« Three Questions In A Row About Race (and Gender) | Main | "Without Preconditions" » Obama Draws A Contrast23 Jul 2007 07:50 pm In a debate of few moments, here was a brief moment of contrast drawn by Sen. Barack Obama about HIllary Clinton, who had touted her exchange with the Pentagon over troop redeployment. "The time to ask how we were going to get out of Iraq was before went in." Another good sound bite for Obama. He's uncomfortable speaking in sound bites, but when he does, it works for him. Comments (19)
I'm sorry to differ, but that wasn't really a sound byte to me. That was a real moment of truth and it shows a clear distinction on how Obama would lead as president. In order words, Obama is saying four things to Hillary: It shows that Hillary lacks good judgment to be president, while Obama will be as careful as John F. Kennedy was in dealing with the Cuban missile crisis, which clearly would've escalated if JFK had the judgment of Hillary Clinton. http://www.irishamericansforobama.com/response_to_susan_estrich.html 
Obama was the Clear winner. I am glad to see the focus group in NH and Fox News focus group both agree that Obama won the debate.
Obama was the dominate candidate. He also packed substance into his answers. Clinton gives all this spin, blame and a loud voice but, no substance. She never says what she is going to do.
Al Gore could run and beat all of them.
Obama clear winner. Thoughful, clear and consice answers that realed to all segments of the american public. He will be a great leader for this country.
Yes, Obama really stepped it up. The "feel-o-meter" showed Obama on top, Hillary dead last. The only ones who love Hillary are the elites in the media and in both parties.
"......Obama will be as careful as John F. Kennedy was in dealing with the Cuban missile crisis, which clearly would've escalated if JFK had the judgment of Hillary Clinton." Sorry you don't have history on you side.... As you should know, JFK escalated all of the Cuban issues, by trying to assasinate Castro as well as instigating the Bay of Pigs invasion. Gee, it sounds like your comments are appropriate for JFK as well....
"......Obama will be as careful as John F. Kennedy was in dealing with the Cuban missile crisis, which clearly would've escalated if JFK had the judgment of Hillary Clinton." Sorry you don't have history on you side.... As you should know, JFK escalated all of the Cuban issues, by trying to assasinate Castro as well as instigating the Bay of Pigs invasion. Gee, it sounds like your comments are appropriate for JFK as well....
Hillary's transformation into a decent debater has been so miraculous that it is a distraction, along with her cosmetic make-over. Taken back by the new Hillary, the viewer can get so caught up in all the extreme stylistic changes that what she says is for a few moments, secondary. With all that said, she still can not break through as anything but insincere, self centered and above all self serving. In the end, you know it's always going to be much more about her than anything or anyone else. No one wants to support that. Even democrats and independents. She may win the nomination, but I think she can be beat in the general.
Yeah. Hillary is a good debater alright. But the curtains are beginning to fall off. The smiles are fading away. Her tepid compliment to Obama reveals how terrible she is at dealing with adversity. In a desperate attempt to distinguish herself from Obama, Hillary shot herself in the foot by saying she doesn't want to meet foreign leaders because she's concerned about being used for propaganda. Nancy Pelosi didn't have a problem with being used for propaganda when she went to Syria. She just did the right thing. Hillary should've exercised this caution before voting to authorize the Iraq war, killing more Americans than 9/11.
To Obama style and hype are substitutes for substance which comes through experience! Hype did not work till now and so the new tack - try sound bytes and oneupmanship! To say one should have thought of an exit plan before invading Iraq - is a no brainer. Obama should direct that question to Bush not Hillary!! Bush made a mess of the mandate given by the Senate and forget an exit strategy, did not even have a post Saddam stabilization strategy. This is why Hillary and others (including an increasing number of Republicans) want to force Bush to come up with a plan to extricate the US from Iraq. Obama however harps about his "foresight" in opposing the war from the start (when he was not a Senator) - hypocratically claiming "wisdom" when in a Larry King show he admitted "HE DID NOT KNOW" how he would have voted if he had access to the intelligence information in 2001 that Senators like Hillary had!!! Obama has coasted along until now only because his style of communication inspires arm chair intellectuals and cynics who love to bitch about everything but would do nothing to take that small step forward that will drag them out of the mess they are in right now. Hillary's motto is simple - It is better to light a small candle than curse the darkness!!
Until Obama decides he is going to confront Clinton, around "Clintonism", he is running for
Marc, I'm trying to reconcile the support and agreement from left pundits and bloggers and the press corps on Hillary Clinton's answer about not meeting directly with enemy nations. I know I didn't imagine the collective and continuing criticism of the Bush administration for their refusal to meet with these nations by the same people who are commending Hillary Clinton for taking the same position. Her answer was almost verbatim to the excuses George Bush has been using, but she's being praised on 'mydd', the 'daily kos' and others. What gives?
Marc, I'm trying to reconcile the support and agreement from left pundits and bloggers and the press corps on Hillary Clinton's answer about not meeting directly with enemy nations. I know I didn't imagine the collective and continuing criticism of the Bush administration for their refusal to meet with these nations by the same people who are commending Hillary Clinton for taking the same position. Her answer was almost verbatim to the excuses George Bush has been using, but she's being praised on 'mydd', the 'daily kos' and others. What gives?
--Obama however harps about his "foresight" in opposing the war from the start (when he was not a Senator) - hypocratically claiming "wisdom" when in a Larry King show he admitted "HE DID NOT KNOW" how he would have voted if he had access to the intelligence information in 2001 that Senators like Hillary had!!!-- It,s known that Hillary did not take care to read the intelligence ENTIRELY!!! She vote regarding the poll about the war at the time.
That's not controversial. Hillary saying Obama's answer is naive is controversial, however. Obama's position is not naive...its actually what most on the left have been calling for since Bush took office. If she's gonna disagree with that, then what position is she espousing? Can't have it both ways. If you want to make the point that her position isn't that hawkish, then you gotta admit she's distorting Obama's position. If you won't admit that, then you gotta take her as being much more hawkish than she came off. What's more, the very fact that she would criticize his position is in and of itself a hawkish move. The only people is seems to have pleased are the National Review types.
I think Obama would've read the intelligence report presented to the senate intelligence committee cover-to-cover, and he most likely would've voted like his state's senior senator, Durbin - NO! That's the difference between a leader who gives a damn and takes the time and refuses to send hundreds of thousands of troops into hostilities based on lies, and a leader who only wants to get reelected and jump on the patriotism bandwagon even if it's lined with our soldiers' bodies, may they rest in peace. I know Hillary was all in favor of talks with adversaries in Feb. and Apr. I want to know who told her to change her tune - the anti-Castro PACs and lobbyists, who have their sites on Venezuela as well and support coups of its democratically-elected (5 times!) president (to benefit US and British petroleum companies), maybe. It's hard to tell, she takes so many millions from so many PACs and lobbyists. Obama, on the other hand, carefully considered the issue and has the same answer today he had six months ago. His goal is to get new agreements to protect US interests in a new global environment, and he's taking no PAC or lobbyist $ so he doesn't have to give them the time of day. Hillary's switch from talks to avoiding talks so as not to be "used as propoganda" is beyond the pale. Like Bush, she wants us to believe that avoiding difficulties is brave, macho, leadership. I think if Clinton gets the Dem vote for the primaries, she will lose the general election to a Republican, because Dems who want a to be able to see a clear change when Bush gets out know they will not see that with Cinton. She is financed by the players profiting from it all. Wake up, America! We only have six months to get the best candidate to the final election. Start with preparing for the Barack Obama birthday celebration in August, and let's take the leader who cares about Americans to the top on Super Tuesday and beat the PACs and lobbyists, for once! By early February, the race will be decided. Make it your choice. barackobama.com
I believe you must have experience to be president of the United States. Its imperative as our reputation as a nation is dependent onit.However, don't you agree that we should take experience in its proper perspective? Would you trust someone who has more experience or better judgement? I have experience at playing cards that does not mean I can beat my wife does it? If my wife beats me, is it because she has more experience or is it because she makes better choices and those choices work for her which leads to better judging the cards she is dealt with? I believe I can beat her but in order for me to do so, I have to make better choices. Experience is only as good as the choices you make with the options you have. Peace
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Obama is clearly the superior candidate.
Posted by James | July 23, 2007 9:55 PM