« So Who Is Billy Ayers? | Main | I Suppose Obama Could Just Plead the Fifth »

PA Democratic Debate: Who Won?

The New York Times:

Senator Barack Obama found himself consistently on the defensive as he and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton met Wednesday night in a tense debate that left him parrying questions and criticism on issues including values, patriotism and his association with onetime radicals from the 1960s.

It was the first time the two candidates had shared a debate stage in seven weeks, and it came six days before a primary in Pennsylvania that could determine whether Mrs. Clinton can continue her quest for the Democratic presidential nomination. It could also prove to be the last debate between them.

Accordingly, Mrs. Clinton did not let an opportunity pass as she repeatedly challenged Mr. Obama on his record and views -- assisted, as it turned out, by aggressive questioning by the two moderators from ABC News, Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous.

The result was arguably one of Mr. Obama's weakest debate performances. He at times appeared annoyed as he sought to answer questions about his former pastor, his reluctance to wear an American flag pin on his lapel and his association in Chicago with former members of the Weather Underground, a radical group that carried out bombings in the 1960s that were intended to incite the overthrow of the government.

NY Daily News:

He answered some better than others, and some not at all. But the mere fact that at least five damaging issues were thrown at him within 30 minutes was testament to how much the race has changed in the six weeks since anti-American remarks by Obama's pastor, the Rev. Jeramiah Wright, became public.

That was the high-water mark of Obama's campaign, and now the cracks are showing. My bet is that his ineffective answers on Wednesday night will mean more doubts among voters and more concern among Democratic superdelegates about whether Obama is electable in November.

The result is that Clinton, despite her own electability issues and an imperfect evening, scored a debate victory just a week before the Pennsylvania primary. A loss would knock her out.


Last night wasn't a good debate for Obama. Period. But it wasn't a great debate for Clinton either. Of course, that may not matter to her campaign -- in a two-way debate, it's not about which candidate narrowly wins, but which candidate gets pummeled in the post-debate reviews. And Obama is getting pummeled because, well, he did get pummeled, a bit by Clinton and a bit little bit by the moderators. In the first 40 minutes of the debate, most of the questions were focused on Obama's negatives (except for a lone Bosnia-sniper question to Clinton, with no follow up) and that's what helped create what was a near disastrous performance for the front-runner. Obama was weak in a lot of his answers on his personal negatives. (Did he really compare Tom Coburn to a one-time '60s radical/terrorist?) Meanwhile, Clinton piled on, particularly (and surprisingly, actually) on Bill Ayers, the former '60s radical who has tenuous ties to Obama. We're not sure if Clinton's piling on ever is good for her in the long run -- see her current poll standing -- it created some post-debate issues for Obama. Many news organizations will feel compelled to do Ayers stories in the next few days (and they already have). While some may question the fairness and relevancy of the Ayers issue, it's not going to be good for Obama.

Some of the press outlets are criticizing Clinton for -- essentially -- doing their job, although they still don't recognize and admit that they've failed in vetting Obama. Instead they attack Clinton for attacking Obama's obvious weaknesses in many areas - the same areas the press has ignored for months. The same areas that matter a great deal with regards to Obama's electability and ability to withstand the scrutiny the general election holds for the Democratic candidate.

Bottom line - universal opinion that Clinton won the debate where an opintion is expressed, but many aren't giving her the credit for that, and are instead whining about ABC, about Clinton pressing Obama on Ayers and Wright, etc...

Update: Another clear indication that Obama lost the debate is the extent to which the ObamaManiacs are attacking ABC for (gasp!) actually drilling a few pertinent questions towards Obama.

The ObamaManiacs are foaming at the mouth at many of the usual Obama-licking websites, like this post at the Huffington Post, where they don't even try for a pretense of fairness or balance, and the posts run in favor of Obama by a 10-1 margin.

Reflecting what seemed to be the main consensus of the night - that ABC botched this debate, big time - Charlie Gibson tells the crowd there will be one more, superfluous commercial break of the night and is subsequently jeered.

"OH..." he declares, hands raised in defense. "The crowd is turning on me, the crowd is turning on me."

Off camera, observers let out their frustrations. Watch it: (video clip embedded at HuffPo)

The post goes on to cite more foaming-at-the-mouth spew from the ObamaManiacs:

...This is AWFUL. Thank goodness for Jon Stewart and Comedy Central. He does a better job of interviewing and asking relevant questions of his guests in 5 minutes than these 2 yahoos have in more than an hour. ABC should be ashamed. George should be ashamed. Charlie should be ashamed. This isn't a debate. This is a hit job.

...Asinine questions - abysmal debate. Fire these silly moderators NOW. They insult the intelligence of the American people.

...I haven't watched ABC "news" in a few years. I see I haven't been missing much! MORE THAN half the debate turned over to Bittergate, Rev Wright, the Weathermen, Tuzla, FLAG LAPEL PINS? Most of the televised debates I've seen this campaign season have been lame, but this one takes the prize. Either you guys are morons or you think that we are. Either way, I'm glad to have seen the last of you. Really, really bad.No winners in this debate, but a definite loser: ABC "NEWS"

...This is the WORST debate I have ever watched. Never in my life have I been more disenchanted with the news media as a whole, especially a news organization such as ABC that I believed to have some sense of purpose to bring substantive information and perspective to the American people. Americans are tired of the snipping between the candidates and the lack of discussion about what each candidate will do to help the country. ABC News should be ashamed for presenting such a failure of a debate.

I do give credit to HuffPo for publishing last week's expose of Obama's condescension from San Francisco, but even there the post in question was written by an Obama supporter who, after hearing Obama's arrogance first hand while attending the SF fundraiser, was so concerned that she ultimately decided the remarks needed to be out in the open.

Apparently it took several days before the executive decision was made to publish Obama's remarks (which speaks volumes toward the discussions which must have ensued over whether to publish the story or not), and obviously the Obama-lickers over at the Huffington Post are equally foamy over the fact that their executive staff decided to run the story. Yesterday's anti-Clinton misogyny by Paul Loeb is just one example.

Pollster Frank Lutz talks to the Fox News debate focus group:

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 2.6/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 2.6/5 (5 votes cast)

Comments (7)

There was no question Hillary won. It wasn't close. She handled the tough questions better, and was far better able to stay balanced and keep going after taking a hit.

Obama's inexperience is beginning to show through. What is most surprising is how long he was able to lead the pack without it showing. Some of that was surely due to the fawning press coverage early on, only shocked into reality by an SNL skit (what if the writers' strike had not been settled?). But some was also due to the considerable skills and appeal of Senator Obama.

The bottom line is he lacks the resume to run for President. Eight years in the Illinois legislature, voting "present" 130 times, with his main "accomplishments" only in the last year (in the form of bills he never worked on, but to which his name was added by the Majority Leader, who told anyone who would listen that he was "going to make a US Senator!"). Three years, three months in the US Senate, two-thirds of which spent out of town running for President. Pretty thin stuff.

Obama should run for Governor of Illinois. A productive and corruption-free term which improved the bipartisan culture of corruption in state government would give him something to point to when he tries again for the Big Job.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

Obama's inexperience is beginning to show through. What is most surprising is how long he was able to lead the pack without it showing.

Jim, and I honestly mean no offense with this, so please don't take it the wrong way, but his weakness and inexperience has shown from the start. I suspect people like myself have just been much more critical watchers and more interested in diligently vetting Obama.

His amazingly naive approach to diplomatic relations with Iran, especially in contrast to Clinton's measured response of negotiating from a position of strength and under no circumstances letting President Ahmadinejad stand on an equal footing with the United States, clearly shows Obama's weakness. He's a putz, an idiot when it comes to any demonstrable understanding of diplomacy, national affairs, and world politics.

I don't disagree there. The problem was the press was so enthralled with the concept of the Obama candidacy that they refused to ask any tough questions. Had the writers' strike not ended and that SNL skit not aired, shaming them for their obsequiousness, they might NEVER have asked any.

I am no fan of Hillary Clinton. I do however recognize that most factors - eight years of GOP control of the White House, Democrats retaking Congress in the last midterm, the signs of weakening in the economy, and a war-weary public - tend to indicate a Democratic year. If one of the two remaining Democratic candidates is to be the next President, let it be the one with the most experience. Hillary's years beside her husband don't exactly count as 100% direct experience for her, but they (and her longer Senate service) beat the heck out of Obama's resume.

I will still, with no little reluctance, support McCain over her in the fall, but I will feel much better about the fate of the country if we lose than if Obama gets the nomination.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

The second half of the debate in Philadelphia demonstrated that Clinton is the better of the two candidates, and is obviously the candidate I'm backing at this time, but no question they are both seriously flawed, and so is McCain.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

Oh, and I agree that the SNL skit was a turning point. Many had been whining about the press bias and debate bias against Clinton, but the SNL parody cut through the Obamedia's self-serving blackout on the question, and opened the eyes of a lot of folks who were equally mesmerized by the Messiah Obama.

I was vactioning that weekend the first parody aired and hadn't watched SNL that night, but I learned about the skit the following morning sitting in a restaurant eating breakfast. The table next to ours was just chattering away about the skit, and commenting that they really hadn't realized the bias and slant against Clinton that had been going on until they saw that skit. It opened a lot of eyes...

Ryan Ostrander:

George Stephanopoulos used to work for Bill Clinton. Wake up people.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

Find a new schtick, Ryan. ABC in general has been brutalizing Clinton over the past several months, and obviously you don't watch Stephanopoulos on Sundays because he has been equally brutal against Clinton


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]





Add to Technorati Favorites


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.