Debate recap
Arguably, this was Barack Obama's best debate. He had nuanced answers to all of the questions posed to him, shied away from engaging in personal or negative attacks and was very cordial to Hillary Clinton both in his debate style and his responses.
Of course, he did smack her down quite well too ...
CLINTON: I have to confess, I was somewhat amused the other night when on one of the TV shows, one of Senator Obama’s supporters was asked to name one accomplishment of Senator Obama. And he couldn’t. So I know that there are comparisons and contrasts to be drawn between us. And it’s important that voters get that information. So yes, I do think that words are important, and words matter. But actions speak louder than words.
OBAMA: Well I think actions do speak louder than words, which is why, over the 20 years of my public service, I have acted a lot to provide health care to people who didn’t have it, to provide tax breaks to families that needed it. To reform a criminal justice system that had resulted in wrongful convictions, to open up our government and to pass the toughest ethics reform legislation since Watergate, to make sure that we create transparency in our government so that we know where federal spending is going.
You know, I think if you talk those wounded warriors at Walter Reed, who prior to me getting to the Senate were having to pay for their meals, and have to pay for their phone calls after their family while they’re recovering from amputations, I think they’d say that I’ve engaged not just in talk but in action.
Of course, he did smack her down quite well too ...
CLINTON: I have to confess, I was somewhat amused the other night when on one of the TV shows, one of Senator Obama’s supporters was asked to name one accomplishment of Senator Obama. And he couldn’t. So I know that there are comparisons and contrasts to be drawn between us. And it’s important that voters get that information. So yes, I do think that words are important, and words matter. But actions speak louder than words.
OBAMA: Well I think actions do speak louder than words, which is why, over the 20 years of my public service, I have acted a lot to provide health care to people who didn’t have it, to provide tax breaks to families that needed it. To reform a criminal justice system that had resulted in wrongful convictions, to open up our government and to pass the toughest ethics reform legislation since Watergate, to make sure that we create transparency in our government so that we know where federal spending is going.
You know, I think if you talk those wounded warriors at Walter Reed, who prior to me getting to the Senate were having to pay for their meals, and have to pay for their phone calls after their family while they’re recovering from amputations, I think they’d say that I’ve engaged not just in talk but in action.
posted by Jmac at 10:07 PM
9 Comments:
Obama's fans generally not knowing what he supports is a problem, especially for the antiwar crowd, who will be surprised to learn he's a warmonger like the rest of them. Political campaigns aren't known for deep policy discussions, but the extent to which Obama avoids the subject is remarkable.
-Matt
have acted a lot to provide health care to people who didn’t have it, to provide tax breaks to families that needed it. To reform a criminal justice system that had resulted in wrongful convictions, to open up our government and to pass the toughest ethics reform legislation since Watergate, to make sure that we create transparency in our government so that we know where federal spending is going.
He sure did a lot more than I realized. Wow. Everything there except "I took the initiative in creating the internet."
Seriously, his problem is a problem every Senator has, and it's why we don't usually elect them. Senators are walking collections of votes and opinions; executives--mayors, Governors, etc--are people who actually have to do things.
McCain's only claim, really, is that he has more votes and opinions than Obama by virtue of having been voting and expressing opinions longer. At the end of the day, we'll decide our votes based on where line up with their opinions, not on any "accomplishments."
Reggie
That's funny, Terry McAuliffe TOTALLY disagrees with you. And he sent me this personal email to tell me about it:
Dear William,
There was a remarkable moment in tonight's debate that we had to share with you. Watch it here:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/tonight
Pass it on.
Sincerely,
Terry McAuliffe
Chairman, Hillary Clinton for President
-wmo
Well, seeing how I trust Terry McAuliffe as far as I can throw him, that's OK. The only he really knows how to do effectively is bankrupt the party.
Seriously, his problem is a problem every Senator has, and it's why we don't usually elect them. Senators are walking collections of votes and opinions; executives--mayors, Governors, etc--are people who actually have to do things.
I suggest you go back and take a basic civics class to understand exactly how our government works since this is one of the more bizarre statements I've seen in a long, long time.
I actually enjoyed the debate last night and I think both sides offered some valid points and from what I saw I truly believe either one would be a good choice for President. Though both sides claiming health care improvements really makes me laugh. I maintain that the fastest way to solve that problem is to take away the taxpaper subsidized insurance benefits that the elected officials enjoy (not their staff, just the public officials). They would quickly see how impossibly (at least financially) difficult it is to buy enough for your family - I know first hand as a small business owner and trying to cover the monthly cost keeps me up at night. I don't have the luxury of running my business without health insurance because my spouse works at the University and we can get coverage through her like so many others that I know.
I can't put my finger on it, but there is something about Obama that doesn't sit right with me - He almost always comes across too polished as compared to Hilliary who comes across more controlled (or controlling). At times, I think he truly is one step away from a second coming of the Kennedy mystique or his hiding something too well.
I'm wrong? We'v been electing Senators to the White House all this time, and I just didn't notice it?
We will elect this year the first sitting Senator since JFK. The last one before that--I stand to be corrected here--was Harding.
You can call that fluke or happenstance if you like; I don't think it is. I think the American electorate generally picks administrators and executives--Governors and former VPs--mostly, and I think they do it for a reason. They have records.
Senators do too, of course. Voting records, which, perused closely enough, are typically structured in such a way as to show most every Senator on most every side of every issue, occasionally ("I voted for it before I voted against it") flagrantly so.
Reggie
You're not wrong about us electing senators - though one could make the argument we haven't had viable senatorial candidates (i.e. John Kerry or Bob Dole) - but I would say you're off with regard to senators, and all legislators, in suggesting they don't do anything. In actuality, it's feasible to believe they actually are doing more since they're the ones working on the legislation rather than enacting it (which was the point of my first comment).
I respectfully disagree with your assessment of Obama's performance last night, JM.
I'm for Obama, so let's just put that out there.
Last night was not his strongest performance. Both last night, and earlier in the week during his victory speech in Wisconsin, I think Obama has fallen back into a pattern that he had in the fall - when he was not doing so well - of turning a 30 second answer into a 3 minutes answer. I'm a supporter, and I'm a bit of a policy geek, but nevertheless he kept losing me during some of those long answers last night.
If there's one thing we've learned from our last two nominees, it's that the general public isn't interested in listening to long, ponderous, I'm-going-to-explain-all-of-this-to-you answers.
I don't think it's a major issue - just tighten it up a bit. Further, I don't think HRC made any progress last night. I'm just saying I don't think it was Obama's strongest debate performance.
I can't keep up. John Kerry wasn't viable?
OK, but don't let me hear anymore about how "if he'd only won a few more votes in questionable Ohio..."
As a Bush supporter, he struck me as plenty damned viable in 2004.
Post a Comment
<< Home