Tough

I stole that video from Taylor Marsh because Clinton's answer in it reflects what I'm hearing from voters on the ground in PA.  After that debate, they are worried that Obama doesn't have the stamina to win in November or to fight hard in the White House if he gets there and it's not because the questions were stupid (they were); it's because he didn't handle the policy answers well.   Between the war and the economy, it's very bad out here, as we almost all know.   I think people are sensing that the person who is supposed to fight against the people who are supposed to have put us in this position cannot be succumbing to stress two thirds of the way through a primary campaign.   This is what they saw:

Riding the Unity Pony is one thing.  Not looking like you're the guy who can hop down off it and throw some elbows is another.

Comments

[clubkid]

I thought this was a good piece on the tough question: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shaun-jacob-halper/standing-up-for-the-sissy_b_97350.html

[eRobin]

I don't think Obama can't handle the fight b/c he's a sissy. That would be asinine. I think he can't handle the fight b/c he's never had to fight like this before, he doesn't want to fight like this (the system will melt before his awesome post-partisan self) and he doesn't know policy like she does. "Tough" was the wrong word. I should have gone with "Battle-tested."

[KathyF]

Did you think the policy questions were good questions? Because everyone seems to think they were equally stupid.

Everyone except the Taylor Marsh crowd, who I'm not sure think at all.

Please tell me you're not voting for a DLC Democrat....

[mick arran]

Well, kathy, if you're going to vote for a Democrat, you're going to vote for a DLC Dem either way. Obama doesn't quite have the DLC credentials that Hillary does but he's just as committed to its agenda. He lobbied them for months to get the Convention speech, and he kissed DLC ass for months after that to get them to take him seriously as a contender, promising them the moon for their support, no doubt.

Of course, they were already committed to Clinton, but they kept him on a string, even appointing his friend Harold to the DLC Chairmanship (altho Ford's heavy Wall Street connections had a lot to do with that).

Point is, he's almost as tied to the DLC's right-wing policies as Clinton, so there isn't all that much difference between them as far as corporate toadying goes.

[eRobin]

Kathy: Yeah, as of now - although I'm already having buyer's remorse. My support is tortured. I agree with Mick. They're both "centrist" corporate Dems. With either candidate I end up mindreading hoping that s/he can be brought around to do the right thing while knowing in my heart that the pressure to get them to do those things will never be brought to bear. But, no matter what, I want a Dem in the White House to at least give us that one in a million chance that the country will be able to turn around a little bit. I honestly believe that Obama can't win, although I would love to add that to my long list of things I've been wrong about and if he's the nominee, I'll go crazy volunteering to help him win. I think that there is value in Clinton's knowledge of the system. And she is a fighter - nobody can even question that. The problem is that she probably won't be fighting for things I want (fully funded human needs programs and a more progressive tax code). BUT, if she manages to get that bond-funded WPA-style plan to fix the infrastructure through and if she makes headway on the health care and clean energy fronts, I won't be totally unhappy.

As for the quality of the policy questions: there comes a point when someone who is running for president has to rise above the question. With all the Jeremiah Wright sort of questions, that's nearly impossible to do b/c you have to dignify a dignity-free premise by answering at all. But if there's a kernel of policy anywhere to be found, then it's up to the candidate to find it and answer the hell out of it. I didn't see him do that on Wednesday and neither did my friends, some of whom will be voting for him on Tuesday.

[Mark Gisleson]

I think Obama's proven himself plenty of times, but thanks to Clinton's repeatedly enabling the press, it's like each exposure to the media starts at zero, and the assclowns of punditry have to be re-educated all over again.

I'm 55 now, and I have NEVER seen a presidential candidate "instruct" the press as often as Obama has. In his gentle but firm way he has repeatedly asked for substance, and repeatedly that has been undone by Clinton's scorched earth strategies that keep the trivia at the forefront.

Obama seems to have gotten an overall boost in the polls from this debate, even in PA. 35,000 last night in Philly. Who else in American politics could draw 35,000 voters to a rally?

As an Edwards supporter I was slow to warm to Obama, but I'm adult enough to realize that even JFK had off nights. Obama's had fewer than most. He's a very good candidate and may be a very good president. Clinton's been a dreadful candidate, and I fear her presidency as one in which liberals would take the blame, but Wall Street would remain the same.