Photo credits: Associated Press
The eruption of Barrack Obama’s frustration in last night’s debate in South Carolina should have surprised no one. He has been noticeably sullen since his loss to Hillary Clinton a few days ago in Nevada. Instead of the customary concession speech, Obama issued a brief statement that withheld any word of congratulation to Sen. Clinton and focused on the allocation of delegates rather than the actual votes.
The media has largely amplified Obama’s sore-loser spin on his loss by including the temporary apportionment of delegates – 13 for Obama; 12 for Clinton - whenever the outcome of the Nevada caucus has been mentioned. Chris Cilizza at least attempted to set the matter straight in The Fix (Washington Post) by quoting Jill Derby, chairwoman of the state party: "The calculations of national convention delegates being circulated are based upon an assumption that delegate preferences will remain the same between now and April 2008. We look forward to our county and state conventions where we will choose the delegates for the nominee that Nevadans support."
It’s telling that the matter of delegates did not come up earlier in the campaign. After Obama’s much trumpeted win in Iowa, he failed to mention the tight delegate spread: Obama, 16; Clinton, 15; and Edwards 14. And Edwards in fact claimed second place with a fraction of a percentage point lead over Clinton and one fewer delegate.
Hillary Clinton could easily have used the apportionment of Iowa delegates to chide Obama for claiming a “big” win in Iowa and to challenge Edwards for claiming second place. But instead of taking the low road, Sen. Clinton has demonstrated far better sportsmanship throughout the campaign than either Obama or Edwards.
Obama and his followers were still refusing to acknowledge Clinton’s Nevada win yesterday morning ahead of the South Carolina debate. And in a preview of his debate performance, Obama attacked Bill Clinton in an ABC interview in response to Clinton’s earlier challenge of Obama’s verifiably inconsistent record on the Iraq War.
I’m one viewer who could easily see that Obama was spoiling for a fight Monday night at the onset of the debate when Hillary Clinton interrupted his rant to remind him that Bill wasn’t there.
That didn’t stop the surly Obama. He continued to assault Sen. Clinton by questioning the honesty and integrity of both her and Bill in ways reminiscent of Obama’s and Edwards’s clumsy personal attacks on Clinton last October during the Philadelphia debate.
This time around, though, Clinton gave as good as she got. Obama was reduced to stammering when she announced with a confident smile that she was proud of Bill’s passionate support of her candidacy. She also mentioned that Michelle Obama and Elizabeth Edwards have been strong supporters of their husbands.
In the exchanges that followed, Obama was forced to waste considerable time explaining and trying to justify apparent glitches in his record, including his relationship with Antonin Rezko, an Obama fundraiser under indictment for corruption charges.
John Edwards jumped into the fray between Clinton and Obama by pressing Obama to explain how and why he avoided an up or down vote by voting present on 130 issues as an Illinois state senator.
When Obama complained that his opponents had combed thousands of his votes as a state senator to find even one to challenge, Edwards nailed him for previously using the same tactics against both him and Sen. Clinton.
Once again, on matters of substance, Sen. Clinton easily surpassed both Obama and Edwards. I’m in complete agreement with Steve Clemons who remarked in today’s Huffington Post:
“I have to go with my own filters, not those of others -- and to me, regardless of who one supported tonight, it's clear that each scored points but that Hillary Clinton performed with an authority, presence in that huge hall, and mastery of detail that was just second to none. She hammered Bush on the semi-secret deal he's trying to rig with the Iraqi government to commit American troops and bases indefinitely -- something the others did not mention. She had numbers and details flowing forth as if they were as natural as could be.”
Regarding the housing crisis, Clemons noted that Sen. Clinton did not join Obama and Edwards in the false claim that “African-Americans were perniciously targeted by lenders…That's about as untrue as one can imagine. The subprime crisis is an outrage -- but it was a systemic problem -- and everyone who wanted credit got it.”
Clemons credited Clinton with offering the best proposal to assist the ailing economy and for understanding “the problem is not only with homeowners but with the entire financial network.”
After discussing comparisons in the debate of the three’s healthcare plans and commenting on individual foreign policy positions, Clemons concluded that “Hillary Clinton turned in the best performance tonight {Monday}. Then came Barack Obama, and close after though not enough came John Edwards.”
I agree with Clemons that Hillary Clinton was the clear winner of Monday night’s debate, but I would give Obama and Edwards a second-place tie.
The media has largely amplified Obama’s sore-loser spin on his loss by including the temporary apportionment of delegates – 13 for Obama; 12 for Clinton - whenever the outcome of the Nevada caucus has been mentioned. Chris Cilizza at least attempted to set the matter straight in The Fix (Washington Post) by quoting Jill Derby, chairwoman of the state party: "The calculations of national convention delegates being circulated are based upon an assumption that delegate preferences will remain the same between now and April 2008. We look forward to our county and state conventions where we will choose the delegates for the nominee that Nevadans support."
It’s telling that the matter of delegates did not come up earlier in the campaign. After Obama’s much trumpeted win in Iowa, he failed to mention the tight delegate spread: Obama, 16; Clinton, 15; and Edwards 14. And Edwards in fact claimed second place with a fraction of a percentage point lead over Clinton and one fewer delegate.
Hillary Clinton could easily have used the apportionment of Iowa delegates to chide Obama for claiming a “big” win in Iowa and to challenge Edwards for claiming second place. But instead of taking the low road, Sen. Clinton has demonstrated far better sportsmanship throughout the campaign than either Obama or Edwards.
Obama and his followers were still refusing to acknowledge Clinton’s Nevada win yesterday morning ahead of the South Carolina debate. And in a preview of his debate performance, Obama attacked Bill Clinton in an ABC interview in response to Clinton’s earlier challenge of Obama’s verifiably inconsistent record on the Iraq War.
I’m one viewer who could easily see that Obama was spoiling for a fight Monday night at the onset of the debate when Hillary Clinton interrupted his rant to remind him that Bill wasn’t there.
That didn’t stop the surly Obama. He continued to assault Sen. Clinton by questioning the honesty and integrity of both her and Bill in ways reminiscent of Obama’s and Edwards’s clumsy personal attacks on Clinton last October during the Philadelphia debate.
This time around, though, Clinton gave as good as she got. Obama was reduced to stammering when she announced with a confident smile that she was proud of Bill’s passionate support of her candidacy. She also mentioned that Michelle Obama and Elizabeth Edwards have been strong supporters of their husbands.
In the exchanges that followed, Obama was forced to waste considerable time explaining and trying to justify apparent glitches in his record, including his relationship with Antonin Rezko, an Obama fundraiser under indictment for corruption charges.
John Edwards jumped into the fray between Clinton and Obama by pressing Obama to explain how and why he avoided an up or down vote by voting present on 130 issues as an Illinois state senator.
When Obama complained that his opponents had combed thousands of his votes as a state senator to find even one to challenge, Edwards nailed him for previously using the same tactics against both him and Sen. Clinton.
Once again, on matters of substance, Sen. Clinton easily surpassed both Obama and Edwards. I’m in complete agreement with Steve Clemons who remarked in today’s Huffington Post:
“I have to go with my own filters, not those of others -- and to me, regardless of who one supported tonight, it's clear that each scored points but that Hillary Clinton performed with an authority, presence in that huge hall, and mastery of detail that was just second to none. She hammered Bush on the semi-secret deal he's trying to rig with the Iraqi government to commit American troops and bases indefinitely -- something the others did not mention. She had numbers and details flowing forth as if they were as natural as could be.”
Regarding the housing crisis, Clemons noted that Sen. Clinton did not join Obama and Edwards in the false claim that “African-Americans were perniciously targeted by lenders…That's about as untrue as one can imagine. The subprime crisis is an outrage -- but it was a systemic problem -- and everyone who wanted credit got it.”
Clemons credited Clinton with offering the best proposal to assist the ailing economy and for understanding “the problem is not only with homeowners but with the entire financial network.”
After discussing comparisons in the debate of the three’s healthcare plans and commenting on individual foreign policy positions, Clemons concluded that “Hillary Clinton turned in the best performance tonight {Monday}. Then came Barack Obama, and close after though not enough came John Edwards.”
I agree with Clemons that Hillary Clinton was the clear winner of Monday night’s debate, but I would give Obama and Edwards a second-place tie.
No comments:
Post a Comment