LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksWho do you think won? I missed it but it's repeated at 10 GMT in an hr.
Who do you think won? I missed it but it's repeated at 10 GMT in an hr.
There was a debate two weeks ago and a number of Clintonites stayed up all night here posting for her.
It is very revealing that not one such person bothered their swiss to do likewise last night.
Is the end nigh?
From BreakingNews:
Is she faltering?At the end of the debate, the pair enjoyed a rousing standing ovation as they shook hands and Mrs Clinton declared she was “absolutely honoured” to be in this contest with Mr Obama.
“Whatever happens we’re going to be fine,” she said.
If there is a future, it will be Green.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7258013.stm
The BBC reckons that no one scored a decisive victory. But as Obama didn't screw up he was the probable winner.
I read that peice too, there seems a hint of irony in that last line of the report.Originally Posted by 905
Why?
It's all to do with who needs the win most.
In 2000, Gore was expected to crush Bush in the 1st debate.
After Bush managed to escape the heavy punches, he walked off stage and Consigliere Karen Hughes met him with the words "well done Mister President"
Debate can be viewed here.
Overall I thought Obama probably came out on top as Clinton needed to score some knockout blows. She didn't. In the middle of the debate the issue of Obama borrowing words from Patrick Duval came up. He defended it pretty well saying that Duval was one of his Co-Chairs and that the words he used were just 2 lines out of dozens of speeches he made. She said that if a candidate's campaign was going to be based on words then they should be their own and that this wasn't "change you could believe in" but "change you could xerox". Most of the crowd booed her and it went down like a lead balloon.
She may have redeemed herself slightly at the end when she brought across a more human side to her, however the Obama camp issued a statement afterwards stating that some of the words she used were almost exactly the same as those used by John Edwards in a past speech.
Clinton now needs Obama to screw up in a major way and that just isn't going to happen unless dirt emerges and the press decide to run with it. Even with that there is usually a lag before popularity falls as the public tend to initially give the accused the benefit of the doubt.
Obama will be nominated as Clinton cannot win the major states with the sort of percentages she needs. Her campaign has been lack lustre and she has no one but herself to blame.
My own view of Obama is that he is an unknown entity and frankly I trust him about as much as I would trust a second hand car salesman. If he is elected the only real change that we are likely to see is he is the first African American in that office and that would be good in many ways, if Clinton then she would be the first woman and that too would be good. Both have got to be a hell of a lot better than the current incumbent. Clinton we know, Obama can't be worse can he?
With McCain I await to see who his VP running mate will be. The Democrats are going to find it exceedingly difficult to dislodge the Republicans and given Bush this should not be the case. We have seen the unsavoury attention that McCain has been receiving, Obama had better be squeaky clean or the press will destroy him. On that front there are too many rumours to feel confident.
The thing is squire that there is always going to be rumours, no one has led an engelic life, its if they are proven and proven to be really bad.
"Sometimes the best thing a government can do is simply get out of the way"-Vince Cable
Reply With Quote