Little more than a month ago, few voters knew of Barack Obama's controversial pastor or Hillary Rodham Clinton's make-believe story about sniper fire in Bosnia.
Obama hadn't ruminated to his own detriment about bitterness in small-town America. And Clinton hadn't felt it necessary to rearrange her staff after her top strategist supported a Colombian free trade pact she opposes.
Obama hadn't bowled. Nor the former first lady gamely knocked back a shot of Crown Royal, then picked up a beer mug.
All this - and more - has occurred since the most recent Democratic primaries, Clinton's late-winter wins in Texas and Ohio on March 4 and Obama's victory in Mississippi a week later.
I think you'd have to literally have your head buried in the sand to miss the fact that damage is being done to the Democrat party. The question is: how much, and can it be restored by November?
Barack Obama is essentially admitting how badly he did in the last televised debate by pulling out of the upcoming North Carolina debate:
From the standpoint of pure strategy, Obama's refusal to debate Hillary in North Carolina is probably a sound decision. He must eventually start acting like the presumptive nominee and debating another Democrat at this point plays into Hillary's narrative that she still has a chance.
But from a PR standpoint, it is a disaster. Given his horrid performance at last week's debate, Obama ducking a the North Carolina televised contest - especially with Obama-friendly Katy Couric moderating on CBS - looks like cowardice.
Ed Morrissey explains the consequences:
I'd say that it leaves the prospects very clear — Obama will not debate Hillary any longer. And the reasons are pretty clear after last Wednesday's debacle in Pennsylvania. Obama simply doesn't fare well when forced to defend himself extemporaneously. He gets almost incoherent, and not just on the supposed "distraction" questions, but also on policy His answers on capital-gains tax increases had Hillary smiling and the rest of the nation wondering if he had bothered to study the issue at all.
If Hillary wins big in Pennsylvania (which is possible), and then wins or gets close in North Carolina (where Obama has had a double-digit lead for a long time), she can make a pretty good case for momentum and general electability to the superdelegates. Add to that the apparent cowardice of Obama in ducking a debate, and she could have a good argument for the nomination. On the other hand, if Obama does win out, he will not have the luxury of ducking debates -- where, without a prepared speech and a teleprompter, he is clearly inept and a bumbling fool -- with John McCain. Traditionally, there are three debates between the Dem and Rep nominee, so he's going to have to gear up for more poundings.
Perhaps even more disturbingly, Obama appears to be dodging the press altogether:
He fumbled the Charlie Gibson question regarding capital gains tax rates and showed himself to be out of his depth when handling policy questions without his handlers. This avoidance of the press is clear. He has not made himself availabe for questions from the press for 10 days now and the number looks to go higher.
When asked about the endorsement by the Hamas terror group, he had a snippety answer, "Why can't I just eat my waffle?", which echoes his behavior when confronted with questions about his ties to Tony Rezko, now on trial in Federal Court in Chicago. He avoided answering thsoe questiosn and then stalked off from a press conference whining to the reporters "C'mon guys. I answered 8 questions."
Is this how he plans to negotiate with crazy Iranian President Ahmadinejad, or North Korea's Kim Jong-Il, or Hamas, or Al Qaeda, or Communist China? We live in a world full of dangerous tyrants, and the only thing they fear or respect is our strength. Obama's deliberate retreat from tough questions does not bode well for considering tough actions like military maneuvers to deter (or respond to) future attacks...unless you're one of the tyrants.
Finally, it looks like the Justice Department is planning to monitor the primary voting in Philadelphia to make sure everything is done properly. This seems odd, since Philadelphia has been run by Democrats for years, and since the only vote going on is the Democrat one. I mean, we all know that it's only the Republicans who cheat and try to steal elections, right? So, why the monitors...?
So, there you have it! I'll post analysis of the PA results over the next couple days as it comes out.
There's my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment