Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008?

[Noop]

After rewatching the debate I believe Obama was pretty much set up for failure. After reading some comments online I found out that George Stephanopoulo was Bill Clinton's Communication's Director.

They spent an hour attacking Obama about his pin, his reverend and his association with some professor. I think Obama was right when he said why is he being held accountable for the words of other people. This process is a shame and McCain will waltz into the white house; my only hope is he is a lot better then Bush.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Noop

After rewatching the debate I believe Obama was pretty much set up for failure. After reading some comments online I found out that George Stephanopoulo was Bill Clinton's Communication's Director.

He was all but the press secretary and a senior policy advisor. That said, he came off more of a tool but that's about par for the course for him. The big annoyance to me was Gibson who just sounded like a giant bullying asshat. And not in the "I want an answer to that question and be specific" way that we want debate moderators to actually be but little snide comments and belligerent questions.

SI

[Young Drachma]

Some debate reactions

–Andrew Sullivan:

It was a lifeless, exhausted, drained and dreary Obama we saw tonight. I’ve seen it before when he is tired, but this was his worst performance yet on national television. He seemed crushed and unable to react. This is big-time politics and he’s up against the Clinton wood-chipper. But there is no disguising the fact that he wilted, painfully.

Clinton has exposed herself in this campaign as one of the worst shells of a cynical pol in American politics. She doesn’t just return us to the Morris-Rove era, she represents a new height for it. If she somehow wins, it will be a triumph of the old politics in an age when that is exactly what this country cannot afford. But Obama has also shown a failure to be resilient in this grueling process. In some ways, I’m glad. No normal reasonable person subjected to the series of attacks on his integrity, faith, patriotism, decency and honesty would not wilt. And we need a normal reasonable person in the White House again. But this is still the arena we have. It is what it is. ABC News is what it is. The MSM knows no other way. Obama has to survive and even thrive under this assault if he is to win. He failed tonight in a big way.

And so this was indeed a huge night for the Republicans, and the first real indicator to me that Clinton is gaining in her fundamental goal at this point: the election of John McCain against Barack Obama. How else will she rescue the Democrats from hope?

–The Politico’s Ben Smith:

So, who won, who lost, how did Obama hold up under what was basically a public enactment of Clinton’s case against him.

AND: Didn’t those quotes from the Constitution really set the tone?

ALSO: How much money will Obama raise off his supporters’ perception that this debate was unfair?

–Americablog:

Wow. What the hell was that? Seriously, I’m a bit stunned. The level of discourse has reached a new low — a very new low. To be clear, I don’t think the debate was a disaster for Obama. He did fine. I think it was a disaster for our political system.

It was the worst debate ever. [ABC moderators Charles] Gibson and [former Clinton administration spokesman George] Stephanopoulos were horrible. The questions were literally right out of right wing talk radio.

–The Swamp:

Well, what we saw tonight was Hillary Clinton making a strong, last-ditch effort to pull her flagging campaign back from brink, get it back on track to victory on April 22 and make the superdelegates realize that she really is their last best chance to retake the White House.

She drummed on Obama not just for his remarks about small towns, guns and religion, but for his vast dearth of experience compared to hers–and that includes her experience of being ravaged by Republicans and living to see another day.

Obama, for his part, strove to defuse the negative ripples his aforementioned-ad-nauseum remarks might have engendered, not to mention the controversial comments of his former pastor–all of which appear not to have tarnished him much in polls.

Most importantly, he tried to get voters to imagine him as commander-in-chief, assigning “a mission” to his commanders–he’s the decider–although consulting with them re: tactics.

….And, for Hillary Clinton to get so giddy about the Wright question was really just sad. She was the official purveyor of fringe talking points. Shockingly so. And, she seemed to enjoy it. There’s a reason people think Clinton is dishonest as we saw today in the findings of the Washington Post-ABC News poll. She’s not only in this to win, she’s in it to win dirty — and to destroy Obama. She invoked Louis Farrakhan tonight for no reason — just to say it. Give me a break. Throughout this campaign, Clinton has pursued GOP attacks against Obama. He has not gone there against her.

–Daily Kos (one of several progressive sites calling on readers to flood ABC News with protests):

I used to think Republican operative and Karl Rove mentor Lee Atwater had died in 1991, after a nasty career of Republican race baiting, culture wars, dirty tricks, and a illness-induced conversion to Catholicism and public repentance for his dirty and divisive politics. I was wrong.

Lee Atwater apparently works for ABC News in devising…questions to ask Democratic Presidential candidates.

The questioning in tonight’s debate–—mostly straight out of 1988—was an abomination. Gun control. 60’s radicalism. Inflammatory black pastors. Respecting or disrespecting the flag. Taxes. Being out of touch with the military. Affirmative Action.

I’ll bet if they had more time, ABC anchors Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolus would probably have gotten around to asking Obama and Clinton about Willie Horton….The questions asked were not the kinds of questions Democratic primary voters care about. But they are the “gotcha” kinds of questions Republicans try to spring on Democrats in general elections.

I’m not afraid of those questions. I think Obama did fine tonight. Generally Clinton has performed best in debates, but as we first saw in the Texas debate, Obama appears to perform better one-on-one. I especially liked how he refused to get lured in to Charles Gibson’s conservative frames, and I like how he dismissed many of Clinton’s attacks on him as avoiding the substantive issues and hypocritical, as when he pointed out that Bill Clinton pardoned members of the Weather Underground.

–Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey feels the debate was “Obama’s Waterloo”:

The last Democratic debate has finally concluded, and perhaps the last chances of ending the primaries early. Thanks to a surprisingly tenacious set of questions for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton from ABC moderaters Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous, Barack Obama got exposed over and over again as an empty suit, while Hillary cleaned his clock. However, the big winner didn’t even take the stage tonight.

…The winner of this debate? John McCain. Both Democrats came out of this diminished, but Obama got destroyed in this exchange. If superdelegates had begun to reconsider their support of Obama after Crackerquiddick, they’re speed-dialing Hillary after watching Gibson dismember Obama on national TV tonight. And kudos to ABC News for taking on both candidates fearlessly. John McCain has to feel grateful not to be included.


–Josh Marshall:

9:46 PM … No Charlie. It hasn’t been a “fascinating debate.” It’s been genuinely awful.

9:50 PM … What happened to the League of Women Voters? Can we give the debates back to them? This sort of episode really sickens me. KB’s point above is sadly accurate. It’s stuff like this that really makes me think that whole big chunks of the established press needs to be swept away.

9:56 PM … As I noted above, I missed roughly the first half hour of this debate. But from what I heard about those thirty minutes and what I saw of the subsequent ninety minutes was basically debate by gotcha line with basically no discussion of any of the big questions the election is turning on.

–National Review’s Jonah Goldberg:

I’m no leftwing blogger, but I can only imagine how furious they must be with the debate so far. Nothing on any issues. Just a lot of box-checking on how the candidates will respond to various Republican talking points come the fall. Now I think a lot of those Republican talking points are valid and legitimate. But if I were a “fighting Dem” who thinks all of these topics are despicable distractions from the “real issues,” I would find this debate to be nothing but Republican water-carrying.

–Marc Ambinder:

Keeping the score card, there’s no way Obama could fared worse. Nearly 45 minutes of relentless political scrutiny from the ABC anchors and from Hillary Clinton, followed by an issues-and-answers session in which his anger carried over and sort of neutered him. But Hillary Clinton has a Reverse-Teflon problem: her negatives are up, and when she’s perceived as the attacker, the attacks never seem to settle on Obama and always seem to boomerang back on her. So it would be unwise to declare that Hillary “won” the debate in the dynamic sense just yet. (How much money will Obama raise off this debate? $3m million? $4 million?)

…..This sets up a blowback scenario wherein his supporters will rally to his defense and lash out at the media very loudly. But Obama’s going to be the next president of the United States, maybe. The most powerful person in the world. And questions about his personal associations, his character, his personal beliefs, his statements at private fundraisers — the answers to these questions tell us a lot. Sometimes the questions are unfair (( — nothing about Colombia and Mark Penn — )), but this ain’t Pop Warner; the artificial distinction between politics, personality and policy doesn’t exist in this league, and if you’re uncomfortable with it, then change the rules or don’t run for office.

–My DD’s Todd Beaton:

Although it was somewhat redeemed in the final half hour, I feel like taking a shower after that debate. It was tabloid hour on ABC, and certainly Obama did get the bulk of the more disgusting questions. Check out this post over at ABCNews.com: over 4,000 comments, the bulk of which seem to just rip ABC.

As for the candidates’ performances, neither was particularly inspiring and neither had his or her best night, although Obama did get plenty of opportunities to plead for an end to the issues of distraction and division and to call for a new style of politics and seemed to be the conscience of the audience as he called out the moderators. I think Clinton was stronger during the last half hour but not enough to tip the balance in her direction; certainly not enough for this to be a game changer.

It would almost be a shame for this to be the last debate, to go out on such a poor note.

–Chris Bowers:

Halfway through the debate, not a single question on any policy issue had been asked, it was obvious that this debate was prime-time hit job on Obama. The questions so far have been why he doesn’t wear a flag pin, whether or not his pastor loves America, why he can’t win, and how many people were offended by his bittergate comments. Except for Clinton being asked about why she wasn’t trustworthy, and both of them being asked about their vice-presidential choices, that has been the entire debate.

…..It appears that live focus group polling of undecideds favored Obama during the first round of questions that basically was a series of hit-jobs against him, while Clinton polled better in the focus group when it shifted to issues in the second half. Hmmm… perhaps her campaign should learn something from that.

–NBC’s Chuck Todd:

This debate is going to lead a lot of Obama supporters to ratchet up the calls on Clinton to either withdraw or tone down the attacks. Clinton supporters will point to this debate as proof that he’s not yet ready for the general, that’s why she should stay in, and that’s why superdelegates should overturn the winner of pledged delegates.

Overall, with the spotlight on him very bright, Obama didn’t step up. He got rattled early on and never picked his game back up. Clinton wasn’t very warm (outside of he first few minutes), but she didn’t have the spotlight on her very bright. And as we’ve noted in “First Thoughts” quite a few times, whenever the spotlight is on one candidate, the other seems to benefit. Tonight, the spotlight was on Obama, and for a short period of time, I expect Clinton to benefit. But the question is whether she can sustain any benefit since as the negativity goes on, she pays a bigger price than Obama. Let’s see what the PA Dem voting public decides in six days. A big Clinton victory and this debate will be seen as an important turning point, a narrow victory (less than five points) and she could find herself facing more calls to get out.

Could tonight’s true winner be John McCain? We’re betting that’s the unanimous pundit scoring tonight.

–Monica Crowley:

The final two Democratic candidates appeared to sleepwalk through tonight’s debate. I mean, quite literally, they looked so weary that they appeared to be napping while the other was talking. They swayed. They leaned on the podium. Their eyelids were heavy. Their speech was slow and deliberate, each response called up on auto-pilot.They moved as if through molasses.

They both survived. There were no earth-shattering gaffes or obvious slurring or devastating mangling of an issue. But to have both candidates looking ready to keel over is an indication of the toll this drawn-out campaign has had on them. A lot of Democrats are making an issue of John McCain’s age (71), but while he’s got 10 years on Hillary and 25 on Obama, McCain looks the most spry.

–Somervell County Salon:

Just got done watching the ABC Debate that was moderated by Charlie Gibson. Where were the questions about Bush’s torture, about executive signing statements, what about that permanent base in Iraq, what about the huge cost of the war, about bailing out investment bankers, about using PPPs (whether from this country or foreign) to lease out our infrastructure, what about the airline industry FAA problem? Nope. Had to listen to right-wing Republican talking points in a DEMOCRATIC DEBATE coming from Gibson and Steph. Now, on the one hand, maybe it’s a good thing because that’s what will happen when Gramps McCain goes head to head with Obama but you know, if I wanted to watch Fox News, I’d unblock it…

P.S. Hillary Clinton has a look on her face in much of the debate that reminded me of the pissy pursed look that Bush had in the second debate against Kerry.

–The Morning Call’s Pennsylvania Ave:

After the debate, both candidates surrogates rushed to the “Spin room” to field questions from a mass of media outlets about the debate.

The take from Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson was that enough serious questions were raised about Barack Obama in the first half of the debate to give voters second thoughts about his electibility.

“A number of questions were asked really for the first time of Barack Obama,” Wolfson said, putting Obama “back on his heels.”

Wolfson also said he didn’t think Obama’s statements about small town voters who he described as “bitter” and clinging to guns and religion, was a gaffe, but rather “What he believes.”

The Obama campaign countered that most voters were probably frustrated with the first half of the debate, which had very little talk about the issues, instead focusing on political games.

U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Bucks, said he thinks voters were more interested in hearing the candidates talk about issues like Iraq and the economy.

–Blue Ollie:

This night’s debate had potential to be very meaningful. Instead, it was a colossal waste of time.

No, I am not saying that because the moderators (including former Clinton official George Stephanopoulos) piled on Obama; I expect that.

It was because the piling on was over the warmed over trivial stuff: stuff Rev. Wright said, a party that Obama may have attended, why he stopped wearing a flag pin, etc. Yes, Clinton caught the Bosnia “sniper fire” question.

….ABC did more to make BHO’s point that today’s politics is petty and insubstantial….But as far as ABC debate: ABC News not a news organization but rather a tabloid organization.

--Ginger Snaps:

FLAG PINS? Is that what George Snuffalufagus thinks is one of the most important topics that needs to be discussed in a Presidential Debate?!?

Seriously, folks…the first 45 minutes of this debate really should have been relegated to Saturday Night Live. We were treated to questions about flag pins, the Rev. Wright issue that Obama has sufficiently addressed ad nauseum, implying that Obama should answer for the acts his friends committed 40 years ago, and, of course, the “b” word…

…and oh by the way, we have an economic crisis, a war, gas prices are through the roof, unemployment, veterans in crisis, a broken healthcare system…

You know…the things that affect us every single day?!?

…How are we going to get the right candidate in office if the media chooses to ask trivial questions that play on the FEAR of the country, when what we really need to know is their detailed plan for how they are going to fix the situation right now?

–Editor & Publisher Editor Greg Mitchell writing on the Huffington Post:

In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia. They, and their network, should hang their collective heads in shame.

Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the health care and mortgage crises, the overall state of the economy and dozens of other pressing issues had to wait for their few moments in the sun as Obama was pressed to explain his recent “bitter” gaffe and relationship with Rev. Wright (seemingly a dead issue) and not wearing a flag pin — while Clinton had to answer again for her Bosnia trip exaggerations.

Then it was back to Obama to defend his slim association with a former ’60s radical — a question that came out of rightwing talk radio and Sean Hannity on TV, but was delivered by former Bill Clinton aide Stephanopolous. This approach led to a claim that Clinton’s husband pardoned two other ’60s radicals. And so on. The travesty continued.

–National Review’s Mark Hemingway declares McCain the winner and writes:

My prediction? The debate will be received so badly there will be increased pressure to kick Hillary out of the race. But since Obama was clearly the worse of the two in the debate, Hillary will win PA as expected and the goat rodeo will continue for the forseeable future with even more acrimony between the two candidates. Which only helps McCain.

–Newsday’s Spin Cycle:

The highlight of the debate tonight will be Hillary’s repeated efforts to use an electability argument as the basis for sharp attacks on Obama over Bittergate, Wright and 1960s radicals.

It was a tactic geared as much to superdelegates as to Pennsylvania voters, and Obama was not as sharp as he could have been in response. He seemed surprised sometimes, irritated others, and misspoke at least once (about disowning Wright, which he quickly corrected). So, if you’re scoring the debate like a prizefight, she wins a couple more rounds. But no game-changing moments.

–The New Republic’s The Stump blog:

For what it’s worth, I thought it was smart for Obama to go gracious on the Hillary-Bosnia scandal and suggest that they’re both entitled to make a mistake every now and then. Obviously, the choice of questions isn’t doing Obama any favors–bittergate, Wright, William Ayers!–but he’s doing a decent (if low-energy) job not getting dragged into the fray,* and Hillary is coming very close to over-reaching by rubbing his nose in it.

–Matthew Yglesias:

I had thought the Clinton campaign couldn’t sink any lower, but thus far she’s really just been giving us the full GOP. Listening to her talk about Barack Obama is like reading a Weekly Standard blog post. The lame excuse that she’s making this and that outrageous smear because the Republicans will do it later is pathetic. Maybe they will. But she’s the one doing it now.


HERE IS A CROSS SECTION OF NEWS MEDIA REPORT REACTION:
–The New York Times:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton went on the attack against Senator Barack Obama on a variety of issues during a contentious debate Wednesday, warning that he would be deeply vulnerable in a general-election fight if he won the nomination.

….
–The Boston Globe framed it this way:

Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton took their hard-fought battle for the Democratic nomination down to a deeply personal level in a nationally televised debate tonight, trading barbs on honesty, their appeal to working-class voters, and who would be a stronger candidate in November.

Clinton, struggling to gain momentum in the dwindling weeks of the primary campaign, accused Obama of associating with unsavory people, including his own former preacher, and questioned whether Obama — whom she called “a good man” — could beat the GOP nominee in the fall.

“They’re going to be out there in full force,” Clinton said of the Republicans. “I’ve been in this arena for a long time. I have a lot of baggage and everybody has rummaged through it for years.”

Obama, meanwhile, criticized the New York lawmaker for running a negative campaign, and said Clinton herself could not pass the electability test she was imposing on him.

“By Senator Clinton’s own vetting standards, I don’t think she would make it,” he said.

–The Globe’s blog political intelligence was far more blunt:

Barack Obama tonight staked his presidential campaign on the idea that the American people will look beyond the inevitable gaffes and errors and character attacks of a 24-hour campaign cycle to meet the challenges of a “defining moment” in American history.

Hillary Clinton staked her campaign on the idea that Americans won’t — and that her tougher, more strategic approach to countering Republican attacks is a better way for Democrats to reclaim the White House.

The first half of tonight’s debate in the august National Constitution Center in Philadelphia was a tawdry affair, as ABC news questioners called on Obama and Clinton to address a year’s worth of dirty laundry, and each combatant eagerly grabbed at the chance to befoul their rival a little more.

But while some in the audience groaned, the litany of nasty questions — about such matters as Obama’s comments on the working class and Clinton’s exaggerations about dangers she faced in Bosnia — helped to flesh out a long-simmering subtext to the Clinton-Obama battle: The Clinton campaign’s insinuation that Obama is more vulnerable to GOP-style attacks on his patriotism.

….Clinton wasn’t so high-minded. At times, she seemed to revel in her tough-gal statements, sounding like a character in a 1940s film noir.

….The tit-for-tat comment showed how off-message Obama was for most of the evening, able to conjure up little of the hopeful energy that has marked his campaign for much of the year.

…What did come through, however, was how crucial Obama’s self-described “bet on the American people” will be to the future of his campaign.

Obama has said on countless occasions that he believes the American people want “an honest conversation,” and not a campaign of charges and countercharges.

–The Washington Post’s news report on the debate includes this:

With the race for the Democratic presidential nomination mired in a form of trench warfare that has left party leaders searching for a way to bring it to a conclusion before the party’s late-summer convention, Clinton (N.Y.) and Obama (Ill.) began their first head-to-head encounter in nearly two months focused on political disputes rather than their relatively narrow policy differences. Obama, who leads in the delegates needed to claim the nomination, fielded tough questions about his relationship with his former pastor, his patriotism and his description of small-town voters as “bitter,” the latter a controversy that has engulfed his campaign for much of the past week.

Obama argued repeatedly that voters are smart enough to differentiate petty issues from important economic matters.

“So the problem that we have in our politics, which is fairly typical, is that you take one person’s statement, if it’s not properly phrased, and you just beat it to death,” Obama said. “And that’s what Senator Clinton’s been doing over the last four days. And I understand that. That’s politics. And I expect to have to go through this process. But I do think it’s important to recognize that it’s not helping that person who’s sitting at the kitchen table who is trying to figure out how to pay the bills at the end of the month.”

–The Washington Post’s The Fix blog:

The choice between the candidates crystallized tonight. It is not, fundamentally, a choice about issues or even ideology — it is a choice about approach. Obama is an idealist, using nearly every question to appeal to the better angels in people; Obama sees the world as he wants it to be and believes he can make it. Clinton, on the other hand, is an unapologetic pragmatist; she has been through the wringer that is national politics before and knows how to play the game.

*The longer the Democratic campaign goes on, the more clips Republican Sen. John McCain’s campaign can harvest for use against the eventual Democratic nominee. It’s one thing for McCain to take note of ties between Obama and a former member of the Weather Underground; it’s quite another for McCain’s campaign to roll tape of Clinton making those accusations. You can bet Steve Schmidt of McCain’s campaign was Tivoing every minute of tonight’s proceedings for use when summer turns to fall.

[Arles]

I find two things interesting about the feedback from last night: First, that everyone is outraged by the "unfairness" of it when Hillary has been put through the gauntlet for months from the media with Obama getting mostly free passes in interviews prior to the Wright issue. It got so bad that SNL started mocking interviews. Second, the questions were exactly the same that every mainstream network has treated republican candidates. Remember the kook with the Bible on the Youtube debate and the unending questions about lead paint in toys and what crime women who have abortions should be charged with?

Mainstream media debates have now become the prime example of "gotcha" politics for both sides.

[sterlingice]

I think this debate really shows that this Democratic campaign needs to have a bullet put in it or the general election is going to be done before it even starts. Everyone is used to R taking shots at D and D taking shots at R and we can all take it with a grain of salt and go "well, clearly, as they are on different sides of the political spectrum"- there's a mental disconnect there for us. But this is going nowhere but down for the Dems.

SI

[Noop]

In class today we had a debate about this debate and the general feeling was Obama got setup. A few students who lean to the right even said as much, in fact I remember going to the cafeteria to get something to eat and listening to people talk about this debate.

I didn't know it meant that much to people. I am very disappointed in the Democratic Party because this election should have been easy for anyone they put out there and they blew it. The only hope would be Al Gore or maybe John Edwards.

Sorry for the rant.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

First, that everyone is outraged by the "unfairness" of it when Hillary has been put through the gauntlet for months from the media with Obama getting mostly free passes in interviews prior to the Wright issue. It got so bad that SNL started mocking interviews.

Yep. That bothered me too. Obama was treated as Clinton has been treated and all of a sudden, its an uproar, and "bias" being charged and all that. It took SNL to shame the MSM into realizing they were fawning all over Obama and dumping on Clinton earlier in the primaries.

[Young Drachma]

Solutions not hope!

[Raiders Army]

Let's focus on the real issues here, not lying about sniper fire!

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yep. That bothered me too. Obama was treated as Clinton has been treated and all of a sudden, its an uproar, and "bias" being charged and all that. It took SNL to shame the MSM into realizing they were fawning all over Obama and dumping on Clinton earlier in the primaries.

Yes, I'm sure SNL, particularly modern SNL with the giant pile of notfunniness they manage to assemble on a weekly basis shamed the big boogeyman "Mainstream Media"

SI

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Noop

I am very disappointed in the Democratic Party because this election should have been easy for anyone they put out there and they blew it.

No presidential election is going to be "easy" for the modern Democratic party. Starting with a hardcore base of 40% and trying to win over enough independents to get to 270 Electoral votes is extremely difficult with the far left wing in control of the party.

[ISiddiqui]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/13/ar...yt&oref=slogin

Over the past three weeks “SNL” has put itself back into the national discussion — not a bad place for any television show to be, as Mr. Michaels acknowledged — first with a series of sketches that have centered on the premise that Mrs. Clinton has been the target of a vengeful press that sees Mr. Obama with stars in its eyes

A study by the Pew research organization found that critical coverage of Mr. Obama had increased in the news media after the sketches.

And, of course, that wasn't the only story in papers and on the internet about the SNL sketch's impact.

[flere-imsaho]

Good stuff from Jon Stewart:

Doesn't elite mean "good?" Is that not something we're looking for in a president anymore? ... I know elite is a bad word in politics. You want to go bowling and throw back a few beers. But the job you're applying for---if you get it and it goes well---they might carve your head into a mountain. If you don't actually think you're better than us, then what the fuck are you doing? ... [N]ot only do I want an elite president, I want someone who is embarrassingly superior to me.

[Logan]

We'll be waiting a long, long time for someone to come around that has no weaknesses, drawbacks, skeletons in their closet, etc.

[Arles]

IMO, anyone that fits that description from Stewart above should be smart enough to make himself not come off as elite numerous times. That's the difference between John Kerry (thinks he's elite and comes off as elite) and Bill Clinton (thinks he's elite but seasoned enough to come off as a normal guy).

The last thing you want is your political leader looking like a pompous ass when dealing with other heads of state. It's OK to be "elite", just don't let it slip to the country that you are.

[CamEdwards]

Like Arlie said, I think there's a difference in being an elite and exhibiting an elitist attitude.

Frankly though, I don't think Obama's coming off as an elitist, as much as he is demonstrating he's out of touch with the everyday experiences of many Americans. I don't necessarily see that as a huge drawback, because I don't think any of the three candidates is the automatic "man (or person) of the people" in this election.

[miked]

They are elite. They think they know what's good enough for 300+ million people. You have to have lots of money to run. These aren't normal people, they are elite. If you think a few comments is what makes people "realize" it, you are quite foolish. If people are looking for one of the guys (or gals) to lead our country, they must have not been paying attention to last 10,000 years.

On a side note, it's funny because most of what you said about being pompous and out of touch applies to our current leader, who you probably defend.

[Buccaneer]

Cal Coolidge begs to differ.

[Deattribution]

We need Ron Paul, he would of gotten rid of debates and solved this problem entirely.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by miked

They are elite. They think they know what's good enough for 300+ million people. You have to have lots of money to run. These aren't normal people, they are elite. If you think a few comments is what makes people "realize" it, you are quite foolish. If people are looking for one of the guys (or gals) to lead our country, they must have not been paying attention to last 10,000 years.

On a side note, it's funny because most of what you said about being pompous and out of touch applies to our current leader, who you probably defend.

So you're completely discounting populism as a political force on both the left and the right?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Cal Coolidge begs to differ.

Dude, that was 100 years ago.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

The last thing you want is your political leader looking like a pompous ass when dealing with other heads of state.

Or giving them backrubs.

[Toddzilla]

Well, if you've got all those "elite" attributes, why waste it to be he POTUS? Go into private business and make hundreds of millions with a micro-fraction of the stress.

[miked]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

So you're completely discounting populism as a political force on both the left and the right?

No, I'm just talking intelligence here. These people are elite. They are not one of the guys. You don't vote for W because you think he's going to come to your local bar and throw back a few with you. He may live on a ranch, but he hasn't been "one of the guys" for decades. None of these people really have, it's just silly for them to be calling each other elitists (especially Romney who is in the news throwing the "E" word at Obama).

[Passacaglia]

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/42590

[Toddzilla]

Journalist, heal thyself...

"What he's going to do in this campaign is focus on what's important to the American people, on the jobs and the education. That's what the American people care about. They want to move into the future. They don't want to be diverted by side issues, and they're not going to let the Republican attack machine divert them"

George Stephanopolus, 1993.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Well, if you've got all those "elite" attributes, why waste it to be he POTUS? Go into private business and make hundreds of millions with a micro-fraction of the stress.

Maybe some people get off more on massive power and notoriety than massive money. Dubya's not exactly been an overwhelmingly popular President but he's still more well known than Bill Gates or Warren Buffet.

How many of the top 20 do you recognize by name if I take Gates and Buffet off the list? I knew all of 1 other (#14):
http://www.forbes.com/2008/03/05/ric...?partner=links

So there's something to be said for want of fame and power vs wealth and power.

SI

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Journalist, heal thyself...

"What he's going to do in this campaign is focus on what's important to the American people, on the jobs and the education. That's what the American people care about. They want to move into the future. They don't want to be diverted by side issues, and they're not going to let the Republican attack machine divert them"

George Stephanopolus, 1993.

To be very fair, that was before the Clinton Administration was really hit hard by all these "side issues" scandels. It may have soured Stephanopolus to what the American people actually care about.

And... of course, that's when Stephanopolous was in the Administration (and had to speak carefully for political reasons) and not in the private sector.

[Buccaneer]

From Obama's speech today in Philly:

"It was over 200 years ago that a group of patriots gathered in this city to do something that no one in the world believed they could do," Obama said. "After years of a government that didn't listen to them, or speak for them, or represent their hopes and their dreams, a few humble colonists came to Philadelphia to declare their independence from the tyranny of the British throne."

The Illinois senator called Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton a "tenacious" opponent but said it was time to move beyond the politics of the 1990s.

"Her message comes down to this: We can't really change the say-anything, do-anything, special interest-driven game in Washington, so we might as well choose a candidate who really knows how to play it," Obama said.

That's actually pretty good. I can see lightbulbs going on in some voter's minds with these good analogies.

[Young Drachma]

Obama: Being black confers no advantage
By LEONARD PITTS JR.
[email protected]

I bet Hillary Clinton wishes Bob Johnson would stop trying to help her.

Johnson is the billionaire BET founder and Clinton supporter who embarrassed his candidate and himself during the South Carolina primary by clumsily attempting to inject Barack Obama's self-confessed youthful drug use into the campaign and then clumsily denying he was doing it. To judge from his latest comments, he still hasn't learned to engage brain before operating mouth.

In March, Johnson told The Charlotte Observer he agreed with comments that forced Geraldine Ferraro to resign from Clinton's campaign last month. Ferraro essentially called Obama the affirmative action candidate, saying that if he were not black, he would not be the political phenom he is.

Said Johnson, 'What I believe Geraldine Ferraro meant is that if you take a freshman senator from Illinois called `Jerry Smith' and he says, 'I'm going to run for president,' would he start off with 90 percent of the black vote? And the answer is, probably not.''

Naturally, Johnson is wrong. If being black conferred, as he and Ferraro seem to think, some mysterious advantage in politics (unlike in virtually every other field of endeavor), Jesse Jackson would have been president years ago. He is, after all, black. As are Al Sharpton and Alan Keyes. All tried, yet none came close to winning the presidency.

Johnson is also wrong about black support for Obama. As recently as December, Gallup pollsters found Clinton had significantly higher favorable ratings among black voters than Obama. Of course, that was before Obama's resounding victory in Iowa, Clinton's gaffe about Martin Luther King's role in the civil rights movement, and clanking attempts by Clinton surrogates like Johnson to kneecap Obama.

For the record, Obama became a political phenomenon for the exact reason a political novice named Ross Perot did: He moved voters. But Perot is white. I'd love to see how Johnson fits that into his crackpot thesis.

It's not just that he's wrong on the facts that's galling but, rather, that he is wrong on something deeper.

An easy hook

If you are black, after all, you are used to this, used to having your achievements -- and failures -- lazily conflated with your skin color. It's an easy hook for those who lack the imagination or intelligence to dig deeper. Like Rush Limbaugh, who said in 2003 that Donovan McNabb only became a football star because he's black.

You'd expect Johnson, as a black man, to know better. Especially since he's surely seen his success diminished this same way. You think no one ever said Johnson (who, according to a Washington Post report, went to Princeton on an affirmative action program) only became a billionaire because he's black?

But then, Johnson has never identified overmuch with black folks' struggles. He once told C-SPAN he acknowledged no responsibility to be a role model for his community.

''What are my responsibilities to black people at large?'' he asked. ``If I help my family get over and deal with the problems they might confront, then I have achieved that one goal that is my responsibility to society at large.''

And the rest of y'all Negroes is on your own.

Johnson proved his regard for his people for years by exploiting them, poisoning our kids with a video parade of gyrating backsides, gold grills, and pimp values, a caricature of black life so unremittingly racist as to make the Ku Klux Klan redundant.

I pity him. He is an American success story and an African-American tragedy: a selfish, sterling example of the self-loathing so common among marginalized peoples.

On the plus side, I don't think he has to worry about being called a role model.

http://www.miamiherald.com/living/co...ry/501952.html

[Mac Howard]

I pity him. He is an American success story and an African-American tragedy: a selfish, sterling example of the self-loathing so common among marginalized peoples.

What an appalling example of the attitude "if you disagree with me then you're racist - even if you are black"

The stats speak for themselves - 80% of the black voters vote for Obama, 50% or so of the overall democrat vote is for him (the white voters must be less than 50%).

One of two things can be deduced from this:

1) some black voters are voting for Obama because he's black - ie the black vote should be ~50%

2) some white voters are voting against Obama because he's black - ie the democratic vote should be 80% for Obama

Somewhere in between I suspect but there is clearly some aspect of Obama that appeals to the black population and/or turns off the white population and it is reasonable to assume that at least a part of that is the race factor. Johnson is not wholly wrong - merely expressing a view that offends the self-righteous mentality of the pc thought police.

We might have expected a similar "sexist" vote for Clinton - women/men voting/not voting for her because she's a woman though the stats are not as extreme on this as far as I can see.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Arles

The last thing you want is your political leader looking like a pompous ass when dealing with other heads of state. It's OK to be "elite", just don't let it slip to the country that you are.

I'd rather have my leader looking like a "pompous ass" than like a dumbass.

The thing about this whole 'elite' bullshit is the fact that yes, I would like my president to be smart, thanks very much. Smarter than me would be a plus. Smarter than those smarter than me would be even better. "Regular guys" are over their head in the presidency, I'd guess.

[Arles]

I don't think the Bob Johnson quote is accurate. This would have been better for him to say:

Said Johnson, 'What I believe Geraldine Ferraro meant is that if you take a freshman senator from Illinois called `Jerry Smith' and he says, 'I'm going to run for president,' would he start off with 90 percent of the TV/print media behind him? And the answer is, probably not.''

Obama had been the media darling since his DNC convention speech years earlier. And, to be honest, I can't really blame the media. Here was a well-spoken, idealistic, young, attractive black man with a great message. That's like political gold to newspapers, magazines and network stations. The problem for Obama is that he hasn't been able to turn the corner and close out the race since mid-Feb. Which is no small feat against the Clintons, but it is something he should have been able to do given the momentum he had early on.

Originally Posted by path12

I'd rather have my leader looking like a "pompous ass" than like a dumbass.

I'd like to think that someone out there could be in the "neither" case. Still, in this youtube age, every president from here on out will have atleast a handful of "dumbass" moments during his tenure.

The thing about this whole 'elite' bullshit is the fact that yes, I would like my president to be smart, thanks very much. Smarter than me would be a plus. Smarter than those smarter than me would be even better. "Regular guys" are over their head in the presidency, I'd guess.

I want him to be smarter than me and I just don't want to see him be all smug about it every time he talks to me.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Arles

I want him to be smarter than me and I just don't want to see him be all smug about it every time he talks to me.

YMMV I guess. I get smug way more off of Clinton (and McCain for that matter) than I do from Obama. What I get from Obama is someone actually not speaking to the lowest common denominator, which is both startling in its rarity and a refreshing change.

[JonInMiddleGA]

http://apnews.myway.com//article/200...D906FPN01.html

LOS ANGELES (AP) - A smackdown among presidential candidates?

Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain will appear on World Wrestling Entertainment's live "Monday Night Raw" (8-11 p.m. EST on cable's USA network) but instead of smacking each other down, they separately will deliver some wrestling-themed stumping in taped messages before Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary.

"Tonight, in honor of the WWE, you can call me Hillrod," Clinton says in her message. "This election is starting to feel a lot like 'King of the Ring.' The only difference? The last man standing may just be a woman."

Obama borrows The Rock's famous catchphrase during his appearance.

"To the special interests who've been setting the agenda in Washington for too long and to all the forces of division and distraction that has stopped us from making progress, for the American people, I've got one question: Do you smell what Barack is cooking?" Obama says before flashing a smile.

McCain, meanwhile, looked to Hulkamania for inspiration for his message.

"Looks like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama want to celebrate their differences in the ring," McCain says. "Well, that's fine with me, but let me tell you: If you want to be the man, you have to beat the man. Come November, it'll be game over. And whatcha gonna do when John McCain and all his McCainiacs run wild on you?"

The candidate appearances will be used to promote "Smackdown Your Vote!" - the WWE's voter registration drive.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by path12

YMMV I guess. I get smug way more off of Clinton (and McCain for that matter) than I do from Obama. What I get from Obama is someone actually not speaking to the lowest common denominator, which is both startling in its rarity and a refreshing change.

So his bullshit is more erudite and for that you're grateful? My, how far our expectations have fallen in this country.

[path12]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

So his bullshit is more erudite and for that you're grateful? My, how far our expectations have fallen in this country.

I take it your positing that what one gets from all three is bullshit. I don't know that I'm quite that cynical (though I certainly am getting there), but in that case yes, I'd prefer to have the erudite bullshit as opposed to the lowest common denominator bullshit.

[Raiders Army]

"Looks like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama want to celebrate their differences in the ring," McCain says. "Well, that's fine with me, but let me tell you: If you want to be the man, you have to beat the man. Come November, it'll be game over. And whatcha gonna do when John McCain and all his McCainiacs run wild on you?"

Don't know why I still quoted the quotes around the quote, but that's Flair and Hogan put together, not just Hogan! He has my vote!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

My, how far our expectations have fallen in this country.

I mean, let's face it, you pretty much have to take what you can get these days.

[Buccaneer]

I'm curious. Clinton just used Osama bin Laden in an ad and so far, no comments that I can see. If McCain uses the same image in the general, for the same reason (i.e., need someone tough and decisive to fight terrorism), will there be an outcry?

[TazFTW]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

http://apnews.myway.com//article/200...D906FPN01.html

If Obama ever Barack Bottom'd Hillary, he'll have my vote.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I'm curious. Clinton just used Obama bin Laden in an ad and so far, no comments that I can see. If McCain uses the same image in the general, for the same reason (i.e., need someone tough and decisive to fight terrorism), will there be an outcry?

I have not seen that ad. I just tried searching YouTube for it and can't find it. Wonder if it just came out.

I would think doing something like that (putting "Obama bin Laden" in an ad) would be political suicide.

Edit: Did you mean that she used OSAMA bin Laden? I have seen that ad.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Although I'll crack a joke about it over in the wrestling thread, I have to admit that it seemed kind of tacky that the WWE got the legit promos from all three candidates for their voter campaign but still couldn't resist a somewhat harsh parody of both Obama & Clinton (okay, rougher on Clinton really).

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by sabotai

I have not seen that ad. I just tried searching YouTube for it and can't find it. Wonder if it just came out.

I would think doing something like that (putting "Obama bin Laden" in an ad) would be political suicide.

Edit: Did you mean that she used OSAMA bin Laden? I have seen that ad.

Shit. Did I say that? I really didn't mean to. Sorry.

[JPhillips]

Pennsylvania prediction

Hillary 53
Obama 44

A nine point win doesn't allow either candidate to gain, so that's what I'm expecting.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Pennsylvania prediction

Hillary 53
Obama 44

A nine point win doesn't allow either candidate to gain, so that's what I'm expecting.

I think that's spot on. Different Q - at what point will there be enough pressure for Hillary to bow out? I can't see her winning NC. So, after that primary, do you think she'll be forced to concede?

[miked]

I would think if she loses NC big, and loses IN, I can't see any reason for her to stay in. She and all her supporters keep talking about needing a delegate lead, or at the minimum a vote count lead. She will have neither, and after NC/IN, I believe OR has Obama ahead in the polls as well.

Basically, somebody is going to have to sit her down, tell her if she truly believes Obama will not make a better candidate than McCain, that she needs to step out and save face for the next cycle. Her likability ratings just keep diving week in and out as her campaign does a scorched earth tactic.

[ISiddiqui]

The irony is that the reason many thought she'd be a good Dem candidate (her tenacity and never say die attitude) is causing major problems in the Dem primary.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by miked

Basically, somebody is going to have to sit her down, tell her if she truly believes Obama will not make a better candidate than McCain, that she needs to step out and save face for the next cycle. Her likability ratings just keep diving week in and out as her campaign does a scorched earth tactic.

I sincerely doubt that she'll get another shot at the presidency. It's now or never for her. Obama could get another shot in future years.

[path12]

I'll agree with JPhillips and guess Hillary by 9.