«
»

In a crucual state, a contentious debate

Dan Balz, Anne Kornblut & Shailagh Murray | Wed, February 27, 2008 | The Washington Post

“…In contrast to their debate five days ago in Texas, Clinton and Obama butted heads from the opening moments, starting with a clash over whether the senator from Illinois had mischaracterized her plan for universal health care in his campaign mailings, and continuing throughout the 90-minute session….”…BS

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/26/AR2008022603715_pf.html

 

 

This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 27th, 2008 at 5:03 AM and filed under Elections/Voting, Media, Politics. Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 feed. Skip to the end and leave a response. Trackbacks are closed.

3 Responses to “In a crucual state, a contentious debate”

  1. Ian Alterman said:

    Obama was able to evade at least two serious charges.

    First, the Farrakhan charge. He eventually fully repudiated Farrakhan, but he totally sidestepped the issue of his minister, Rev. Wright, who considers Farrakhan a “hero.” Obama had an obligation to address this, since this is the minister who has the most influence in his Christian life. To have evaded this issue was, to my mind, a major gaffe on Obama’s part, and brings the honesty of his character into question.

    Second, the Iraq issue. His line about driving the bus into the ditch was a nice sound bite, but he also sidestepped Clinton’s extremely relevant comment that, DESPITE his 2002 speech, once he got to the Senate he voted for every bill funding the war. Yes, it matters who drove the bus into the ditch, or who aided that. But it also matters whether those responsible for helping get it out of the ditch simply assist in keeping it there. And Obama did so.

    Obama has more in common with Reagan than has been suggested: he has become the new Teflon candidate. Using a combination of charm and cynical political tactics, he is able to evade or sidestep almost every legitimate question re his positions, character or tactics. What I saw during this debate was simply more attacks against Clinton (by the increasingly smarmy Tim Russert) and more fawning over Obama, whose only “hardball” question was the one on Farrakhan – which, as noted above, he was able to parry without the kind of “stern” follow-up that accompanied almost every answer by Clinton.

    Posted on 27-Feb-08 at 1:25 pm | Permalink
  2. ben stagg said:

    It is also significant that Barack’s move from an anti-war position to one of voting funds for it coincided with him becoming a senator.

    Posted on 28-Feb-08 at 2:11 am | Permalink
  3. Ian Alterman said:

    Ben:

    I have been pointing this out since Day 1. If you did not see my original reporting for Civic on their Senate voting records, the link is here:

    http://www.michaelbutler.com/blog/civic/2008/01/09/mb-civic-original-opinion-reality-check-who-is-barack-obama/

    Peace.

    Posted on 28-Feb-08 at 11:13 am | Permalink

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.