Tonight's democratic debate was more interesting than the last few as Tim and Brian asked nuanced questions all over the board. Clinton came across like a ticking time bomb and made some inappropriate gaffes that would probably help seal the deal against her with any undecided voters in Texas and Ohio (if they even exist). First she complained about always being asked questions first (whiny and insincere - she likes answering the big questions first, because then Obama can only say - "I agree with everything Hillary said"). Then she criticized Obama on not rejecting Farrakhan's support (but got the sound bite wrong - she ended the diatribe saying "it's not enough to denounce, but you should also reject"; that made no sense. She should have said "you should reject the support, not just denounce the speeches"). The mistake cost her the point, because he just made a joke about it.
Obama was just as cool as can be. The black Paul Newman, or a 21st Century Marlboro Man.
I still hope and think she could win. But I think she's doing a terrible job debating him. He jabs at her subtly, while she pounces awkwardly. They showed a clip of her making fun of his naiveté of hope. She should have made the point of the invalidity of the "uniter" idea - 1) there is no reason to believe both sides of the aisle would become liberal if he were to become a president, and 2) he has no experience that indicates he could pull off such a miracle. She could also have linked this delusional fantasy to Bush's 2000 campaigning as a "uniter, not a divider" - showing how 7 years of a "uniter" have caused one of the widest rifts in the population (the only thing we all agree on is that we've had enough of his unitin'). Why isn't she better prepared on this??? Why didn't she defend NAFTA in general, instead of concentrating what's going wrong with it (it needs tweaking; more importantly, our country is best when it evolves - we used to be an agricultural economy, then we became a manufacturing country, now we're gonna create new green technologies, biotechnology solutions to diseases we never thought we could fight, tourist space flight, and who knows what else. NAFTA is part of a liberal economic policy that helps all countries compete on a level playing field and we're just going through growing pains that will eventually lead us to becoming stronger than ever)? Why did she sound cagey on her tax return? Why did she mis-pronounce Medvedev and say "or whatever is name is"? Ugh...
Last week I thought Obama's supporters were deluded. Tonight, I feel disillusioned.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Clinton, You're Killing Me!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
maybe defending NAFTA would have cost her votes in Ohio? why they were even talking about NAFTA was beyond me.
sorry, bud.
They mentioned Youngstown, OH as an example of a dead ex-manufacturing city (similar to Moore's Flint). So I guess Ohioans think if we repeal NAFTA they'll get their jobs back - but really those jobs will end up in China, India, Peru, etc. That's why I think she should have simply defended it (since she has been doing that for so long already). She sort of did defend it, but she sounded like she was pandering.
Bloomberg's out too so now she really has to win for me :)
http://www.myphonecard.cn
http://www.myphonecard.cn
a lot of beautiful jewelry for example
-----Tiffany jewelry----
Bangle
Bracelet
Cuff Links
Earrings
Key Rings
Money Clips
Necklace
Packaging
Rings
1837
Post a Comment