Barack Obama has answered Hillary Clinton's ad calling for Obama to participate in a debate with her in Milwaukee at Marquette University prior to Wisconsin's February 19 primary.
From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
Facing accusations from rival Hillary Clinton of ducking debates, the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama launched a statewide television ad that labels the flap "the same old politics of phony charges and false attacks."
The back-and-forth underlines an increased testiness in the campaign in the run-up to Wisconsin, where Obama is seeking his ninth straight primary win.
The Obama ad comes a day after a Clinton ad that calls on Obama to debate in the state before Tuesday's primary, and was announced less than two hours after Clinton herself made the case Obama is ducking a debate here.
Clinton suggested Obama is afraid of a side-by-side comparison of their health care plans and whether their economic plans address mortgage foreclosures by banks.
The Obama ad responds to both, pointedly using a statement by Robert Reich, the secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton, to say Obama's plan "covers more people" than Clinton's plan.
I don't like Obama's ad at all.
It whines that there have already been 18 debates.
There hasn't been one in Wisconsin. More voters tune in to politics as Election Day approaches in their state. Wisconsinites are listening now.
I wonder how many Wisconsin voters have seen Hillary and Obama debate.
It's worth noting that although there have been a slew of debates there has only been one occasion when Hillary and Obama went head-to-head in a showdown.
Moreover, I don't think the ones that were really more like news conferences, the ones with Chris Dodd and Joe Biden and Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich, should be counted as debates.
I don't see why Obama refuses to discuss the issues with Hillary in Wisconsin.
It may make sense in terms of his strategy. Obama probably fears putting in a poor performance before the March 4 contests. He wants to stay in his comfort zone, putting in appearances at large and relatively large venues where he's not expected to talk specifics, places where he can deliver the sort of speeches that thrill Chris Matthews.
Hillary is right. He's ducking it and that ticks me off.
_______________
Watch Obama's ad.
4 comments:
Obama has run on a platform of change. After the last 8 years, who could blame us for wanting that. But he is trying to sell us on the idea that a new face in Washington will equal change. Not true. In this case, 'new' means inexperienced, and inexperience equals ineffectiveness.
We have serious problems facing this country and need serious solutions. As I follow the election closely, I am disheartened. I see a shining American future slipping away; a beautiful orator who filling our heads with visions of Americans joining hands and singing like the old Coca-Cola commercial, but with no substantive plan for solving the real and serious issues facing us today. It is no wonder he doesn't want to debate - he has a lot to lose it voters eyes are opened and the visions begin to disolve in the face of reality.
Unfortunately, beautiful images will not solve problems. Our problems are not simple ones, solved by an outstretched hand and a forgiving hug. We are facing real problems that will only be solved by experienced problem-solvers. Obama may have those qualifications someday, but not today. Hillary is the one with the real plans for real solutions to our all-too-real problems, as well as the experience to turn those solutions into action.
I disagree with those who view of Hillary as polarizing. While there are some that will vote against her purely on principle, I believe she can reach across party lines and get things done. She has proven this in the Senate with her record of uniting the parties for a common goal.
I have spent countless hours researching both candidates. I am on both mailing lists; I have thoroughly studied each candidate’s website; and I have done independent research on both of their records – on the Senate, in Washington, Illinois and Arkansas. I have carefully weighed all the issues and each candidate’s stand on them. It seems clear to me that Hillary Clinton not only the best choice, but the only choice that will bring real solutions.
Our problems are not simple ones, solved by an outstretched hand and a forgiving hug. We are facing real problems that will only be solved by experienced problem-solvers. Obama may have those qualifications someday, but not today.
Very well said.
(Note: I inadvertently deleted Murphy's comment so I posted it again. Sorry, Murphy.)
Murphy said...
To the debate issue, why would Obama cede his campaign strategy to an opponent? He does best when he has the time to campaign his way...in front of the people, rather than in the contrived setting we call debates today.
If we were getting real debates...3 hour back and forth, Lincoln Douglas style...I'd say sure. But we're not. We're given media centric hosts slinging gotcha questions as Hillary knows too well.
As to who's most experienced, I don't see how anyone can be experienced at being Prez. There is no training for it, as it's a completely singular job according to Hillary....I believe her words are something along the lines of when the lights go down, the cameras go away, you're left alone as one person who must make the decision.
By her own criterion, she has lived in the White House, she has experience watching the White House, but being Prez is singular so she could not possibly have any more experience than anyone else that's worked in or around the White House.
Solutions? It is my understanding a Prez can present his/her agenda and try to sell it to Congress, but there is little the actual Prez can do to forward that agenda alone.
With that in mind, which candidate is likely to meet with more resistance from a recalcitrant Congress? Which is better at presenting their (and by extension our) agenda?
Questions all, to be sure. Not a cut and dried case either, to be sure.
Posted by Murphy to FREEDOM EDEN at 7:12 PM, February 15, 2008
In my post, I noted that so far there has only been ONE debate.
I want to see Obama and Hillary go head-to-head, a real back and forth.
You say: "As to who's most experienced, I don't see how anyone can be experienced at being Prez."
You fail when you try to dismiss the importance of having experience.
No one can actually be experienced at BEING president without having been president of the United States. That's a given. However, one candidate can be more experienced than another candidate.
Let's not play with words.
You ask: "Which [candidate] is better at presenting their (and by extension our) agenda?"
McCain.
Post a Comment