Clinton and Obama Give Themselves a Break

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama got their digs in, but both candidates took pains on Thursday night not to appear hostile or mean-spirited in what was their only one-on-one encounter before Super Tuesday.
Instead, the two surviving Democratic contenders spent close to two hours—the debate at the Kodak Theatre wrapped up a few minutes earlier than planned and included three commercial breaks—aiming most of their attacks at John McCain, the likely Republican nominee, and engaging in lengthy, painstaking and rather dispassionate discussions of policy.
From a civics standpoint, the debate was something approaching a triumph. But in terms of political theater, it didn’t even begin to approach the tension and pique that defined last week’s debate in South Carolina.
Both candidates had good reason to play it this way.
For Clinton, the prevailing media narrative of the last few days is that she and her husband went overboard in attacking Obama in South Carolina; that both Bill and Hillary showcased their worst characteristics—whether it was Hillary’s withering, prosecutorial assault on Obama in the pre-South Carolina debate or Bill’s too-cute-by-half efforts to insinuate race into the campaign—and that it prompted a backlash at the polls, delivering to Obama a victory that approached 30 points.
Whether this interpretation is fair or accurate doesn’t really matter. Had Hillary won—or come unexpectedly close—in South Carolina, the media would now be fixating on how devastatingly effective her debate antics had been and how ruthlessly brilliant Bill’s coy racial pigeonholing was.
But because she lost so badly, the media drew the opposite conclusion. And that necessitated a change in style for Hillary and Bill. Had Hillary launched the same types of attacks in last night’s debate that she did in South Carolina, the post-debate coverage would be dominated with stories about Hillary’s “risky” decision to continue attacking Obama even after that tactic had been repudiated. So instead, she struck a more conciliatory—and far less demagogic—tone.
A revealing moment came early on, when she was asked to itemize her policy differences with Obama. She obliged, but notably absent were the inflammatory and misleading extrapolations of Obama’s views that she has happily employed in previous debates.
On the subject of health care, she correctly pointed out that she and Obama differ on the need for the government to mandate that every individual receive coverage. She then made the case for a mandate, arguing that it represents a necessary statement of principle—universal coverage—that needs to be expressed at the start of any negotiation over health care legislation. What she didn’t do—this time—was to conjure images of poor and helpless citizens and demand to know why Obama would deny them health care.
Hillary leveled her share of criticism at Obama last night, but she did it sparingly and in a manner that was respectful—both of her opponent and of the audience’s intelligence.
A similarly conciliatory spirit defined Obama’s performance. He led off the night with an opening statement in which he referred to Hillary as “my friend,” and took pains throughout the debate to point out the common ground that he and Hillary share against the Republicans.
This style suited his needs, too, because he is a weak technical debater when it comes to a hostile back-and-forth format, unable to recognize the rhetorical traps that Hillary occasionally wanders into and either incapable or uninterested in conjuring pithy jabs on the spot.
Plus, the debate came after a few days of surprisingly intense media coverage of Obama’s supposed “snub” of Hillary at Monday night’s State of the Union address, a development that gave the press license to recycle Obama’s “You’re likable enough, Hillary” comment from the final pre-New Hampshire debate. If he went after Hillary too aggressively at the debate, Obama putting Clinton once again in the same victim’s role she assumed in the final days in New Hampshire, a posture that seemed to rally women to her side and keyed her upset victory. Next Page >





















Barack Obama's Health Care is the Same Universal Health Care offered by Hillary and Edwards, but with one Major Difference: You Have the Option of Choice!
We as a nation have to decide, do we want to be forced to pay for universal medical insurance, like we are mandated to pay for auto insurance now? Or would we rather have the option of CHOICE -- to be able to decide whether or not we want to buy our medical coverage when we think the time is right?
Barack Obama's plan thoughtfully does not want to put another mandated cost, like auto insurance, on the backs of the people, especially the young, who already have college costs to contend with. However, the coverage is always there for you, if and when you need it. That is our decision and our choice!
Barack Obama's Health Care is the Same Universal Health Care offered by Hillary and Edwards, but with one Major Difference: You Have the Option of Choice!
We as a nation have to decide, do we want to be forced to pay for universal medical insurance, like we are mandated to pay for auto insurance now? Or would we rather have the option of CHOICE -- to be able to decide whether or not we want to buy our medical coverage when we think the time is right?
Barack Obama's plan thoughtfully does not want to put another mandated cost, like auto insurance, on the backs of the people, especially the young, who already have college costs to contend with. However, the coverage is always there for you, if and when you need it. That is our decision and our choice!
Wait until they hit the hustings leading up to next Tuesday, then you'll hear the expletives fly! I can't wait for the Democrat's immolation!
Civility suits Mr. Obama and civility is HOW he will govern. Civility is when Hillary Clinton is at her weakest, because divisiveness is her prism/context. The L.A. "act" doesn't change the facts. Turn the page.
DEMOCRATIC LOVEFEST VS. REPUBLICAN SLUGFEST
I can cite another reason for the Clinton-Obama "lovefest" in their pre-Super Tuesday debate: The Democratic rank and file appear to be sending them both a message that they want to see them become the party's history-making "dream ticket" in November.
The Democratic Party is more energized, more financially flush and more united now than at any other time in recent memory. Nothing would suit Democrats better than to see Clinton and Obama emerge from the August convention in Denver as running mates.
Contrast that to the sour mood among Republicans over the increasingly bitter rancor between their top two contenders, Mitt Romney and John McCain. Their pre-Super Tuesday debate was a slugfest of back-and-forth accusations. And the acid hostility between them has only gotten worse since then.
I've never seen a race for the Republican presidential nod this nasty in my lifetime -- not even the epic 1976 battle between Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan, which lasted all the way to the convention. That one's proving to be downright tame compared to the McCain-Romney imbroglio.
I am a moderate Democrat but I am enthusiastically supporting Barack Obama because I believe he will bring about the changes our nation so badly needs by reaching across the aisle and working with members of both parties. The bitter partisanship in Congress is making it impossible to get reforms in healthcare, the environment, immigration and our foreign policy. Hillary Clinton has ran a nasty, mean-spirted campaign against Obama, full of mud-slingling, character assassination and the politics of personal destruction. As President she and her husband will make the presidencies of Richard Nixon and George W. Bush pale in comparison when it comes their vindictiveness, secretiveness and wanting to get back at their enemies.
America has too many problems that need to be resolved and they never will be resolved if we demonize those who disagree with us. Obama has proven he can work with those whose views don't always equal his in a way to find common ground and get meaningful legislation passed that will benefit all Americans. He will hold true to his beliefs but will still be able to get majorities to pass legislation because of the type of leader he is.
We don't need more partisanship in Congress, we need less. We don't need more lies, more mud slinging, and more dirty campaigning. Nixon is long gone, and Bush will soon be gone. If revenge and getting back at the Republicans is your motive, then vote for Hillary Clinton. If progress and change and laws protecting our environment, extending healthcare to more of our citizens, a fair and decent immigration policy, and a foreign policy that will restore American values without making us a pariah in the world is what you want, then you have one clear choice: Barack Obama.
Obama said that his health care plan will be so low that people can afford it. How does he knows that it is low enough. It may seem low to him but not to somebody else who wants health care but still can't afford it. Hillary's health care plan is if people can't afford it they will get money back from tax rebate.
I agree with Skeeter Sanker. I want Democrat to take the White House for 16 years. First 8 years should be Hillary as the President and Obama as the President. The last 8 years will be Obama as the President,
I don't agree with Renatam. Hillary has already worked with Republicans to get many things done. Many Republican senators had said publicly about that. Where were you? How could you say that. I think you are the divisive one.
̫ƽ
cheap maple story mesos
buy maple story mesos
First 8 years should be Hillary as the President and Obama as the President. The last 8 years will be Obama as the President,
again??LoL