« The Shortcomings Of The Remaining Candidates | Main | More Signs of Recession Ahead »

Obama's Angry Screed

080131_obama_clinton_debate.jpgObama seemed tense to me during the debate tonight. Maybe the rigors of the campaign are getting to him?

via The Washington Post:

Obama entered the debate at a time when he is steadily ratcheting up his rhetoric against Clinton, presenting what amounts to a hard-edged closing argument against his rival: that her campaign tactics represent old politics, that he embodies real change, and that he would have a better chance of winning the White House and enacting a Democratic agenda.

He told a crowd of 9,000 at the University of Denver basketball arena (with thousands more listening in spillover areas on campus) that Clinton -- without naming her -- was not only the representative of old politics, but someone poorly positioned for the general election. It was his most explicit case against Clinton's electability to date. "We can be a party that tries to beat the other side by practicing the same do-anything, say-anything, divisive politics that has stood in the way of progress, or we can be a party that puts an end to it," he said.

A Clinton spokesman described the speech as "an angry screed."

Ah yes -- angry screeds on a college campus -- the new, non-divisive way to conduct ourselves. Amazing that he doesn't see the hypocrisy, or does he just not care about the duplicity of saying one thing and then doing the exact thing he's complaining about? He's as much "do-anything, say-anything" as the rest of them.

And his attacks are becoming more vicious, but one dare not criticize the young Prince or he'll fall over and play victim on you.

Then there's this bit of bad news.

Strategists for Obama were lowering expectations Thursday for the contests, suggesting that while his trajectory is on the rise, he may not have enough time to catch and overtake Clinton.

Lowering expectations, hmmm. Eight months on the ground in Iowa. It seems Barack forgot there were 49 other states until it was too late.

After four years as Clinton's VP our Mr. Obama would have the experience and name recognition that would give him the win, but will he accept four years in the number two spot? I think not. Barack wants to be King now.

Meanwhile,

Clinton has events in San Diego, San Jose and Los Angeles and a fundraiser in San Francisco before flying on to New Mexico and Arizona as she works her way back to New York in time for a national town hall meeting to be conducted via satellite at 9 p.m. on Monday.

Here's a link to the Clinton Town Hall web page. You can submit questions on the web, or via YouTube or text. Questions from the public -- how old-school.

(sound of Obama campaign scrambling to organize their own national webcast before Tuesday's primaries).

And if you think I'm tough on our Mr. Obama, just imagine what the Republicans would throw at him.

Update: News reports out this morning say that Obama will spend tens of millions in the next four days on television advertising.

Now isn't that a new angle on politics? Buying your way to a win in 30 second chunks - spending millions of dollars. Where the "change" in that?


Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 2.8/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 2.8/5 (10 votes cast)

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Obama's Angry Screed:

» Obama Lost the Debate, Supporters Pretend to not Notice from Wizbang Blue
No question Obama lost last Thursday's debate, but try to find an Obama supporter (or a journalist) who will admit that. I found one, in San Francisco of all places. [Read More]



Comments (11)

scorchednuts[TypeKey Profile Page]:

I really love both of these candidates, and although I early voted today for Obama in my state's Super-Duper Tuesday primary, I would proudly vote for Hillary in the general. I see both of them as pretty much the same on almost every issue. What I want to see is both of them on the same ticket, no matter what order. The reason I chose Barack is, and I could be wrong, but I think he will be better poised to win the general. Democrats like me love Hillary, but I don't really think the country as a whole does. As an aside, after watching yesterday's debate, I feel that political debates should not be broadcast in HD. Did you see Hillary's wrinkles and Barack's huge temple vein?

Steve Crickmore[TypeKey Profile Page]:

Lee..I think you are being unkind to Obama's strategy . Everyone (including you as I recall were saying he had to win Iowa ) and then New Hampshire and South Carolina, to have a reasonable chance and then it was still uphill...What happened was he lost enormous momentum in being pipped at New Hampshire; the nears tears incident turned it around when Hillary was on the ropes, otherwise Obama would now be the favorite..As you know Edwards and Clinton put everything but the kitchen sink into their campaigns in Iowa as well. Where he may have failed was not spending enough time to be known to the Latinos... Maybe going to Southern California a few more times earlier would have been productive.

Lee Ward:

Steve: Wins early on in the campaign were mandatory, or he wouldn't be where he is today. The fact that he needed 8 months in order to do it is a fact, that's not being unkind. The fact that the rest of the nation hasn't caught the "Iowa fever" yet is a factor of time and the choices Obama made in campaigning. In my home town ( large West Coast city) Obama wowed them when he held campaign events here. I think he held two in the last year. He needed to do more outside of Iowa, but he was down 30 points and having trouble raising money.

Scorched: You're right about HD, it didn't help. And there is no chance Obama will choose Clinton - he made that clear is his childish avoidance of wanting to say that she was a viable VP.

He can't drop his guard for a second. As the great united and non-divisive candidate he's running on Hillary's weaknesses, and to suggest she'd make a good VP blows holes in his principle argument that we should choose him because he's not Hillary.

Clinton would choose Obama, and that's because she's do the right thing for the Democratic party and the nation. Obama is interested in doing the right thing for Obama.

Undecided voters at CNN largely found Hillary the strongest in last nights debate. Obama really needed a stronger performance to help on Super Tuesday. Sometimes he seems to fall a little short at crunch time, while Hillary seems more skilled as a politician at critical times. This might make all the difference in her favor and give her the majority of states and votes on Super Tuesday.

Steve Crickmore:

I don't think Clinton has asked him, for all the 'love-in' mood of the debate last night. I'm not sure she will if she wins or vice versa for Obama if he wins..

I know Lee, you have been promoting this idea for a while. Maybe you realize subconsciously that there are many liabilities to having Clinton on the ticket, without someone more attractive on the veep side.

Actually,(only a little of topic) I think someone like Gore, a vice-president for 8 years could give us, the public some of the benefit of his wisdom on this, and maybe help the candidate of his choice and show us the courage of his convictions. If any one knows the Clintons it must be him. And he could answer whether Obama is ready or Hillary is indeed the best candidate. What's the point of being an elder statesman if you can't give any advice at this critical time? On September 23, 2002, Gore gave a strong speech criticizing President George W. Bush and Congress for what he claimed was their rush to war and he supported Dean in 2004.

If we get this wrong and nominate or elect the wrong candidate in the White House at best America will only muddle through for the next 4 to 8 years like the last, and where will global warming be then?

Steve Crickmore:

Here is someone from the Washington Post today, giving their early line on running mates

Ryan:

What the hell?

Coulter wants Clinton over McCain

"If you are looking at substance rather than if there is an R or a D after his name, manifestly, if he's our candidate, than Hillary is going to be our girl, because she's more conservative than he is," Coulter said. "I think she would be stronger on the war on terrorism."

Read the whole thing at http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Lee Ward:

"Hillary seems more skilled as a politician at critical times."

That may come in handy in November. We don't get a do-over if Obama wins the nomination then can't stand up his opponent in debates.

"Maybe you realize subconsciously that there are many liabilities to having Clinton on the ticket, without someone more attractive on the veep side."

Hopefully it would make the quasi-Democrats who want Obama or nothing at all more comfortable with voting Democratic, yes.

"I think someone like Gore, a vice-president for 8 years could give us, the public some of the benefit of his wisdom on this, and maybe help the candidate of his choice and show us the courage of his convictions"

I said the same thing here ten day ago.

"If we get this wrong and nominate or elect the wrong candidate in the White House at best America will only muddle through for the next 4 to 8 years like the last, and where will global warming be then?"

You're suggesting that Clinton in the White House would be just like four more years of Bush?

Lee Ward:

"What the hell?"

"Coulter wants Clinton over McCain"

Wow, I hadn't seen that one. I love the way the nuttiest part of the right wing fringe becomes absolutely unhinged over McCain.

On the GOP side, McCain will stand on his principles - and therefore lose the election. Romney is dangerous in that if he gets the nomination he'll start shape-shifting and flip-flopping to pick up the moderate cross-over vote.

Be wary of people who try to buy elections, they are more ego-driven than than the flaming egotists already in the race.

Steve Crickmore:

Lee, I was thinking more along the lines that nominating Hillary may make it more possible for a McCain or Romney presidency, but yes I also feel that Obama would have a better chance than Hillary of passing and implementing a progressive agenda (a longer honeymoon period allowing healthcare, a less hawkish foreign policy and so on.). I think I know which Obama we have. My problem is do we have the very collegial and charming Hillary of last night's debate and most of her senate career or the less than collegial Hillary from and her recent campaign and her White House years. No if she wins both the nomination and the election it will be quite diferent from Bush but wih Obama it will be entirely so...of course much of the electorate may think it is too risky to go outside the 'normal channels' to pick Obama.

Lee Ward:

Obama isn't the guy to push through a progressive agenda. He's way too willing to seek a consensus that gives moderates and conservatives what they want.


Advertisments

Categories

Archives

Technorati



Add to Technorati Favorites

Credits

Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.