April 28, 2007

Did Obama Blow The Debate?

That's the question I pose at Heading Right, after the Washington Post reports that Hillary Clinton has focused on Barack Obama's less-than-muscular response to a hypothetical question about a terrorist attack on the US. What did Obama miss that Hillary, John Edwards, and Bill Richardson get right -- and is it the Kitty Dukakis question of this primary season?


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Did Obama Blow The Debate?:

Comments (9)

Posted by RBMN [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 28, 2007 10:26 AM

For what Sen. Obama is trying to do right now--win a Democrat primary fight--I think his was exactly the right tone. The first thing to do, as far as retaliation goes, is organize committees and study groups. He knows his audience.

Posted by pilsener [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 28, 2007 10:30 AM

Only 18 months to go! There are still thousands of platitudes, evasions, mistatements, gaffes, and pure mush to come from the candidates. There may even be a few - precious few - moments of honesty and candor.

The worst part is that we still have 18 months of punditry, media spin, and breathless blogging ahead of us.

Posted by FredRum [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 28, 2007 10:40 AM

But he blew it so eloquently, which is all that really matters isn't it?

Posted by Brooklyn [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 28, 2007 11:47 AM


well written piece Captain.
looks good at Heading Right.

however, i must challenge the concept of accepting Hillary's claims, after a history of appeasement and ignoring threats, including attacks on Americans, when she was Co-President.

(it should not be ceded: no Conservative pundit should ignorantly say 'Hillary will be more defense minded than the other Democrat Candidates for President', because the poor Clinton Legacy is a vivid reminder of inaction, and was actually rebuked by the 9-11 Commission).

in fact, in terms of the Liberal Democrat Primary, Obama may indeed more honestly reflect the beliefs and expression of the Democrat Faithful these days.

Hillary again, must explain the concerning lie, which seems mostly ignored...

she claims President Bush became 'distracted' and went to attack some who weren't relevant after Afghanistan...
(even as we capture al Qaeda leaders in Iraq today)

* then why did Ms. Rodham vote for it?
why did she advocate for the invasion of Iraq?
if it was just a distraction?

again, this is the type of weak, irresponsible effort Ms. Clinton provides, when something she is partly responsible for, turns out as seemingly unpopular.

she still blames someone else for her actions...

if you look at this carefully, it is a vivid reminder of the contradiction Mrs. Clinton offers.

she may sound tough in a verbal response on a stage, then quickly provides a reminder she is not strong, ethical, or responsible.

Ms. Clinton reveals she will act in manners of political expedience, and nothing more.

Joe Lieberman is a vivid example, of the opposite.

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 28, 2007 12:10 PM

Like most Americans, I didn't watch the debate, either.

But I can't forget what Nixon said, "it doesn't matter what you say about me, as long as my name is above the fold. Headlines get people to notice ya."

Oh, yeah. I'm misrepresenting that quote.

But to politicians and actors, getting their names mentioned in the press, is such a big deal, they even pay people to professionally polish up these opportunities.

I'm not even sure the 8 you see really represents anything at all?

Even the best Broadway Shows changed lots of things about themselves, during the out-da-town tryouts.

We're a long way from 2008.

Where the real meat on the ticket will be how a GOP person gets nominated for the presidential run. Here? Dubya's presence hurts. More than helps.

But so far? We're just phoning in approvals.

Will we pick our prez on American Idol? To bypass the folderol?

Posted by Brooklyn [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 28, 2007 3:07 PM


well said Carol.

However, back to the Democrat Problem, which i was trying to suggest about Hillary Rodham.

They are all demeaning the effort in Iraq, Hillary denying her true responsibility, and Powerline notes the statements of the General:

"We do definitely see links to the greater al Qaeda network... There is no question but that there is a network that supports the movement of foreign fighters through Syria into Iraq... The Iranian involvement has really become much clearer to us and brought into much more focus during the interrogation of the members--the heads of the Qazali network and some of the key members of that network that have been in detention now for a month or more. This is the head of the secret cell network, the extremist secret cells. They were provided substantial funding, training on Iranian soil, advanced explosive munitions and technologies, as well as run-of-the-mill arms and ammunition, in some cases advice, and in some cases even a degree of direction."

Democrats lied in for many years, especially prior to the 2006 Election, telling Americans Iraq has nothing to do with al Qaeda.

The MSM supports this lie, but they must not be able to undermine the GWOT.

we cannot let them get away with this, for it is central to the future Security of our Nation.

Posted by The Fly-Man [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 28, 2007 4:27 PM

Let me fill you all in on a little secret. When anyone on the right, and granted I like it here for the abundance of serious consideration and debate, anyone criticizes or attempts to think that a Dean Moment is going to happen to the Democratic front runner, all that fine analysis is going to be just like that Far Side cartoon that explains what dogs really hear. Ginger, blah, blah, blah, blah. it just doesn't matter folks. The GOP is just going to have to convince more people to vote for them. Winning the White House is all that counts and I don't think by the time the election rolls around, short of finding Vince Foster's body in the trunk of HRC's campaign bus, all criticism will be considered noise. Let Richard Land and James Dobson be the Ross Perot/Ralph Nader this time. Social Theocrats can't be that big of hypocrites to vote for any of the current GOP front runners can they? Again, I think Fred Thompson and Justice Thomas is the winning ticket.

Posted by kingronjo [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 28, 2007 4:41 PM

surely this is a joke. Obama not having a 'muscular response' being some sort of negative in a Democratic primary debate? Umm, unless I have been forgetting this is opposite, not day but generation, the tough responders lost points amongst the typical Dem primary voter. I give you Ned Lamont lest you doubt me.

As my daughter says, get your head in the game.

Posted by Muse Unamused [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 29, 2007 8:07 AM

Tenet is a drowning loser in the whirlpool of his own making.

Hillary has the blood of women and children crying against her, burnt to death in America. They are unfortunately merely some of the known dead in her wake. The woman who promoted the destruction of the myth of motherhood is against HIllary for her mannerisms. Jesus! Mannerisms aside, I'm against Hillary's essense.

Pharmaceutical companies are promoting their drug to erase memory, unpleasant memory they say. Compound the social acceptance turned reliance upon drugs with a politician who issues executive orders that everyone must take a drug prior to proving the side effects (Texas Gov. Perry case in point), and you have the reality of a very unsettling future regardless of who is in office.

The Grand Old Party is symbolized by the elephant for its long memory. Beware fascistic revisionism, whether educationally or drug induced or even promoted by a cult's claim to "continuous revelation".

Still to his credit, Bush takes responsibility for the buck.