door meeting a few voters briefly, but a public debate gives you a chance to reach the key undecideds for the fall. Since it will be unmoderated and on the issues, I can't imagine a logical excuse for ducking it other than trying to prevent a gaffe or an even comparison of him and hillary on the issues. The politics of hope beats the politics of fear. Hillary and her supporters want to debate because we hope she can win and that people finally start to look at the substance rather than glossy oratory. Obama and his campaign are driven by fear to duck the debates at any cost. Who wants a president like that? C'mon be a man. We'll even spot you a GWB box/communication system so David Polouffe can tell you in advance not to promise to meet with all dictators without precondition in your first year.
April 28, 2008 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
How is it a "prevent defense" when it is just following the same formula that delivered all those post-Super Tuesday wins for him? Madden also says you have to keep doing what gave you the lead. That is what Obama is doing. Why should he move away from what has been working for him just because the election schedule was such that HRC demographic-friendly Ohio and Pennsylvania happened to come up at this point in the process? That would be bad strategy. And bad strategy is something that has been HRC's problem, not BHO's problem, during this primary season.
April 28, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
After 21 debates you must be a dummy if you don't understand where the candidates are on "issues".
April 28, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry dijamo, but we're not whining. We're winning. Big difference. Obama simply has no reason to play the game on Hillary's terms. He needs to do it on his terms. He needs to concentrate on Indiana.
If Hillary were serious about debating, she would not have gratuitously tossed Farrakhan into the ABC debate. There was no reason in the world to bring it up. There's no connection between Obama and Farrakhan, and Hillary Clinton knows it. He's already done the reject and denounce game with her on his.
Can you give me one legitimate reason that Hillary brought up Farrakhan in the last debate?
I don't think so. I think it's all just mud-wrestling.
April 28, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Barack's complaint was that the media was so unfair to him and he wants to debate on ISSUES, then why not have an ISSUES driven debate and take the media out of it? Because he doesn't want to talk about issues. He just wants to blather on about working together in the Obama echo chamber of his messianic rallys where people applaud him blowing his nose. The voters who Obama is trying to appeal to that still have concerns about his candidacy (working class, blue collar voters, etc.) that don't already support him are typically not at those rallies. He says he needs to "work harder" to address their concerns, but ducks the debate that gives him a chance to speak to them on the bread and butter issues that matter to them. Sounds like "working hard" for their votes is just words and he's just hoping to get by without them which may work int he dem primary bbut is disatrous in the general election. COWARD.
April 28, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You ignored my question. Tell me why Clinton brought up Farrakhan, unprompted by the moderators. Why did she think he was a legitimate point to add to the debate?
April 28, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
As Obama himself has said, those questions about his church and associations are fair. Note he said the church was mainstream - which I don't think Farrakhan as man of the year says mainstream to me. He deserves to be asked questions and have to account for it and that's what Hillary noted.
CLINTON: I think in addition to the questions about Reverend Wright and what he said and when he said it, and for whatever reason he might have said these things, there were so many different variations on the explanations that we heard.
And it is something that I think deserves further exploration because clearly, what we've got to figure out is how we're going to bring people together in a way that overcomes the anger, overcomes the divisiveness and whatever bitterness there may be out there. You know?
It is clear that, as leaders, we have a choice who we associate with and who we apparently give some kind of seal of approval to. And I think that it wasn't only the specific remarks but some of the relationships with Reverend Farrakhan, with giving the church bulletin over to the leader of Hamas, to put a message in.
You know, these are problems. And they raise questions in people's minds. And, so, this is a legitimate area, as everything is, when we run for office, for people to be exploring and trying to find answers.
Flag pins/patriotism (which Hillary never mentioned or added to) are irrelevant and out of bounds.
Now can you answer my question about why Obama is fighting a debate on the ISSUES that may help win support of blue collar workers, Hillary supporters and independents?
April 28, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
But of course, the church didn't give the award to Farrakhan. It was a magazine, run by whoever (Wright's daughter?), not the church itself. It's the six degrees of scandal theory - from Obama to the church he attends to a magazine he has nothing to do with to Farrakhan. It's a bullshit argument, and she knows it. It's also an argument that will blow back on her like crazy if the Republicans get the chance to run against her.
No, sorry, I'm not convinced. The only reason she had to raise Farrakhan's name was to increase the scary black man quotient.
April 28, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now can you answer my question about why Obama is fighting a debate on the ISSUES that may help win support of blue collar workers, Hillary supporters and independents?
April 28, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because there's nothing to be gained for Obama OR the voters by having yet another debate. The only person it would benefit is near-broke Hillary who wants 90 minutes of free airtime.
Also, because there is absolutely no reason to believe that Clinton would do anything to keep a debate on the issues. Over and over again, she has shown a willingness to get down in the mud. Over and over again, Obama has taken the high road. Every time he gets handed a non-issue attack Hillary question, he deflects the attack portion and returns to the larger question. That's precisely what he did in the ABC debate. It demonstrated a level of class and courtesy that your candidate will never achieve.
Obama has debated on the issues. He's the one who has been trying to keep it on the issues. Now he's going to spend the next week talking directly to the voters about the issues. As he should.
April 28, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please, please tell me you don't believe what you just typed. Obama and his campaign have been consistently negative in their attacks on Hillary calling her polarizing, unelectable, divisive, secretive, a monster, calling her (D) Punjab, making wild accusations that she is hiding something in her tax returns (only to be embarrassed when they were released without incident)--> please stop me when I get anywhere close to a real issue, because it is all personal attacks. They have flat out lied about Hillary's foreign policy stance about engaging in diplomacy with our enemies. They have employed republican talking points to attack Hillary on universal healthcare, while using deceptive advertisement to claim the AP said his plan is universal healthcare when the article said that was his claim and it is disputed. They have played the race card stirring up racial tensions for benign comments for political gain.
The Obama campaign runs good PR and the media buys in to St. Obama, but spare me the BS. His campaign has been negative from the get go. He knows that if the debate is about whose plans are best for the US he loses, so he makes it a popularity contest rather than substance. That's why even with a debate solely focused on bread and butter issues, he has no interest in standing toe to toe with senator clinton.
April 28, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's response in the ABC debate when asked about Hillary's Bosnia lies:
"But, look, the fact of the matter is, is that both of us are working as hard as we can to make sure that we're delivering a message to the American people about what we would do as president. Sometimes that message is going to be imperfectly delivered because we are recorded every minute of every day.
And I think Senator Clinton deserves the right to make some errors once in a while. Obviously, I make some as well.
I think what's important is to make sure that we don't get so obsessed with gaffes that we lose sight of the fact that this is a defining moment in our history. We are going to be tackling some of the biggest issues that any president has dealt with in the last 40 years.
Our economy is teetering not just on the edge of recession but potentially worse. Our foreign policy is in a shambles. We are involved in two wars. People's incomes have not gone up, and their costs have. And we're seeing greater income inequality now than any time since the 1920s.
In those circumstances, for us to be obsessed with this -- these kinds of errors I think is a mistake. And that's not what our campaign has been about.
What our campaign has been about is offering some specific solutions to how we move these issues forward and identifying the need to change the culture in Washington, which we haven't talked at all about but that has blocked real reform decade after decade after decade.
That, I think, is the job of the next president of the United States. That's what I intend to do. That's why I'm running."
That's what I'm talking about.
April 28, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Selective quoting. Come on be fair and post the beginning of that exchange when he lied and said the Obama campaign only commented on the Bosnia issue when asked about it even though his campaign has intiated conference calls and memos on the topic:. Fair is fair but at least be honest about campaign tactics, rather than trying to appear above the fray while letting your camapign do all the dirty work for you.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Obama, your campaign has sent out a cascade of e-mails just about every day, questioning Senator Clinton's credibility. And you, yourself, said she hasn't been fully truthful about what she would do as president. Do you believe that Senator Clinton has been fully truthful about her past?
OBAMA: Well, look, I think that Senator Clinton has a strong record to run on. She wouldn't be here if she didn't.
And, you know, I haven't commented on the issue of Bosnia. You know, I...
STEPHANOPOULOS: Your campaign has.
OBAMA: Of course. But the -- because we're asked about it.
April 28, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
hrc's obsession with debates only began when her piggy bank broke. it is a cheap way to get air time period. it is strategy all the way and has nothing to do with her fake concern for the voters. if she was so concerned about voters, she would not have cancelled north carolina debate. everything has to be on her terms. she uses her womanly wiles whenever it suits her needs.
no to debates. it is about time obama make hrc work for this nomination every bit as hard as he has been busting his hiney to make us support him. she has had all the advantages thus far and right now her biggest advantage is her color. she is betting on rural americans bigotry to steal this election. so far, so good, but like obama, i think in the end, people will do what is good for them and fear will no longer be a strong enough factor to resist a change for the better.
to say obama is afraid to debate hrc is an insult to the n'th degree. how many debates will be enough for hrc supporters? 100? 200? why dont we go back and schedule debates for each state obama won thanks to white americans? yes, hrc, lets challenge each of those wins. i think hrc is ducking the black vote. she is completely excluding blacks from her radar. if obama is expected to win over rural america then hrc should be expected to win over black america. one cannot win without the other. i am sick of the media and hrc supporters who arrogantly thinks that only the white vote is important. black america has always thrown their support towards the dem candidate, it just so happens this time that candidate is a white woman and a biracial man.
if obama supporters are racist then hrc's supporters are equally racist and more so b/c she panders for a particular demographic in hopes that her color will resonate with them. obama has always maintained that he is not running as a black candidate but as an american who represents all. in fact, he gets on my nerves for downplaying the race issue. it exist and it is the reason why hrc has been so strong lately in the less educated demographic parts of the USA. education is fundamental and it is an eye opener. in rural states where the education is paramount, obama has no problem.
April 28, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is right not to debate Hillary. He looks bad whenever he goes off script.
The real question he is likely considering now is how to get McCain off the ballot in November. B/c that is the only way he is going to win the GE. This is his history. He is the master of winning w/o scrutiny. He got Alice Palmer and others off of the ballot. He in effect disqualified Ryan in the Illinois Senate Race. He got his own name off of the ballot in Michigan in the Dem primary to deny his opponent victory there.
What scam will he run on McCain? I can't wait to watch it. Because if he does Chicago-style his way into the Oval Office, then we'll get to find out what he really wants to do as President (and declined to say earlier b/c no one really made him say so in the debates).
I suspect social securty will be one thing that gets changed--towards privatization. He does not praise Reagan and the Repubs for nothing. If his Mom had moved him back to Kansas as a child, he no doubt would be (an offical) Republican today.
But, yes, great idea. Don't make Obama tell us what he is for. Just let his fake website do the talking.
April 28, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sancho, you said fake website?
Obama's website is as real as your stupidity.
Can't get more real than that.
April 28, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
"And the fall-out from it demonstrates that, even as she received votes from the ignorant racists whom her veiled attacks were designed to appeal to, the cost of such a tactic will cripple her in the end, and mar her "legacy" for millions of people."
Nice politics of reconciliation. You just alienated millions of Clinton supporters. You truly are pathetic. Senator Obama would be proud of your politics of hate.
And it is shameful that your hateful posts are recommended at all. Truly changing the face of politics.
April 28, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, Sir Rwo, my comments do not represent the Obama campaign, nor am I paid by them. These are my opinions alone.
Secondly, I am not trying to reconcile with you, because clearly you do not want to address what I raised in my post. You speak of hateful? What was hateful was your candidate's, Hillary Clinton's, deportment during that Pennsylvania debate.
You see, what you fail to miss, is that Hillary Clinton stirs up clowns like you by using "demonization through association" tactics. Yet, when Hillary Clinton herself is associated with many of the same things she seeks to censure Obama for, she falls appallingly silent.
Hillary Clinton has a history with the Black radical movement. But not in opposition, back in the day she was defending them. She helped Bobby Seale and the Black Panther Party when they were considered some of America's biggest enemies. Do you find any hypocrisy in that and her present postioning?
No? Ok.
What about Gov. Rendell, her chief PA supporter, praising Farrakhan? What was that? You say you need proof? Ok, Mr. Little Brain, here it is, replete with video:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/21/ed-rendell-clinton-surrog_n_97784.html
April 28, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also during the debate, Hillary Clinton raised 60s radical, 'Ayers from the Weather Underground'. Notice that when Obama raised the fact that her husband pardoned TWO members of the Weather Underground, Hillary kept her mouth shut. And she has not raised the issue since.
So, that's the bottom line reason why Hillary Clinton wants more debates, to launch more of her "Guilt by association" tactics. Obama wants to talk about the substantive issues that currently plague this nation. (120 dollar a barrel Oil prices? Recession? War? Food Crises?) He does not, nor should he -- understanding the pure gravity of these situations -- waste valuable time playing Hillary Clinton's dishonest and juvenile game of political tag.
April 28, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I said, nice politics of hatred.
Oh and I love the copy and paste from other websites too. You are a real posterboy for the Obama campaign. And of course, no one thinks you have the brains or demeaner to do anything other than alienate half of the Democratic population in the US. I am talking about YOUR tactics.
April 28, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can see how information is anathema to a dunce like you.
And I'm talking of your tactics.
Grow a brain!
April 28, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
As anyone who has read any of your "posts" can see, you truly are a nitwit. You bring nothing to the table other than insults, slander and your own pathetic hatred. Go back to Free Republic you creep. Thats where you belong!
April 28, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn. Can you say "projection"?
April 28, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment