Tag Archives: mccain

Tonight’s Debate

Posted on by

I watched the debate tonight. And I can’t believe I’m saying this, but: I think Clinton definitely had the better evening. Obama seemed off his game. The questions were appalling — Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous both seemed to be channeling Tim Russert, and they brought up every possible scandal that has been raised against Obama. Including the flag pin thing! Are you kidding me?

Nothing about Mark Penn or his Colombia trade deal. But questions about Wright, and some Weatherman guy.

But Obama didn’t respond well to the questions at all. He sounded halting and hesitant and defensive when he spoke.

Clinton, meanwhile, seemed polished and prepared and seemed to know her stuff. If this were the only debate I’d seen, and I were voting in the Pennsylvania primary, I might vote for her.

Not that she has a chance of getting the nomination anymore, but she might very well be a better candidate against McCain than Obama would be. She’d certainly be better than either John Kerry or Al Gore at going on the offensive and standing up for herself.

Obama sometimes seems to be morphing into Adlai Stevenson before our eyes. We might get killed again this fall with him as the nominee.

Obama works under the assumption that people are smart. Case in point: his wonderful speech on race last month.

Clinton, on the other hand, works under the assumption that people are dumb and need things explained to them in simple terms.

Unfortunately, I think most people are dumb.

I don’t necessarily mean that as a knock against Clinton. It’s just the way things seem to be.

Fourth Quarter

Posted on by

The extended Democratic contest won’t necessarily be bad. In fact, it could be helpful. Ron Klain gives some reasons why: it will give the party more time to make sure it picks the right nominee, it will make that nominee a better candidate, it’s a great recruiting tool for Democrats (“identifying possible Democratic voters for the fall, expanding the party’s fundraising base and substantially growing its ranks of volunteers and activists”), and it keeps McCain from making any news. (The latter isn’t necessarily important, since come September both nominees will get equal coverage.)

So, take heart.

Big vs. Small States

Posted on by

Someone needs to explain to me why the fact that Hillary Clinton has won several big states in the Democratic primaries/caucuses, while Obama has won mostly smaller states, means anything. I’ve seen Clinton supporters make this argument several times and I don’t understand what it’s supposed to mean. It’s mentioned here as well.

First of all, it doesn’t matter which states you win; it matters how many delegates you win. If you can win X number of delegates by winning a few big states or lots of smaller states, it’s the same thing.

Are the Clinton people trying to say that her wins in big states will make her a more viable candidate than Obama in the general election? That’s as silly as saying that Obama’s wins in traditionally red states will make him more likely to win those red states in November.

Um, these are all contests among Democrats (and some independents). There are no Republicans voting in them.

I guess Clinton could argue that her California win makes her more viable in that state in November. California had an open Democratic primary but a closed Republican primary, so independents could vote only in the Democratic primary. Most independents who voted in the Democratic primary chose Obama, but Clinton still beat him. This could mean that not enough California independents were enthusiastic enough about Obama to vote for him, and that they’d be more likely to vote for McCain instead of Obama in November. But it really means nothing, because I don’t see how Clinton could argue that she’d be better than Obama at attracting independents from McCain.

So winning a few big states as opposed to several small states means nothing. Right?

Am I missing something?