The referree, Wolf Blizter, was completely bought-and-paid-for. He reached a new low late debate when he saw that Clinton, though not dominating, was clearly leading. What a question: "Aren't you saying that you were naive, Hillary....?" Her response, "nice try, Wolf," with a big fat grin was SWEEEEEET! At least, going by the CNN judges it was a strong split decision for Clinton. Bennett had it 120-108 Clinton. Borger had it 116-112 Obama. Martin had it 116-112 Clinton. Gergen had it 115-113 Clinton. Cooper had it 115-113 Obama. The "Dial-Tester" had it 120-108 Clinton. Bernstein had it 118-110 Obama. But the bastard Blitzer gave the win to Cllinton 115-113. I think Blitzer is having a belated Kelso experience. He's finally had to acknowledge what's obvious. She's a far superior debater. In any format.
They spun it this way. Clinton needed to appear "nice," which she did. Obama needed to appear to have a grasp on the issues and answer the questions which he did for the most part but, of course, he was no match for her in that department. Obama got some help from the producer of the CNN broadcast who would change the question in the graphic below the candidates to match Obama's answer when it was at variance with Blitzer's original question. To be fair, the producer also provided, perhaps, the most telling moment of where they stand going into Super Tuesday. Blitzer gave Obama a softball question about sex and violence in Hollywood movies and what he would do about it. Obama, to his credit, opened with what I thought was the single most honest and charming thing he's said since that ridiculous speech in 2004: "I have two daughters who are 7 and 9 and they're mostly into Nickelodeon...." He should have quit while he was ahead. When Clinton hits the mark quickly she stops. Obama loves his own voice and, unfortunately for him, knew that a Wingnut response was being asked of him. So, instead of leaving with the impression of a candidate focused on the important issues of the day, war and the economy, he took the bait and went into the "giving parents the 'tools' they need to protect their children...." He realizes that if he goes any further he's going to sound nuts, so he repeats the same idea about 'tools' over and over again using different words. I assume everyone in the audience in LA and everyone watching around the globe already has these "tools" with their TVs and their basic cable packages. The producer cut to Rob Reiner look absolutely disgusted with Obama.
That is the problem for Obama. He isn't winning California. Sure, there's a little bullshit knee-jerk liberal money for him out there because he's half African-American and whatever shade of green his skin color is. The smart money out there knows that HRC is the laissez-faire corporatist and Obama has the Lieberman scolding religious vibe. The gambling law is but one example of how they differ in that way. Sure, Geffen and Spielberg -- a grinning idiot -- can toss a few bucks at Obama, but so long as LA's main Democratic money man, Ron Burkle, is with Clinton, it's Clinton by 10+ out there. Obama better just focus on the Inland Empire and everywhere else religion plays because he's going to get pole-axed everywhere else in CA.
Unfortunately, like last night, Super Tuesday will be a nice win for Clinton but not gin-rummy. The prevailing price in the market Clinton-179/Obama+164 seems to reflect that, more or less.
Two themes are still hanging fire: 1) The LA debate showed that while Obama can't beat her in any format with any strategy, his best strategy may well be the attack because following South Carolina, while she got the best of the exchange, she also got damned for it much more than he did. In LA, with the "civilized" strategy employed by both, she can more or less phone it in without fearing much of a press backlash. 2) The MI and FL delegates will be significant and it's anyone's guess how that will play out. My guess is she ultimately won't need them but at worst she'll end up where she was, with the delegates from those states not seated. The press will spin any legal challenges as her "partisan politics" but so what? There's a reason "The Boy Who Cried 'Wolf (Blitzer!)'" remains a pertinent fable.
Kelso's Nuts love you
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Thanks for the analysis as I didn't bother to watch it. Also it is true that if you are for Clinton you will be called racist and if you are for Obama you may be considered sexist. What great choices we have here, huh?
LIB:
I've touched on this many many times before but living in a very mixed country racially and culturally which has had a black and woman president already, all of this first black that and first woman this is very weird for me.
And what makes the whole thing about Obama and Clinton double-plus weird is that 1) Obama is 1/2 African-American and not a descendent of slaves, moreover, his ancestry really on both sides is, I'm assuming, far more aristocratic than yours, mine or Hillary Clinton's. 2) Clinton is a woman sure, but I think there are 19 women in the Senate, and Clinton kind of stands out as a very accomplished and polished professional -- this is hardly like Samuel Johnson's remark about a female cleric 3) while the figures are 59c/$ and 77c/$ black man and white woman respectively against the white man in equivalent work, the "black" candidate is the more right-wing anti-working class of the two, yet the "woman" is more pro-business! Curiouser and curiouser.
Not only am I in just a handful of men on the internet who support Clinton pretty much without reservation, I'm also injust a handful of LIBERAL MEN who do! I know a lot of dark-skinned men here in Panama who would fit no American's version of a "liberal" who are for Clinton all the way. That goes for wealthy business types and far-left grass-roots organizers. Now, that I've come to understand that South America is more like Europe than Mexico it doesn't surprise me, but I would have thought that it would have been quite the opposite when I first got here. Supporting Clinton has nothing to do with one's gender or masculinity here.
the real loser in the debate was Wolf -- he was chomping for a showdown. those producers must have been yelling in his year -- "get them to fight, get them to disagree, get something worth a sound bite"
to HRC and BHO's credit they didnt fall for it --- they finally realize they are sitting in history and they want history to be on their side --- i have finally resigned myself to either one --- as you know i am not a fan of either --- they both have plenty of plusses and a ton of minuses. but after watching McCain and Romney and listening to Ann Coulter and Rush drone on about mccain --- i know that this country cannot tolerate or survive 4 more years of bush lite.
for all her corporatism, she is not bush lite. for all his religous crap, he is not bush lite.
the press is going nuts --- they are going to lose their soap opera. but they should just relax --- the republican machine is preparing to dump plenty of crap their way come sept.
you are influencing me my friend!
D-CAPny:
I'm glad. I think you summed it up pretty nicely
"...for all her corporatism, she is not bush lite. for all his religous crap, he is not bush lite..."
I guess because I (a) have an MBA and (b) am an atheist, it's an easy call for me. Getting money from wealthy corporate contributors to pay for a first-class national campaign and accuring some debts to those corporations along the way seems like normal politics to me, not that it's good. Using religion and fluff words to move voters is just something that I don't relate to, but that's his shtick and I agree he's a lot better than McCain. Whether he's better than Romney is another question. I'd prefer GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY OF MA to Obama, but I prefer Obama to THE CANDIDATE OF '08 MITT ROMNEY.
What I also continue to find unusual is that Obama polls so well among the upper-middle class, yet I find her specificity so much more compelling that his "messages."
I think now and have always thought that the most "inspiring" candidate was Dennis Kucinich.
Wolf is a disgrace, and an embarrassment to we true Wolves of the world.
And I guess I need to sign up for the Klan, and the National We Hate Women Association (NWHWA for short) because I'm voting for Dr. Seuss.
Dr. Seuss is dead. Daniel Pinkwater is alive. Same vibe and he weighs 400 lbs. Believe me, I'm a parent!
Kelso, I missed the debate for a work function, but I have to agree with you on HRC. I know quite a few people who have developed an intense dislike for her, but can only point to the way she handled Bill's WH blowjob as the reason.
Not sure if you were around in 2k when she cleaned Rick Lazio's clock, but that only happened because Rudy had a "prostate" problem; presumably the same problem that compelled him to attempt to suspend the Mayoral election in 2001 because "the people needed him."
My feeling is that he quit because he knew she would have cleaned his clock, too. As you note so eloquently she's tough and smart and a woman, and when you get right down to it, there are lots of men (of all races) in the US who are deeply troubled by this prospect. That's why I'm voting for her.
Spartacus: Yes, I was living in NYC in 2k. HRC was a -$1.60 favorite when Rudy quit. She was -$2.00 before the Diallo acquittals.
Post a Comment