Obama's Rose Garden Debate
This was not a particularly good debate for Barack Obama. Of course, the same was said after many of the previous debates, and it didn't stop him from scoring a clear Iowa victory.
Throughout most of tonight's 90-minute affair, Obama faded into the background while Hillary Clinton confidently asserted herself with a series of specific policy riffs that buttressed her campaign's themes of preparation and experience.
The question now, 48 hours before the voters of tiny Dixville Notch cast the first votes of the New Hampshire primary, is whether this debate will matter significantly more than the previous ones. If the answer is yes, then Hillary may yet reverse the tide of momentum that has propelled Obama since Thursday night and pull out the New Hampshire win that is all but essential to her nomination prospects.
There were two potential flaws in Obama's performance tonight.
The first was his shyness when it came to rebutting Hillary's charges aggressively. Several times the former First Lady came after him, but only on the question of health care -- with Hillary pressing her criticism that Obama's plan does not guarantee universal coverage -- did he engage her and effectively fend off her attack.
But mostly, she left him with golden opportunities that he passed up. Like when she accused him of flip-flopping, noting that he opposed the Iraq war as a Senate candidate "but then you came to senate and voted for $300 billion for it."
Obama could have turned the tables by arguing that he had reluctantly agreed to fund the war to only provide badly needed support for the troops -- troops that are only in Iraq because Hillary voted to send them there in the first place. But he let the topic drop altogether.
Obama can thank John Edwards for picking up some of the slack. Edwards, whose longshot nomination strategy hinges on driving Hillary out of the race, proclaimed that both he and Obama are agents of change -- and that Hillary is part of "the forces of the status quo."
"I think that every time this happens -- every time I speak out for change and every time Senator Obama speaks out for change -- the forces of the status quo are going to attack every single time."
He added: "I didn't hear these kind of attacks from Senator Clinton when she was ahead. And now I hear them. And anytime you speak out for change, this happens."
Edwards' maneuver temporarily threw Hillary on the defensive and elicited a response that bordered on shrill. But it was an exchange that also highlighted the other flaw in Obama's performance: The ease with which he seemed to disappear from the proceedings at times.
And it was in the second half of the debate that Obama's low-key presence began to work against him, as Hillary more and more aggressively inserted herself into the proceedings with thorough, sober and detailed responses.
For instance, as moderator Charles Gibson cited examples of past Presidents who have come to Washington pledging to bring about change, Hillary interjected at the mention of her husband, recapping the Clinton administration's deficit reduction record and branding it a textbook example of a leader who was effective at producing, and not just talking about, change -- the exact type of leader she offers herself as.
The Clinton campaign wants Democrats to view her as a President who can actually deliver on what Obama talks about. It's a tough sell, since it requires voters to choose policy over personality. But she made a strong case in the second half of the debate, speaking fluently and without hesitation about the nuances of policy.
"Words are not actions," she said at one point, "and as beautifully presented and passionately felt as they are, they are not action. What we have got to do is translate thought into action and feeling into reality."
Obama helped her as well in the second half of the debate. While Hillary carried on about the details of policy and Edwards sermonized about the fundamental corruption of the system, Obama seemed less than eager to enter the fray, and when he did, he frequently sounded like a front-runner trying to run out the clock without making a mistake. His responses were peppered with pauses and "uhs," a less than inspiring contrast to the policy command Hillary displayed.
Again, Obama has performed similarly in past debates. And Hillary has too. But with New Hampshire's voters watching this one more intently, it seems possible that Hillary's overall performance made many of them more receptive to the overall themes of her campaign.
I agree 100% with your assessment. I'm wondering if the some of the reporters writing about the debate were watching the same event that I was.
BTW, I'm an undecided voter. I was pretty high on Obama after Iowa, but his performance tonight was lackluster. Hillary's complaints about Obama's "feel good" kumbaya message not being the same as actually getting things done struck a chord.
We already have experience here in New York with these high-minded dudes (namely, Spitzer) who haven't a clue how to get anything done. We don't need another one at the federal level.
Hillary needed to be agressive and that she was.
Obama seemed more presidential waiting to be crowned.
If one night of histronics will make you vote to put back the Clintons in the White House go ahead.
Voting should not be based on who acts more agressive in a debate, its about assesing all the factors.
Obama for the past 20 years has been working to bring about change in the life of poor people.
Hillary had 8 years to bring about health coverage she did not deliver. Her husband balanced the budget how? By borrowing from the social security and leaving a worthless I.O.U.
When it matter ed, she gave Bush a blank check to enter Iraq.
Obama has been against the war from 2002, but with troops there, should he take the position to cut off funding?.
Edwards is right, Hillary is only acting like this because she most find a way to recover.
Can Hillary unite America? NO. Can Hillary unite the world ?
No. Like in a job interview, you may have a long resume but that does not qualify you to be the manager.
Its about handling people, dealing with people and getting things done.
If Obama does not carry his state, I would suggest you should not vote for him, that will be the proof in the pudding.
This is not an affirmative action presidency, he is half-black and half white and the person best poised to lead our country after so many bitter years
Have you ever though about Baracks strategy. He is still in front therefor Hillary and Edwards have to sort out who will be his challenger.
Seems to be risky. But nevertheless the way to oval office is risky anyway.
Clinton couldn't change her stripes so she did what she does best; she out-policy-wonked her opponents. Like when she ticked off the five points of her Pakistan policy. That's just great. A female Al Gore.
Obama has something less tangible to offer and a debate is not a natural forum for him to be at his best. He is the most gifted orator since JFK and after the brutal trauma of Bush/Cheney people are clearly eager to be uplifted and, yes, healed by his oratory.
Does that make Obama qualified to be president? Maybe not. But a president who isn't a complete incompetent will surround himself with advisers who can fill in the gaps in his resume. It is much harder to turn a policy wonk into the kind of leader I see in Obama.
@Pwoxby. At the end this draws subtle distinctions between leader and fellower.
I am so glad someone saw the same debate I did. Obama is a great speaker but lacks substance and a record on change. As someone that lives in his state, he has done very little if anything to get jobs in this state in comparrison to Clinton who has seen NY attract more business. If the media would stop kissing his butt and look at his record along with his associates, they would find someone other than the "great hope."
He stated that the purchase of property was a 'boneheaded'mistakes, but he has associated himself with some of the worst proverty pimps you would ever want to see. His cronnies are just as bad as Bush's
He has never had a serious republican opponent, he defeted Alan Keys for god sake.
AMEN! A reporter actually watched the same debate that I did! Hillary strongly showed why she should be the next President of the United States. Obama felt like an amateur, which he is.
Yes Obama will need lots of policy advisors, just like George Bush did, since he had no experience and hasn't a clue on how to get out of the foreign invasion mess in Iraq.
Lets see, a vote for Obama is like voting for George Bush's third term.
Obama and Edwards looked a little too cozy together, ah ..yes it was the good ol' boys club again. Lets team up and beat the only female candidate. I guess Edwards is now Obama's wooping boy, as Edwards led the attack on Hillary. When will the change commence Mr. Obama? When will men stop beating up on women!! Shame on you two.
Really this race is Oprah against Hillary, as Oprah is funding this Obama serge. Do we really need to vote a guy in who is black, even though he would render us back to a George Bush administration where the "advisors" run the country, and not the brainless president that was elected?
I think if Obama wins, Oprah will declare war on the Ellen show and eliminate all her competition. I thought her fan base were women, who supported women? I thought Oprah was a pro-woman leader, why didn't she start a boy's school in Africa? Why is she supporting a male candidate just because he is black/ and inexperienced?
To be fair Oprah should have annointed Hillary too and supported a woman for a change.
Accepting money from Lobbyists? Yes Edwards did. So did Obama. There they are folks two little boys lying and poking a stick at a woman. How disgustingly typical of men in politics.
Hillary is the only choice for the democrats and if by chance Mr. Oprah wins, he will not lead this country to a win for the Democrats.
I THINK THESE PEOPLE ARE HILLARY'S PLANTS....LIKE THE PLANTED QUESTIONERS....IF OBAMA BECOMES AGGRESSIVE, THEN HE WOULD BE VIEWED AS SHARPTONLIKE, WHAT DO U PEOPLE WANT, ANOTHER SELLING OF THE BED IN THE WHITE HOUSE, ANOTHER PARDONING OF RICHLIKE SNAKES, WAKE UP, WE DON'T WANT TO GO BACK TO POLITICS OF DIVISION
If the Obama momentum is as big as the MSM says it is, he's just probably trying to wind the clock down at this point. Fall on the ball and play dead as the clock keeps ticking.
All 12 of the Chris Matthews' political pundits pick Obama as the Democratic nominee. Not one vote for Clinton.
The Obama momentum is surprising. After his Iowa win, he seems to be connecting with people at an almost spiritual level. There seems to be one gigantic tsunami wave of public adulation. I guess I'm one of the few people not riding this big tsunami wave. I think some of this is just hype driven by the media. Who knows? He's drawing huge crowds, but I do wonder how much substance is really there.
I didn't see the debate, but I did watch a few clips this morning. Hillary seemed to be much more intellectually-engaged. I guess her shining moment was adeptly deflecting her likeability question, and she handled that question well.
I hope Hillary can recover from the Iowa loss. Her intelligence is second to none. Obama falls a little short there. You go girl!
THERE ARE NO PLANTS, I LINKED FROM HINESIGHT AND FINALLY WAS HAPPY TO SEE AN OBJECTIVE REPORT. WHEN THE MEDIA FINALLY LOOKS AT HIM THEY WILL FIND A LIGHTER WEIGHT THAN WE HAVE IN THE WHITEHOUSE NOW. REMEMBER 2000 AND EVERY BODY WANTED TO HAVE A BEER WITH "W"? HE IS LESS PREPARED THAN "W" VOTE ON PERSONALITY AND HOPE AND YOU WILL BE SAYING PRESIDENT MCCAIN FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS
I thought Obama did well. I do not understand why you are trying to trash him and say he did poorly. Hillary does not represent change, and she is not convincing. She can say all of the policy/experience stuff, but that is a traditional democrat way. Obama is new and can produce a way in the future that does not worship the status quo. Plus Hillary will lose in the general election. She has too much baggage. What republicans and independents will vote for her?
It appears as though Bam-Bam is dividing us just as much if not more so than Senator Clinton.
His rhetoric without substance is getting tiresome. I can't envision him being a unit-er when he snubs his nose at Washington D.C. and expresses his desire to throw out the old and in with the new, but offers no explanation of how that will be done. The Supreme Court is going to be the same judges, the Congress for the most part is going to be the same Congress. I cannot predict the future, but if you believe that Bam-Bam is going to get to the White House with low negatives and without making any enemies then that is a bit naive. Senator Clinton's negatives are high because the Republicans have been repeating the same lies over and over enough that ignorant people believe those lies. Do you believe the same will not happen to Bam-Bam? And he only has Oprah's skirt to hide behind, he doesn't stand on his own like Senator Clinton. He gets caught in lie after lie and the MSM lets it pass. Keep him on that pedestal and he is going to have an awfully long way down to fall when it happens. Ouch. And stop being so paranoid about Hillary "plants". What you don't know is that Bam-Bam had to fess up that he had a plant at one of his Iowa events also, but did it make the news for a week? Of course not, he is the MSM's boy. Everyone who disagrees with you isn't a Hillary plant...it could be they have a brain and can see through Bam-Bam's snarky-ness.
I suspect that Obama is being funded largely by Republicans.
He claims it is grassroots. I didn't fall off the tomato truck yesterday. There is a reason the Republicans want to run against him.
You can't vote Present as President. His land deal with the mobster in Chicago hasn't been thoroughly dug into. It has all the smell of a Whitewater investigation - Obama gets the lot next to his own for a steal and the guy has given large amounts of money to his campaign. If there was a "there" there with Whitewater, can there not be a "there" there with this scam? Obama thinks that because he did his own opo-research on himself that he is in the free and clear. Let's assume he is telling the truth about himself in his books.
There is always another side to every story. Let's let Obama vet himself and also let Bush's justice dept. investigate the destruction of CIA torture tapes. Uh huh uh huh.
Clinton is running on experience so let's look at her record in the Senate on Iraq. Either she's (a) a war-monger or (b) pretending to be a war-monger as part of a political calculation or (c) a fool easily duped by the Bush/Cheney lies. I'll go with (b). That means that she put her own political viability ahead of the best interests of the country. Well, if she did it once she'll do it again and that is sufficient reason to support Obama.
We don"t seem to learn from our history in this country. We don't seem to learn from our experience. I have read over and over that Hillary's experience as first lady counts for nothing. That ranks with the worst kind of denial of reality. However, what about the years preceding when she had other accomplishments. It is interesting that we see the comment over and over again that she has too much baggage. Considering that much of that is a product of corrupt corporate media, but the question is what sort of baggage does Obama have? I don't know, and the media has not chosen to run the kind of investigation of his past experience which does seem just by the number of years and areas of responsibility to be pretty thin. Well I guess we will have to be content with his lovely speeches which I do not deny, but I don't see the hard work that is going to be needed to deal with the terrible mess Bush is leaving us with.
By the end of the Clinton's first terms (1992-2000) they had Social Security funded till 2055 -- BECAUSE they had balanced the budget and were paying down the National Debt.
In 2000 Bush Jr came in, spent the surplus, and in 8 years reduced the Social Security fundng by 16 years, to around 2039. (Besides trying to 'privitize' Soc Sec, ie get its funds into the stock market -- just before the stock market crashed.)
Hillary a wonk like Gore? Competence and knowledge of issues is a bad thing? Gore won the popular vote in 2000; do you think we've been better off with Bush Jr than with Gore It's people knocking 'wonks' that brought us Bush Jr and his war.
Bill Clinton got this country in shape economically and there was a huge surplus of money left for the Republicans who foolishly mortgaged our future on the invasion of Iraq, the wrong country.
One of the first things I heard OBama say was he would invade Iran, if necessary, until his handlers got a hold of him to shut him up.
Now he is coasting on his win, thanks to Oprah's money. The only wonk will be the guy on this board who called Hillary one. The wonk will either be saying hi to Vice Presydent Al Sharpton, or President John McCain.
Yes, if Obama is the nominee, the fear card of the Republicans will be played again, this time its not about a black basketball team. Heck even Democrats are afraid of Obama, with no experience, he could get us all blown up.
" I suspect that Obama is being funded largely by Republicans.
He claims it is grassroots. I didn't fall off the tomato truck yesterday."
Answer: No actually he came from a family with lots of money,
and is half muslem. He also did cocaine and is addicted to cigarettes. He ain't no tomatoe off the truck, some grassroots people think he does not represent blacks, because he is too white.
" His land deal with the mobster in Chicago hasn't been thoroughly dug into. It has all the smell of a Whitewater investigation - Obama gets the lot next to his own for a steal and the guy has given large amounts of money to his campaign. If there was a "there" there with Whitewater, can there not be a "there" there with this scam? Obama thinks that because he did his own opo-research on himself that he is in the free and clear".
Funny how people believe the Oprah Paid Hype Machine in this country and do not know the facts.
" His rhetoric without substance is getting tiresome. I can't envision him being a unit-er when he snubs his nose at Washington D.C. and expresses his desire to throw out the old and in with the new, but offers no explanation of how that will be done. The Supreme Court is going to be the same judges, the Congress for the most part is going to be the same Congress."
The only change you will see in Washington is the color of some skin. The whole establishment will remain intact, lobbyists and all and there is no justification for voting for him.
I see no clear cut plan on his part and Bam Bam is too junior to come up with anything original. Everybody thinks he has this vastly fantasy plan to get this country in order? From Where? Where is it? Do you even know? Has he explained it to you, its the same old rhetoric you will hear anything else. There is nothing new and improved, its like watching a TV commecial, its all hype my friends.
" James (not verified) says:
I thought Obama did well. I do not understand why you are trying to trash him and say he did poorly. Hillary does not represent change, and she is not convincing. She can say all of the policy/experience stuff, but that is a traditional democrat way. Obama is new and can produce a way in the future that does not worship the status quo. Plus Hillary will lose in the general election. She has too much baggage. What republicans and independents will vote for her? "
ANSWER: Your right James, Obama is new and unproven, that doesn't make me feel secure, and warm and fuzzy all over.
Hillary does by being a women represent enormous change, and if you can't see it, your not a woman, nor do you think like one. That is change.
She is experienced and does know policy she is has been the Senator for New York right? She was in the White House for 8 years right? Do you think she was just doing the dishes?
and decorating it?
What Republicans will vote for Obama? huh? Do you think a choice between Huckleberry Finn and Senator Clinton is a loss for the Democrats? Huh?
Aujun -- I most definitely am not a plant dude. As I said, I'm undecided, associated with no campaign and have never contributed money. If you don't like my opinion, tough crunchies.
Signed, the first poster in this thread.
It Should Be Obvious By Now That Obama's Fan's Don't Really Care If He Has Experience Or Not,They Will Defend Him Into Judgement Day With His Worthless Speeches Of Change And Hope,What Exactly Does He Mean,Hell I Can Promise Change,& Hope But It Means Nothing Unless You Explain How You Are Going To Exibit That Concept,Mr Obama Does Not,He Also Does Not Know What The Hell He's Doing Either,Since When Did Experience Become Second To Change In This Country When It Come's To Hiring A Person For A job Oppurtunity.It Goes To Prove That Iowans Are A Backwards State,They Voted For This Idiot On His Message Of Hope,& Change,Instead Of The Experience That Which He Does Not Have,Heck Let's Put Him In The Whitehouse Anyway,And Let Those Chicago Mobsters That Is Running His Campaign Tell Him What,& What Not To Do.Debate After Debate He's A No Show But That Does Not Seem To Matter To Voters,And His Followers,Because He Moves The Crowd,He's Charismatic,He's The Champion Of Hope,He Inspires The People At His Rally's With His Rhetoric,He Draws Crowds Of Thousands And Offers Nothing Of Any
Substance,But Again Let's Vote For Him Anyway.He Has No Recollection Of What Happen To His 10 Year Senate Record,But Hay Let's Vote For Him Anyway,He's Tells Lie After Lie After Lie,But Hay Let's Vote For Him Anyway,He Has Connections With The Mob,Lobbyist,PAC's,But Yet He Continues To Remind The Voters That Hilliary Has A Interest In Lobbyist,But Hay Let's Vote For Him Anyway,That's What Iowa Did So I Guess The Status Quo Is That We All Should Follow Suit,(No Thank You)
Obama's much ballyhooed "community organizing experience" took place when he was 23 to 26 years old, after he finished Columbia and before he went to Harvard Law. How significant could that be? Ask the people he supposedly helped on Chicago's south side what he really achieved? Likewise, after law school, he went to a large Chicago law firm where he was assigned civil rights cases. But he has no record of noteworthy accomplishments as a civil rights attorney, never progressed past an entry-level associate, and left full-time work there to teach at U of C law. I'm guessing he couldn't hack the law firm demands or didn't want to actually work that hard. Again, no distinguishing record while teaching at U of C, never progressed past a lecturer and ran for Congress, which he lost, shortly after taking on his teaching gig. Of course he later sucessfully ran for state senate, where we have recently heard about his courageous present votes (snark). We also know that rather than work on behalf of the people of Ill in the US Senate, he immediatelly began running for president. It appears Mr. Obama is to busy moving onward and upward to ever establish a record of meaningful change or success.
He seems awfully entitled without ever having committed enough time and sweat equity to actually achieve much. Sounds a lot like Bush to me and I AM NOT IMPRESSED.
Hillbot's spew wasn't attractive to voters, and while Obama's answers weren't as inspiring as his speeches, few great leaders have wizbang come backs. Then again, wizbang come backs does not a great leader make.
Obama stayed composed and spot on, unlike the frazzled Hillbot, who came undone and couldn't help but show her crazy eyes and shrill shriek.
She won't get the nomination and Democrats can thank their lucky stars, as Hillbot would turn out the Rethug opposition like NO OTHER CANDIDATE.
The Rethug will simply feel disenfranchised and smug going up against Obama, and many will fail to vote. Que a repeat of 2006.
Hello President Obama ... call the movers he's comin' to Pennsylvania Avenue!!!
Sure, Al Gore would have made a fine president. But he lost. Get over it. This is 2008, not 2000. Two terms of Bush/Cheney have severely wounded the country. I don't think that policy-wonk Clinton can heal those wounds. Especially since, on foreign policy, she helped to inflict those wounds.
Obama has shown that he can win over independents, moderate Republicans, and those who don't vote. This is a lot more important than quibbles over health care mandates. Obama has the best chance of forming a new Democratic majority that can transform the political landscape.
"And he [Obama] only has Oprah's skirt to hide behind, he doesn't stand on his own like Senator Clinton."
Yeah, Hillary hasn't relied on husband Bill at all during her campaign, has she? If I'm not mistaken, I believe he's stumped for her much more than Oprah has stumped for Obama.
Hillary's experienced? Perhaps so, but that's not something she should brag about. I mean, if being the spouse of someone is "experience," then the next time you need a root canal and your dentist isn't available, why not let his stay-at-home wife step in and do the drilling?
The thing that worries me most about Hillary is that she's a socialist. If that's what you want our country to become, then, by all means, go ahead and vote for her...
"Yeah, Hillary hasn't relied on husband Bill at all during her campaign, has she? If I'm not mistaken, I believe he's stumped for her much more than Oprah has stumped for Obama".
Oprah has a vested financial interest, she is paying for his campaign expenses, say Lobbyist.
She is rallying the troops against a woman candidate.
Say Rev. Al Sharpton - Vice Presy-dent.
Oh my...the Republicans are laughing all the way to the Whitehouse.
" Obama has shown that he can win over independents, moderate Republicans, and those who don't vote. This is a lot more important than quibbles over health care mandates. Obama has the best chance of forming a new Democratic majority that can transform the political landscape".
You must be living on Mars, man!!....lololol
your believing the polls and all the hype and not looking at facts.
Have you considered that Obama can turn off people so much they will vote Republican, has that crossed your mind, yet?