Can Obama Beat McCain? "Yes, yes, yes!" - Hillary

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The best part of last night's debate....when Charles Gibson asked Sen. Clinton if Obama could beat McCain if he were the nominee and she first dodged the question but when Gibson asked it again pointedly, Hillary said, "Yes, yes, yes!" This puts her in a difficult pickle because she's contradicting what she and her campaign have been saying all along about Obama....also, it will make it more absurd if her camp continues to make the claim that Obama can't beat McCain.

[mawilson 2,133]

She did well last night.

I was happy to hear that she didn't immediately want to raise the Social Security tax cap (unlike Obama).

[Heracles 417]

Obama may do well, once he is off his training wheels..

[GaryC 7]

Can he beat McCain? Sure. Will he beat McCain? Maybe, maybe not. They are dead even in every poll.

[almaty 19]

i agree with brother gary...i see a close race......

[Peikko 1,575]

Steve, I didn't see much of the debate, but if that bit is the best part, then the debate was really trashy. I am surprised at you to be honest.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Steve, I didn't see much of the debate, but if that bit is the best part, then the debate was really trashy. I am surprised at you to be honest.

I missed a lot of the debate also, but was watching a recap and commentary last night on CNN. One of the panelists, David Gergen, who is a Republican, commented that Hillary has put herself in a predicament by contradicting herself and what her campaign has been pressing all along - that she's the one who can beat McCain in the general election, not Obama. You can do a search here in OT and you'll see how that argument had been brought up by her supporters numerous times....and then she drops the bomb last night that she in fact believes Obama can beat McCain.

[mawilson 2,133]

I honestly don't see what the problem is. She believes that Obama can beat McCain -

she just doesn't believe that an Obama win would be the best thing for this country.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I listened to the debate with Michael Savage's commentary over the top. A rather surreal experience

[Peikko 1,575]

I questioned your use of the term, the best bit. I didn't say she didn't say he could win. Personally, I think that was a mistake in the focus of her campaign, to suggest that he couldn't win rather than to suggest that she would do better because...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I honestly don't see what the problem is. She believes that Obama can beat McCain -

she just doesn't believe that an Obama win would be the best thing for this country.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and former President Bill Clinton are making very direct arguments to Democratic superdelegates, starkly insisting Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., cannot win a general election against presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

Sources with direct knowledge of the conversation between Sen. Clinton and Governer Bill Richardson, D-N.M., prior to the Governor's endorsement of Obama say she told him flatly, "He cannot win, Bill. He cannot win."

Click on the link to hear George Stenopolis...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/02/h...ob_n_94770.html

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Steve - I have read a lot of suggestions that a lot of other key Democrats privately believe the same thing. One of them being John Edwards

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

In Pa. Debate, The Clear Loser Is ABC

By Tom Shales

Thursday, April 17, 2008; C01

When Barack Obama met Hillary Clinton for another televised Democratic candidates' debate last night, it was more than a step forward in the 2008 presidential election. It was another step downward for network news -- in particular ABC News, which hosted the debate from Philadelphia and whose usually dependable anchors, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances.

For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with.

The fact is, cable networks CNN and MSNBC both did better jobs with earlier candidate debates. Also, neither of those cable networks, if memory serves, rushed to a commercial break just five minutes into the proceedings, after giving each candidate a tiny, token moment to make an opening statement. Cable news is indeed taking over from network news, and merely by being competent.

Gibson sat there peering down at the candidates over glasses perched on the end of his nose, looking prosecutorial and at times portraying himself as a spokesman for the working class. Blunderingly he addressed an early question, about whether each would be willing to serve as the other's running mate, "to both of you," which is simple ineptitude or bad manners. It was his job to indicate which candidate should answer first. When, understandably, both waited politely for the other to talk, Gibson said snidely, "Don't all speak at once."

For that matter, the running-mate question that Gibson made such a big deal over was decidedly not a big deal -- especially since Wolf Blitzer asked it during a previous debate televised and produced by CNN.

The boyish Stephanopoulos, who has done wonders with the network's Sunday morning hour, "This Week" (as, indeed, has Gibson with the nightly "World News"), looked like an overly ambitious intern helping out at a subcommittee hearing, digging through notes for something smart-alecky and slimy. He came up with such tired tripe as a charge that Obama once associated with a nutty bomb-throwing anarchist. That was "40 years ago, when I was 8 years old," Obama said with exasperation.

Obama was right on the money when he complained about the campaign being bogged down in media-driven inanities and obsessiveness over any misstatement a candidate might make along the way, whether in a speech or while being eavesdropped upon by the opposition. The tactic has been to "take one statement and beat it to death," he said.

No sooner was that said than Gibson brought up, yet again, the controversial ravings of the pastor at a church attended by Obama. "Charlie, I've discussed this," he said, and indeed he has, ad infinitum. If he tried to avoid repeating himself when clarifying his position, the networks would accuse him of changing his story, or changing his tune, or some other baloney.

This is precisely what has happened with widely reported comments that Obama made about working-class people "clinging" to religion and guns during these times of cynicism about their federal government.

"It's not the first time I made a misstatement that was mangled up, and it won't be the last," said Obama, with refreshing candor. But candor is dangerous in a national campaign, what with network newsniks waiting for mistakes or foul-ups like dogs panting for treats after performing a trick. The networks' trick is covering an election with as little emphasis on issues as possible, then blaming everyone else for failing to focus on "the issues."

Some news may have come out of the debate (ABC News will pretend it did a great job on today's edition of its soppy, soap-operatic "Good Morning America"). Asked point-blank if she thought Obama could defeat presumptive Republican contender John McCain in the general election, Clinton said, "Yes, yes, yes," in apparent contrast to previous remarks in which she reportedly told other Democrats that Obama could never win. And in turn, Obama said that Clinton could "absolutely" win against McCain.

To this observer, ABC's coverage seemed slanted against Obama. The director cut several times to reaction shots of such Clinton supporters as her daughter, Chelsea, who sat in the audience at the Kimmel Theater in Philly's National Constitution Center. Obama supporters did not get equal screen time, giving the impression that there weren't any in the hall. The director also clumsily chose to pan the audience at the very start of the debate, when the candidates made their opening statements, so Obama and Clinton were barely seen before the first commercial break.

At the end, Gibson pompously thanked the candidates -- or was he really patting himself on the back? -- for "what I think has been a fascinating debate." He's entitled to his opinion, but the most fascinating aspect was waiting to see how low he and Stephanopoulos would go, and then being appalled at the answer.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Steve - I have read a lot of suggestions that a lot of other key Democrats privately believe the same thing. One of them being John Edwards

The point remains that Hillary is now contradicting herself.

[Peikko 1,575]

So, it was a really trashy debate and that really was the highlight? Incredible!