Posted on 04/17/2008 12:01:19 PM PDT by The_Republican
There are only two ways she can win the nomination now. Either she must overcome Obama’s lead in pledged delegates to overturn the verdict of the party rank-and-file. For her to do that, she will have to persuade a majority of the superdelegates (or a majority of them must reach the conclusion on their own) that Obama cannot win in the general election against John McCain.
For one thing, she demonstrated again that she can’t attack Obama on any front without opening herself up to similar charges. When she tried to exploit Obama’s connection to William Ayers, a former leader in the ‘60s domestic terror group the Weather Underground, Obama shot right back: “President Clinton pardoned or commuted the sentences of two members of the Weather Underground,” he said, “which I think is a slightly more significant act… than me serving on a board with somebody.”
In the spin room after the debate, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson pointed to Obama’s slippery answers on gun control and argued that his credibility had taken a blow.
But if Obama’s credibility has taken a blow, Clinton’s has taken a beat-down: During the debate, Stephanopolous pointed out that six out of ten voters in a recent poll now view her as dishonest.
When asked to account for several factually untrue things she said recently about a 1996 trip to Bosnia, Clinton replied, “On a couple of occasions in the last weeks, I just said some things that weren’t in keeping with what I knew to be the case.” That’s as close as you’ll ever get to hearing a politician admit that she lied.
But Barack Obama is just a politician, and like all politicians, he has very real limits.
He has associated with some unsavory characters, in most instances because the political benefits of doing so outweighed the consequences. But nothing that came up at Wednesday night’s debate is likely to persuade an undecided superdelegate that these associations make Obama unelectable.
Most of the superdelegates are politicians too and thus familiar with the pressures that politicians face.
The question of electability in the general election is the only one that matters anymore in the race for the Democratic nomination, and ABC’s moderators did a good job because they kept that in mind. Gibson and Stephanopolous asked questions about the candidates’ personal associations and the controversies surrounding some of their public positions (such as Obama’s decision to stop wearing a flag lapel pin). When the questions did focus on substantial matters, they concerned things like the right to bear arms, affirmative action, Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, and the capital-gains tax.
The Democratic party’s superdelegates will face a momentous decision when its convention rolls around in August. If Hillary Clinton is still contesting the nomination, she will most likely be asking them to overturn the will of the primary voters and make her the nominee. They will only take such a risk if they are totally convinced that Obama can’t win in November.
This was a debate for their benefit, and ABC did the right thing by testing the candidates on the issues that are bound to take center stage in the fall. On these issues, Obama might have stumbled. But he did not commit the kind of catastrophic blunder Clinton needs if she’s to have any hope of winning the nomination.
This is obviously an attempt to put a positive spin on Obama’s dismal performance.
“He has associated with some unsavory characters, in most instances because the political benefits of doing so outweighed the consequences.”
For example...
he has associated with the disbarred admitted perjurer Bill Clinton;
he has associated with the dishonest and financially corrupt Hillary Clinton;
he has associated with a former klansman Senator.
etc. etc. etc.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
That’s a hilraious point and political gold.
Obama, instead of bringing Coburn in the debate for abortions statements, should have said that I have GREAT WORKING RELATIONSHIP with Hillary Klinton in the Senate. We fight for same causes. I have known her for a long time. Then she made statements about enhancing her military credentials. Should I now apologize and disown those statements too because she is my known associate?
That’s a definite risk. I think they have the powers of demonization and propoganda going for them.
I posted on other thread. If Hillary is the nominee, then Republicans would be portrayed as racists, so as to direct the Black Angers against McCain.
If Obama is the nominee, then number one issue would become abortion, and domestic abuse, and deadbeat dads.....bascially men who use and abuse their FIRST WIVES and then DITCH them for Hotter, Wealthier, Younger Models. Like another OLD Republican candidate named after famous Banana brand.
Comparing a fellow senator to an admitted terrorist is dispicable. I don’t care how much you disagree with Cobern’s ideas, there’s a huge difference between overlooking a minor political disagreement in order to be friendly and overlooking acts of terrorism and the inciting of violence that has killed people!
Who writes this drivel?
If you start a sentence with "either", there has to be an "or" in there someplace...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.