January 24, 2008
The Clintons vs. Obama (A.B. Stoddard)
Associate Editor A.B. Stoddard answers your questions on Bill & Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards and a lot more.
Archived under: Presidential Campaign
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 6 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
If both Hillary or Obama would NOT get down in the gutters and fight this out, I would be livid, pissed, and considering NOT voting at all.
I've had enough of girly-men like Dukhakis, Kerry, and Al Gore running sissy-men campaigns. The DLC has been a part of the problem, not the solution.
Additionally, if Hill and Obama did not fight it out, the media would all over it in the same exact fashion. A catch 22. The media would then recognize the disgruntled voters and report on it, and the pundits would analyze it.
We want a fighter, not a sissy. And both Obama or Hillary can do it, can fight, as we are witnessing.
Comment by Lester — January 24, 2008 @ 8:39 pm
Thank you for the shout out AB.
I don't think Bill Clinton is an asset on the attack.
Since when has attacking the press gotten them to stop writing the stories you don't like, and suddenly wake up to see your point?
Hasn't the coverage all this week been about how Hillary's campaign has continually distorted Obama's record?
I think the Clinton's got Obama post Iowa syndrome. They overreached, got over confident, and now gave Obama exactly what he wanted for February 5th. They allowed him to inject her war vote, judgment, and honesty/candor into the presidential race exactly at the moment when all the February 5th states start to pay attention.
In the early part of the week, the Clintons were going memo for memo with Obama. But towards the end of the week, once they realized they had been bested, they locked down the message and brought Hillary back a day early to South Carolina. What was going back and forth on the points, went back to their losing message of 'so much for the politics of hopoe', which is their standard response to anything Obama says. This happened directly following Obama's tough radio ad about Hillary saying and doing anything to get elected. Obama needed a tie breaker and the Clintons gave it to him.
Change=Obama
Experience=Hillary
Honesty=?????
Look at the debate, Obama possesses the ability to get down and fight(first half), and then seemingly be buddy buddy and highminded on the hope bandwagon(second half) like nothing ever happened. Watch for that going into February 5th. I think his message is going to be: Do you want to go back to that? Do you want the circus back in town?
Comment by Brian — January 25, 2008 @ 1:48 am
Good comments Brian. Did you folks see the new picture of Hillary and Bill with the slum lord SHE accused Obama of being friends with? HuffingtonPost.com
Coonsey's View
http://www.freewebs.com/coonsey/
Comment by Connie Manes — January 25, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
A reasonable supposition from the Clinton's behavior is that blacks should do what they are told in the Democratic party, or prepare to get put in your place. I wrote a blog about it today, called "Hillary's March to The Sea."
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — January 25, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
Good grief, are you kidding me? Would you seriously rather watch Hillary and Obama split hairs about who might have more of an affinity for Ronald Reagan than talk about things that matter?…I don't know, things like the economy and what not. Yeah talking about what not would be more productive than what the two of them have been doing. Everyone acts like they are in seventh grade again and just wants the rush of witnessing the fat kid give the new kid a bloody nose. (I'm not calling Hillary fat…) This is so lame. And to have a former president egging on the perpetrator is beyond immature. It makes me think we need to consider raising the age limit to run for President from 35 to "no Clintons allowed."
Comment by Ashley — January 26, 2008 @ 1:12 am
I completely agree Brian; this was Senator Obama's best debate by far. He responded to the Clintons' lies strongly with the truth. I believe he's put to rest the questions some voters might have had about his ability to "fight back". He will NOT be swiftboated.
When the campaign started, my only concern was Sen. Obama's debating ability. His style has always been cooperative, not confrontational as is required at times in debate. Living here in Illinois, I was able to listen to his debate with Alan Keyes before the 2004 election. Sen. Obama calmly presented his positions, content to let Keyes rave on. I kept wondering why Obama never attacked or slapped him around verbally; this was a guy, after all, that had called him a baby-killer, for instance, and at one point said, "Jesus Christ wouldn't vote for Obama". Of course, the Senator didn't need to confront him anyway. Alan Keyes being a certifiable loon, Obama won easily. But I never knew if he had made a tactical decision to remain calm, or just couldn't bring himself to be confrontational in a debate.
After Monday night's performance, I'd say he's either been practicing quite a bit or he's had the stuff all along. This was what I was waiting to see, and I'm very proud of our Senator. The "sometimes I don't know who I'm running against" line I particularly liked.
Bill Clinton may have been an asset to Hillary at the beginning, but if he continues to lie and Obama continues to meet each lie with truth, a very clear pattern will be there for voters to see (if it isn't already).
Comment by Derek D. — January 26, 2008 @ 4:02 am