I didn't watch the Democratic presidential debate last night, but I read quite a bit about it. Tom Shales (of course, your typical media liberal) hated it.
Apparently the media went after Obama pretty hard on a bunch of stuff that no one has pushed him on previously. The reason, obviously, is that the media loves him and hates Hillary (now) for continuing to campaign so hard against him. I'm sure we'll read more about how terrible the debate was, but I'm enjoying it. Maybe now Obama knows what it's like, for a night at least, to be a conservative.
Michelle Malkin has a nice roundup of the angst on the Left:
Don’t you know you’re supposed to just let the candidates bloviate about Compassion or Global Warming or Diversity or some other MSM-designated Important Issue?
Don’t you know you’re supposed to ask the same, old, recycled softball questions in order to allow the candidates to recite the same, old, recycled answers about their health plans, their housing plans, their Iraq withdrawal plans?
Stephen Spruiell says that the debate questions actually helped Democrats:
The Democratic party’s super-delegates 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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment