We… we don’t get it. Maybe we have sipped some of the Kool-Aid, but how did so many folks, including David Brooks, see Hillary as the winner in last night's debate? Obama did what he had to do: He faced a barrage of questions and kept his head above water. With his rebuttal on the Weather Underground question,
(Pardon?)
um, as we were saying, with his rebuttal on the Weather Underground question, his raising (and dismissing) the time Hillary tossed her cookies, and his acknowledgment of his own rhetorical fumblings, all the while maintaining the high ground, he effectively negated the whole "misspeak" (at least he meets the definition!) and "surrogate speak" issues, at least as far as Democrats are concerned.
(Editor's interjection: Does anyone really see small-town gun-toters lining up to vote for Hillary? Hint-- their necks ain't blue)
Damned if he speaks well, damned if he doesn't. And you know how we feel about flag pins!
The only weakness we saw from Obama's part were his "read my lips" answers to questions on taxes and timelines, responses which, in his defense, he probably didn't have much choice besides mirroring Hillary. These could come back to bite him in the a**, though.
We also don't understand why ABC has come under so much heat for its "political" questions. For better or worse, it is these very "sound byte" issues that are going to make the difference for those still on the fence. Policy-wise, there really ain't that much difference. Who really wants to hear another rehash of health care proposals, anyway?
But what the hell do we know? We thought the last debate was a TKO.
the (this time, at least) out-of-touch David Brooks
