Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Nasty

I can't remember the last debate I've seen, that was so full of animosity, exchanges that put both candidates in a poor light. Last night's Democratic Party debate highlighted, what has become a very unseemly nomination process. If you missed it, here is a particularly nasty exchange between Obama and Clinton:


Given the characters involved, plus the stakes, it is likely to get worse, before it gets better. The only winner that I saw last night, apart from Edwards trying to appear above the fray (the same guy who tag teamed Clinton in the New Hampshire debate), was John McCain who became a frequent talking point, as to who was most able to defeat him in a general election.

The big question, is this heated nomination, that is becoming increasingly racial in character, damaging the Democratic brand, weakening their prospects come the fall?

9 comments:

Mushroom said...

It all depends on Ohio and Florida and the voting machines there. The Dems are running in front there thanks to voters' discontent with GWBush.

Who has the better chance of a brokered convention, now???

Cousin Ben said...

I love the heated debate. Not only does it test the metal of candidates, it allows voters to see beyond the catch phrases and party lines that you find so despicable in Canada. It has been too long since the presidential campaign included some good, heated arguments.

I do think that personal attacks and the racializing of debates is harmful to the Dems, but don't think that is what's going on in this clip. Moreover, I think it's dangerous to look for the race card too readily. Once that accusation is made, by a candidate or by the media, issues will be buried and censored.

I say let it all out. If it gets nasty, let the voter decide who has gone too far. For us non-voters, it's wonderful entertainment.

Anonymous said...

Proof Manley plagerized, came to his conclusion 3 months ago, and is possibly a liar.

thescottross.blogspot.com

Steve V said...

I love heated debate ;) The part that isn't productive, tearing each other down, questioning their history and commitments. In a way it diminishes both of them, neither looks presidential, when it gets personal like that.

anon

Thanks for the link, the word "pre-determined" seems accurate.

mushroom

You would almost have to say it's the Democrats, which would have been a laughable argument a month ago.

Lizt. said...

The funny thing is, Edwards was there, and he is as good as anyone, But CNN ignored him.Why!

Steve V said...

Top rated debate in cable news history, which shows people are at least engaged, or they love a good fight ;)

lizt

Edwards has always been the Rodney Dangerfield in this campaign. Even when Edwards was tied in Iowa heading into the caucus, he was always mentioned as an afterthought. He seems to get lost in the glare of the two "stars", and now he seems completely forgotten.

Anonymous said...

No, it doesn't damage Democrats in the fall. Obama needs to stop whining or no one will take him seriously. He's the boy who cried wolf right now, and he hasn't even seen the wolf yet, aka the Republicans. If you call the Clinton's racist for talking about your voting record, and trying to highlight the challenges of getting civil rights legislation passed in Washington, what do you say when the big bad guys step up to the plate?

Its projected at this time that Clinton will have about 1500 delegates to Obama's 950, Edwards 450. That's without super delegates.

She's winning California, New Jersey, New York, Arizona, Arkansas, Texas, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Oklahoma, Florida by big margins.

With a winner take all scenario, which is only theoretical, Obama only gets 400 delegates. That's about 8 states. As I said before, less than Jesse Jackson won in 1988, 11 states.

Obama's campaign started this garbage about race, calling the voters of NH racist, which has been disproven, and claiming questioning his voting record is racist and comments on how washington works are racist. He has doomed his own campaign.

It will be over after Feb 5th. She won't have won enough delegates to have officially more than 50%, but given her lead and the fact that Florida and Michigan do count as Democratic voters, he will be pressured to conceed, which he should.

There will be no way for him to catch up to her in delegates.

Anonymous said...

The other reason why it won't hurt dems. They need hispanics to win the white house, not blacks, who for the most part live in either non crucial states or Democratic states. Hispanics voted for Bush. They back Clinton.

Steve V said...

"Its projected at this time that Clinton will have about 1500 delegates to Obama's 950, Edwards 450. That's without super delegates."

How anyone can make that projection before South Carolina is factored in is foolish? I agree, Clinton looks to have the advantage, but where Edwards support moves after SC is key.