Obama Accomplished A Critical Objective Tonight

Pundits will likely score tonight's debate based upon the rough and tumble exchanges between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. But the real Obama victory was only capped-off in the debate. It began much earlier in the day when Obama challenged Bill Clinton. That, and dislike for one another, likely had something to do with the debate taking on such a personal tone, including the confrontational during lines of attack.

Think about how you view Obama now if you watched the debate. Today's strategy was a bold challenge to the Clintons. A clearly irked Hillary decided in the debate tonight to take it up. And Barack Obama stood his ground.

A perhaps fledgling politician who started this campaign as an upstart in the public eye not all that long ago, has elevated himself to the same level of, not just Hillary, but a former president, Bill Clinton, too. That's a critical challenge for a relatively fresh-faced politician newly engaged on the national scene.

Score the back and forth any way you want to. When it comes to the big picture, Obama won. And he won big.

Comments

[What's Going On Here?]

Good for Barry!

While I'm still holding out for Fred!, if he drops out, then there won't be a conservative on the ticket...so Obama gets my "anti" vote.

[marc]

"Think about how you view Obama now if you watched the debate."

OK, I thought about it.

He's still an inexperienced lightweight that will do nothing but raise taxes and expand Gov to balloon busting size.

Oh, and muck-up whatever gains that have been made in Iraq.

[TheSpartan]

"He's still an inexperienced lightweight"

George W is that you?

[BobInStamford]

Sad how the patriots are rooting for the black guy because they think that their feeble old man can actually beat him. Not going to happen, heroes!

[Fred Beloit]

Spart and Boob, please cut out the horse play and get going to your jobs. I've got my eye on a new Nikon I saw advertised in the paper. Or go play with your friends the socialists.

Obama missed two beautiful opportunities to kick Hillary in the n-ts. First, when she said her husband wasn't there, he should have said, Why isn't he here? He should be; you two are running as a team.

Second, when she mentioned Obama was supported by Resnick, he should have said yes, and you and Bill have long been supported by citizens of Communist China. Anyway I'm giving his support money to charity.

Yes, I know. It's easy to be a Monday quarterback.

[Philip McDaniel]

Senator Obama may be “an inexperienced lightweight,” although I tend to doubt that. One thing is certain in my mind: I would prefer him as President [If it absolutely must be a Democrat] over the 'Clintons' any day. I wouldn’t even want them for next door neighbors let alone in the White House again.

[Wahoo Willie Sez:]

"I would prefer him as President [If it absolutely must be a Democrat] over the 'Clintons'"

You're right Phil. GW has sunk the GOP this time around at least and there will be a dem in the big house. So what to do? They're down to two and the two will run together this fall. So which will lead is the question and we really don't want Rodham at the top.

[waka waka]

I'm a lifelong Democrat who is starting to see what you Republicans did in the Clintons. They'll never get my vote in November, no mattter who they're facing.

[Greg Neubeck]

Having meticulously planned their coveted return to the White House for several years now, the Clintons will certainly not exit the scene with grace or dignity. This is the political duo that honed "The Politics Of Personal Destruction" into an artform; and, most certainly will not tolerate, who is in their mind, the "upstart Obama" to derail Hillary's pre-choreographed coronation.
With regards Slick's comments on Obama's Iraq record; and, the draft dodger's false accusation of flip flopping on the Iraq issue against Obama: It was actually Hillary who was the serial flip-flopper on this issue. Obama to his credit, as a matter of conscience, refused to deny American troops the funding for the bullets and equipment that they required to survive in ongoing combat. Hillary, on the other hand, with no such compelling principles, was one of only two U.S. Senators who voted to deny funding for essential equipments for our troops who they had "previously" voted to commit to lethal combat. A despicable breach of trust with the young men and women laying their lives on the line in defense of our Nation. Obama made the classical rookie error of not responding to Slick's false accusation, which he could have easily turned to Hillary's well deserved detriment
Barrack and his supporters best be prepared for the "Political Lynching" that will rival anything previously witnessed in Presidential politics.
Slick and Hilla-the-Hun, the Perpetual Victim, have repeatedly demonstrated a vicious mud-slinger demeanor that is unprecedented whenever their political dynasty has been threatened in the past. Just ask anyone of their innumerable victims.

Greg Neubeck

[Philip McDaniel]

“Obama to his credit, as a matter of conscience, refused to deny American troops the funding for the bullets and equipment that they required to survive…Hillary, on the other hand, with no such compelling principles, was one of only two U.S. Senators who voted to deny funding for essential equipments” You are so right, Greg! To the everlasting shame of the woman! I had a nephew in Iraq at the time. He, by the way, earned a battlefield commission. You would perhaps be amazed to hear what life was like over there and what our troops have and are accomplishing. That Hillary & company should even aspire to being President of The United States of America is in my opinion a disgusting and utterly tasteless joke.

[Lynne Mysliwiec]

What is truly disgusting and tasteless is the fact-free, misogynistic, lies propogated by Republicans bent on destroying opposing candidates at any cost. IF you succeed in getting the biggest threat to the Republicans (Hillary Clinton) out of the race, I'm sure you're going to turn on Obama as well. That will make poor Mr. Riehl sorry he let people post opinions on his blog.

Greg, Phil, you're poster boys for the cowardly, hysterical, hyperbolic, out and out libelous/slanderous Republican mudslingers who are the real dividers, polarizers, and creators of muck in politics today. If Congress has lower opinion poll ratings than George Bush you can only thank yourselves. Certainly you rate lower than slime mold in my opinion -- guys like you are the reason I'm an Independent. It disgusts me to have to rub shoulders with the lunatic fringe of the Right.

Distorting a candidate's record by picking and choosing one or two votes out of thousands is the laziest and most egregious misuse of facts imaginable. If you were legislators I could focus on one vote out of 1,000 and paint you to be hideous murderers...oops, I forgot, that's what you're trying to do to these two very fine candidates.

Readers, rather than listen to sad, angry little men like Phil and Greg, you should be looking to real sources of facts. I recommend www.factcheck.org and see who really got their facts right and wrong in the last debates. You will notice that Hillary Clinton is much more on top of the facts than Obama or any of the other candidates, and is absolutely not guilty of the multitude of sins laid at her door.

I've already googled Greg Neubeck - he's a very prolific REPUBLICAN poster of muck and has been rebuked numerous times by numerous web sites for his offensive and fact-free statements. In fact, his posting today is word for word what he's posted before, making him an UNIMAGINATIVE and LAZY man as well. Phil, I think you've drunk the same kool-aid and the result isn't pretty. Clean up your act, guys...and remember to take your blood pressure medicine because I don't want you to have a stroke during the next 8 years while the Democrats have control of the presidency and legislature. Cheers!

[Chris Hemelt]

Lynne Mysliwiec

for the longest time I have heard liberals and Democrats call out Republicans as misogynistic lying S.O.B's. in fact folks like you see Republicans as the embodiement of evil. What is it specifically that is evil about Republicans? I'm sure you will say the war, but I would guess that even absent a war you would place the Republicans at the right hand of Satan himself.

I wonder where the Republicans have divided this country when it is the Democrats who see people as members of groups and whore themselves out there for them. I cannot think of anything so condescending as seeing Hillary Clinton trying to talk like a black woman. I cannot see anything so patronizing and paternalistic as some of the programs that Democrats advocate. like SCHIP which is just an invitation in my opinion for otherwise competent parents to abdicate their responsibilities and leave the health care of their children to the state even if they are making $80,0000 a year.

You see Lynne, what you don't like about Republicans is that they actually stand for the power of the individual with very limited interference from the state. What you find disgusting about conservatives and Republicans is that they think you can do it with out the help of Barack or Hillary. What you want is a hand out. What you cannot stand about those that attack your brethren is that more often than not those attacks are dead on. Hillary and Bill have been known to engage in the politic of personal distruction for the longest time, just ask Obama. Obama is a classic popular liberal who believes that you cannot make it on your own without the help of a governmental program - he said as much in The Audacity of Hope.

Please give specific examples where the Republicans have tried to polarize the electorate in a scandalous way. Don't bring up the whole gay marriage thing either lest you want the fact that Bill Clinton himself signed the Defense of Marriage Act thrown back at you. Come on, the clock is ticking..... quick, quick think of something.......

[Lynne Mysliwiec]

Chris -

I'm calling out two particular Republicans (or 4 if you count Atwater and Rove), not all Republicans. As an Independent, I don't see either side as evil, although I do see the damage to our opinions and the general level of political discourse done by the extremes on both sides of the aisle.

The true majority (perhaps 80%) of the U.S. is made up of political moderates -- people of good sense, common sense -- who love America, who love our freedoms, who are fiscally conservative and socially slightly liberal, who want their children to get good educations, don't want to be taxed to death, are concerned about the state of the economy, are concerned about the future of social security, are facing mounting energy and health care costs and don't know where it will all end.

The type of comments made by Phil and Greg *are* polarizing. They speak with vitriol and mean spirits while accusing those they attack of being guilty of their own sins.

Oh, and I beg to differ about what the Republican Party stands for. The party that believes in the power of the individual with very little interference with the state is the Libertarian Party, not the Republican Party. The Republican Party traditionally believes in a weak central government with strong state governments (a Republic), which is simply not the same thing. The Democrats fall more on the side of George Washington and John Adams and their belief in a strong central government and frankly, I'm glad they did -- I think that the country would have died at birth had we gone the route of France.

Your challenge for me to define how the Republicans polarize the American people is not relevant. I see two Republicans trying to do so in an underhanded and mean-spirited way, so I think they deserved to be called and held up to bright light so that we can see the warts on their souls.

So long as there are parties, people will stand at opposite poles, disgusted and dismayed by the thought-processes of those on the other side of the aisle. It's unfortunate, but it's good for America. We don't all need to agree with one another -- we will never make progress as a country or a power if we do.

So, think, think hard about the Kool-aid that someone hands you before you take a drink -- it might just be some that Jim Jones whipped up.

Respectfully,