« Buffoonery | Main | Clanging Symbols »

Obama's restraint

I finally watched the Democratic Debate in PA yesterday afternoon. I have to say, Obama actually seemed a little flustered by some of the really useless barbs and questions aimed at him during the first 45 minutes. This Republican-style, Rovian attack came from two fronts - [semi-surprising] ABC Moderator George Stephanopoulos (who happened to be on Bill Clinton's payroll for 8 years), and desperation candidate Hillary Clinton.

As it turns out, the grilling about the Weather Underground [the terrorists, not the website] and Bill Ayers was prompted by two prominent right-wing lunatics at least a day before the debate, Sean Hannity and Steve Malzberg.

From Newsweek:

Clinton said "people died" in 1970s bombings by a radical group of which an Obama acquaintance was a member. In fact, the deaths were of three members of the Weather Underground itself, who died when their own bombs accidentally exploded.

Well, even after the atrocity of that debate, where Clinton invoked 9/11 at least 7 times, Obama came out apparently unhindered in a lot of superdelegates' minds. Also, his campaign is spinning this like he used the debate as a run-up to the general election fight with the Repubs.

From the NYT:

Yet despite giving it her best shot in what might have been their final debate, interviews on Thursday with a cross-section of these superdelegates ... showed that none had been persuaded much by her attacks on Mr. Obama’s strength as a potential Democratic nominee, his recent gaffes and his relationships with his former pastor and with a onetime member of the Weather Underground.
...
Some Clinton advisers also said that the focus on Mr. Obama’s “guns or religion” comment was a way to put him on the spot with so-called values voters — in part to offset Mrs. Clinton’s baggage in this area.
...
Mr. Obama sought to allay concerns about questions of his electability on Thursday. At a campaign stop in Raleigh, N.C., a woman told Mr. Obama that he was “really pummeled during the debate.” She continued, “What is your strategy to beat the Republicans in November?”

“That was the rollout of the Republican campaign against me in November. It happened just a little bit early, but that is what they will do,” Mr. Obama said. “They will try to focus on all these issues that don’t have anything to do with how you are paying your bills at the end of the month. There’s no doubt that I will have to respond sharply and crisply, then pivot to talk about what exactly are we going to do for the economy and what are we going to do about the war in Iraq.”

Until the nominating fight ends, Mr. Obama said, he is “trying to show some restraint.” He added, “I won’t have as much restraint with the Republicans. [emphasis mine]"

Supporters of Mr. Obama have expressed concern about the bitter ferocity of the Democratic race, particularly with Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain sounding similar themes of criticism against Mr. Obama. They used Wednesday’s debate as the latest example to superdelegates that the prolonged nominating fight could be damaging to the party.

“And I have to say Senator Clinton looked in her element,” Mr. Obama said, speaking to an audience of North Carolina voters. “She was taking every opportunity to get a dig in there. You know, that’s all right. That’s her right. That’s her right to kind of twist the knife a little bit.”

Indeed, several superdelegates said they had been put off by negative moments in the debate.

“What I’m hearing from voters in this state who have been uncommitted or not solidly behind any candidate is that they are increasingly frustrated with the negativism going on, mostly on her side,” said Patricia Waak, the Colorado state party chairwoman. (Mr. Obama won the Colorado primary in a landslide.)

This is going to be an interesting general election at least.

I can't wait for him to move into Pennsylvania Ave.

Comments (4)

pete [TypeKey Profile Page]:

Let me preface this by saying I am not in anyway a Clinton or Hannity supporter.

But, how can you honestly say that Hannity and Malzberg are "lunatics" and go as far as defending Bill Ayers. Never mind the Weather Underground's intent of the bombs and their platform. All that matters is they blow themselves up. Absolutely insane argument.

For once, I agree with Clinton, and for that mater Hannity. These so called "acquaintances" should not define Obama, but to completely dismiss the attacks might be as crazy as you think Hannity and Malzberg are.

Patrick [TypeKey Profile Page]:

Hannity and Malzberg are a few of the founding members of the right-wing, lunatic fringe.

Have you ever listened to, or read some of the things they say and write?

These accusations of Obama about people whom he has no control over are baseless and reek of Republican tactics. These kinds of attacks should not be used in a PRIMARY campaign.

pete [TypeKey Profile Page]:

Couple things here. Yes I have listened to Hannity numerous times. I am a conservative and a Republican, and I do not agree with Hannity, Malzberg, Rush, O'Reily etc, etc. I believe that they should not be the mouthpieces of the conservative Republican movement. I disagree with them on multiple levels. Most importantly, I believe that they are populists and sensationalists.

However, what my point was that in your post it seemes that you defended Bill Ayers, while calling Hannity and Malzberg "lunatics". I respect your opinion of Hannity and Malzberg, but you can not honestly agree with Ayers. To dismiss his role in the 70s Weather Underground movement and his "lunacy" can not be dismissed b/c of the people bringing up the charges.

Any like-minded liberal, conservative, Democrat, or Republican can not honestly defend his actions. I have been reading this blog for a few weeks, and I suspect (hope) that nobody on here is defending Ayers, but your post made it seem that way.

How can I, by saying two jackass pundits are lunatics, possibly be considered to be defending William Ayers and his (incompetent) terrorist organization? That's stretching and reading a bit too far into the sentence. The point being made was that the questioning FROM ABC to Obama was written FOR Stephanopoulos at least a day before the debate, BY THESE TWO RIGHT-WING FUNDAMENTALIST ATTENTION WHORES. This should anger anybody, be they conservative, liberal, progressive, democrat, independent, republican, catcher, pitcher, or blue man group! The supposed unbiased press is getting their questions for a _Democratic_ Debate FROM the right-wing. Talk about selling out the Bill of Rights for the two-week old, half-drank wine in the box.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

About

This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on April 18, 2008 2:33 AM.

The previous post in this blog was Buffoonery.

The next post in this blog is Clanging Symbols.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.