Well, that was a fine mess.
Just watched a good chunk of the Philadelphia debate between Obama and Clinton. As usual, I didn't see all of it; I was sneaking peeks between cleaning up the dinner dishes and keeping an eye on the kids. I got to watch most of the last half hour or so. I actually recorded it on my DVR, but that didn't work so well as the DVR suddenly started making strange noises and I had to unplug it for a while.
That's right; Charlie Gibson broke my TV.
This was the worst of the Dem debates I've seen in this primary season. The ABC panel seemed to really want some kind of confrontation or meltdown, because I saw a long string of "gotcha" and guilt-by-distant-association questions that really seemed designed to cast the candidates in the worst possible light.
And I don't generally go for "oh the media is out to get my candidate" spin, but this was ... curious. It really didn't seem like a regular debate. Few issues such as Iraq, the economy, etc were asked, and when something relevant to most Americans did come up, it was couched in weird terms, like Gibson complaining about the unfairness of raising taxes on a couple making $200,000 a year.
A few of the reviews say that Obama had a bad night, and he certainly didn't have a good one. But with the panel and Clinton piling on about Rev. Wright and flag pins and some tenuous association with a guy who was a dangerous radical 40 years ago, it's hard to see how he could have possibly had a good night. On the whole, I think he would have rather been in Pittsburgh.
I don't think Clinton came off too well either. She seemed to be cautiously trying to walk a tighrope between attacking Obama and still being positive and upbeat, and it was just a dissonant performance.
So I think tonight's debate gives some support to the theory that dragging this process out is not good for the Dems in general. I wasn't much in the mood to vote for either one after this mudbath.
No comments:
Post a Comment