Last night’s debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama didn’t really alter the dynamic of the campaign. Heading into the primaries in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania we are where we have been for the last couple of weeks: we know that the states naturally favour Senator Clinton but that the momentum is with Senator Obama. The debate last night didn’t seem to really strengthen either candidate massively- what we learnt about the two was much of what we already know. Both senators are intelligent individuals- both have star power and both seem to find the debating format of politics in the states congenial. The contrast between this debate and George Bush’s efforts in 2004 was stunning: both of these candidates are far out of the league of the present President.
If one candidate won in terms of their manner and the way that the debate went, it was Senator Obama. Hillary came across on several occasions as mean spirited and picking up on trivial points.
For example, at one point she pressed Obama to reject as well as denounce Louis Farakhan. Senator Obama agreed to do both though looked understandably mystified that there was a great difference between the two concepts. Senator Clinton was on the attack more and was more negative about her opponent. Senator Obama concentrated less on attacking Senator Clinton and more on arguing for his own candidacy and on attacking Senator McCain, the Republican candidate, whom Senator Clinton didn’t really mention. Senator Obama needs to beware though, questions about Farakhan are easy to dismiss. But questions about an anti-semitic pastor from whose sermon, Obama borrowed the title of his book ‘The Audacity of Hope’ will come up again.
In terms of policy, its very difficult to draw any line between these two senators. In truth much of the difference revealed was tempramental. We don’t know what the next US President will face- any number of things could make all the debate that we are seeing at the moment irrelevant in the next couple of months. Character is almost more important than policy detail. Senator Obama demonstrated a calmer temprament than Senator Clinton but then its easier to be calmer when you are in the lead. Foreign policywise both candidates seem to be roughly in the same place. Senator Obama is committed to taking out Al Quaeda terrorists on allied soil- in Pakistan for example- and he has demonstrated a more aggressive strategy there. Senator Obama is possibly a tougher global policeman than Senator Clinton. Senator Clinton on the other hand waffled about her vote in favour of the Iraq war and still can’t answer Obama’s criticism on that point. But both promise a multilateralist approach and a swift withdrawel from Iraq- the differences between them at this point are wafer thin. On domestic policy, the questions didn’t really bring out many of the main differences- it would have been interesting to hear Clinton defend the concept of tax credits. The health discussion demonstrated that both candidates understood the detail of their policies- but how far such detailed plans will survive Congressional scrutiny remains to be seen.
Overall the debate was interesting- but it won’t be crucial in defining the campaign- no Nixon-Kennedy moment here. The dynamic has not changed- I would award the debate to Senator Obama marginally- but there were no knock out blows. Lets hope the Democrats can get a candidate before the convention.
post to del.icio.us |
It’s a waiting game now to see when the most opportune moment is going to be for Clinton to hang up her boots. I obviously can’t imagine her withdrawing her campaign before Tuesday, but I do wonder whether or not she may withdraw if she only records minor wins. Hillary will be out by North Carolina, that much is a certainty in my mind as by that point she will have totally lost the ability to get the right number of delegates, but my feeling is that it is a long time before Pennsylvania and the democrats won’t want this struggle going on for that long if they can help it.
It’s a side issue I know, but is Obama’s pastor genuinely racist or anti-semitic? I have seen little evidence for this – it seems limited to some understandable Black pride statements, and discussion of Zionism that would be par for the course across Europe.
Of course if this role model for Obama is found to be either racist or anti-semitic, then it’s a torpedo to Obama’s campaign (and I saw this as a dedicated supporter of his)
The question is just how readily people will buy in to it
Ugh, accidental submit! I meant to say it depends how readily people buy in to it in the swing states, and how Obama reacts. I’ve no doubt staunch Republicans already believe he is a Muslim Terrorist ready to sell the country out to Iran, but they don’t really matter in this race.
Well, Obama has a higher rating amongst Republicans than Clinton does. Given that they think most liberals are the devil, I’m not sure being tagged Muslim makes it much worse for him.
I think the biggest attack point McCain will use against him won’t be Farrakhan or going heavily into Pakistan.
I think the biggest point they’ll use is this label by National Review magazine that he is the most liberal of all Democrat candidates. They briefly talked about this, as I recall, but I think that may be McCain’s strongest weapon.
YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)
If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary’s than they had ever been before or since.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..
Best regards
jacksmith…
Experience is over-rated, especially Hillary’s 35 year doing the same thing and becoming indoctrinated into the workings of the system. Other kinds of experience are beneficial too, as well as the willingness to not conform to the old practices carried out by the Clinton and Bush family for decades.
You talk a lot for someone with very little to say, by the way.
Jack Smith,
But, can she dance?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsWpvkLCvu4
Jack.
You are talking utter codswallop.
The economic crisis that is about to happen is almost entirely a product of the “..greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.” Where was Hilary then, questioning the shaky and unsustainable economics that underpinned that growth? These were the very same policies and philosophies that created the false and ultimately unsustainable growth of Reagan’s America.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
32 Comments 96 Comments 13 Comments 14 Comments 62 Comments 21 Comments 22 Comments 11 Comments 23 Comments 8 Comments |
LATEST COMMENTS » Shatterface posted on Am I the world's freest woman? » Counterview posted on Tories try to rehabilitate disgraced advisor » Bob B posted on Why the coalition is swimming in bullshit » sally posted on Why the coalition is swimming in bullshit » Bob B posted on Why the coalition is swimming in bullshit » sally posted on Why the coalition is swimming in bullshit » Bob B posted on Why the coalition is swimming in bullshit » blanco posted on Why the coalition is swimming in bullshit » captain swing posted on Oona King unveils strong support against Ken » Bob B posted on Why the coalition is swimming in bullshit » LMO posted on Why the coalition is swimming in bullshit » J posted on Am I the world's freest woman? » sally posted on Am I the world's freest woman? » Gould posted on Am I the world's freest woman? » Gould posted on Am I the world's freest woman? |