Following up on the parody of the CNN debate that SNL did last Saturday, what questions will be asked and how easy will they be for Obama versus Clinton?
How about:
Senator Obama, do you think they crowds were more favorably disposed to your health care plan in Toledo or Canton and how did your campaign staff manage to get them all in the same building without tipping off the fire marshall?
Senator Clinton, please integrate
.
Senator Obama, what *is* the capital of Vermont? I’ll give you a hint: It starts with an M.
Senator Clinton, the gross domestic output of Mongolia will have what affect on the world’s wheat market and how do you plan to integrate (there’s that word again) this with your plans for peace in the middle east, assuming you *have* one?
Senator Obama, is Hillary correct? Either question. Take your time.
Senator Clinton, would you like to take this opportunity to concede and let Obama go home early?
Now you try…
More Questions
From Sugar :
“Senator Clinton, as the crisis in Darfur continues, the need for more food, namely easy to transport rice, is growing. Tell us exactly how many grains of rice per person, per bag would be needed to sate the hunger of each refugee in that part of the world and exactly how you plan to get that rice to them?”
“Senator Obama, do you think they should put salt in that rice?
From me:
Senator Clinton, the other day you excoriated Senator Obama, as you tend to do periodically, for misrepresenting your position on NAFTA. Are you feeling better?
Senator Obama, have you figured out yet what ticked her off or did it come out of nowhere?
Filed under: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Media, Presidential Election 2008 | Tagged: debate, MSNBC |
The Confluence 
Hahaha! Okay, I’ll try.
“Senator Clinton, as the crisis in Darfur continues, the need for more food, namely easy to transport rice, is growing. Tell us exactly how many grains of rice per person, per bag would be needed to sate the hunger of each refugee in that part of the world and exactly how you plan to get that rice to them?”
“Senator Obama, do you think they should put salt in that rice?”
LOL! Oh, that is too funny.
How about:
Senator Clinton, the other day you excoriated Senator Obama, as you tend to do periodically, for misrepresenting your position on NAFTA. Are you feeling better?
Senator Obama, have you figured out yet what ticked her off or did it come out of nowhere?
Ughh. This is just all too much. We have to stay strong if she can somehow keep going after being beaten day in and day out. Thanks for the great laugh!
sugar, I added you to the blogroll. Nice site.
Alright, New Poll Time courtesy of Talk Left!
Click to access PPP_Texas_Release_022608.pdf
Public Policy Polling has Hillary and Obama all tied up in Texas
Clinton – 48
Obama – 48
Obama has the white vote 51-44 according to PPP (I don’t think thats right), but Hillary has the Hispanic vote 68-27. Hillary has the “Other” (which I think is mostly the Asian vote) 65-25 contradicting SUSA which had Obama getting the Other vote by over 50%. African American vote is 73-27%.
Hillary leads among Democrats while Obama leads among Independents and *cough* Republicans.
Obama takes men at the same rate as Hillary takes women (8 point spread 54-44%). Interestingly, Hillary takes the 18-29 vote 53-44% (is that right? – she did win the youth vote in MA and CA so its not impossible). PPP said a Texas win hinges on which group turns out to vote e.g. women and Hispanics for Hillary.
Go Hillary!
Thanks WS. Maybe the pendulum will swing her way before next Tuesday. We could use another Tina Fey moment.
The gender vote should be 52-44% – still an 8 point spread.
Also, a comment over at mydd said the PPP poll had the gender electorate to be:
women – 53% of the vote
men – 47% of the vote
I will be very disappointed in Texan women if on election day, women made up less than 57% of the electorate.
It looks like WS has the polls covered, which saves me the trouble of pointing it out. If I were in Hillary’s camp, this is the advice I’d give.
How can Hillary win Texas? The answer is easy: It’s the BASE, Stupid: Get Democrats To the Polls!.
Obama and Hillary split the WI Dems, but Obama won handily the 35% of non-Democrats voting in the state (Doesn’t that tick you off?). Paul Lukasiak showed that Hillary is dominating among Democrats to date. The SUSA and PPP show Hillary winning Hispanics easily and winning women. She needs to hold on to the Hispanic vote and do better among women to win.
Conventional wisdom says that she can’t go after the banal eloquence (to use George Will’s words) of “Hope and Change”. That may be right when talking about the Angry White [Republican] Man and the “can’t we all just get along” independents. But Hillary isn’t going to win those voters anyway. Her message over the next week should be to her base: Hispanics, Asian Americans, Women, Working Men and Women. These are the folks who have kept her in so far! Why not speak to them once again?
Hope ain’t gonna pay the bills, smart economic policy will. Hope ain’t gonna help you afford child care, a fair and just government wil make it easier. Hope ain’t gonna get your kids into college, better education and more affordability will. Hope isn’t going to get you health insurance, Hillary’s plan will. Hope won’t get us out of Iraq, competent leadership will. Hillary’s base understands this. Many may be disheartened right now, but they know this. Isn’t that why we are all here right now?
Republicans and Independents are going to try to knock Hillary out. Hillary needs to make sure her base–which has not withered even through these dark times–knows what’s on the line. If Democrats come out to vote, Hillary Clinton will win Texas!
Ok, I looked at the poll and it had 54% women and 46% men. Lets make that 58-60% on election, Ladies!
D’OH! Forgot to close the bold tag.
Great strategy, gqmartinez. I think Hillary is starting to do that when she blasted Obama for those mailers about her health care plan/NAFTA (for working class people), when she promised to pass comprehensive immigration reform in her first 100 days during the debate (for Hispanics), and when she had her moment (for women).
I hope she takes on Obama tonight and show she’s a fighter. That will pump her supporters up. The media will hate her for it but they’re going to hate on her anyways. Plus, if the pundits start attacking her more vociferously, more women might rally around her.
gqmartinez: I think you are right since Obama is turning out the Republicans. In fact, I would run the Texas primary as if it were a general election. We *know* what Republicans are all about. What makes a Democrat different? That’s why I liked her stuff on core Democratic principles. Why is Obama ashamed to run as a Democrat?
This past weekend was the best in months. That CNN bit with her ranting as the guy stands behind her nodding — EVERYONE in the family LOVED that. And the speech when she got sarcastic — that was wonderful.
Please don’t let her go out “graciously”
Riverdaughter:
Great anticipation on what the debate will look like. You are not far off what what usually happens.
I am BEGGING everybody to re-read this: http://dailyhowler.com/dh110107.shtml
That was Bob Somerby’s report on the Philadelphia debate, the one that actually change the course of this campaign. Remember when Tim Russert and Brian Williams decided to insert themselves in the debate and were actually inviting all other candidate to grade HRC’s answer and attack her credibility.
I think out of 55 questions 26 were either directed to Hillary or were about her.
Just scrowl down to “Special report: Welch’s at war!”
If you don’t smash something after reading this, you have no emotions.
That is the day the trajectory of this campaign was altered by MS/NBC for good.
MABlue: Heyyy! Lisa Ono lady!
Yup, I saw that debate and pretty much figured out that Russert and Matthews set her up for the immigration question. It’s like they had a pre-written script. No matter what she had answered, there would have been a negative spin.
The whole thing was a massive attack on her and the other candidates, with the exception of Richardson did not call them on it. No, they sat back and let it happen. Or they joined in merrily. THAT is going to come back and bite the eventual nominee in the ass. Because Russert was not called on the carpet for it. He was not even slapped on the hand.
He was empowered to do it again.
And he will. So will the others.
Here was the summary of the famous debate (10/30/07):
“Has there ever been a debate like this? A debate where the moderators so plainly intended to spend the evening trashing the character of one of the candidates? The only comparison we could dimly offer was Judy Woodruff’s gruesome performance in the final 2000 Gore-Bradley debate, where she worked so hard to express the outrage The Village felt against Big Liar Gore. (“They hate Gore,” Mickey Kaus wrote that week, surprised, having just arrived in New Hampshire.) As we’ve said, we’ll run through all Tuesday’s questions tomorrow—all the Clinton-sliming questions from this truly remarkable session. But have you ever seen a presidential debate where one candidate was essentially given two minders—where every word that came out of her mouth was immediately handed to her leading opponents for their inspection and review? In our view, it was embarrassing to see Edwards and Obama display the moral weakness required by such a cheap auto-da-fe. Only Richardson had the decency to say, out loud: “I just won’t go there.”
I’m still furious about that debate. Here is mor:
“At MSNBC, they’re happy to accept the idea that the other candidates ganged up on Clinton. But of course, it all started with the two hosts. Has there ever been a debate where one candidate’s character was hammered this way? In the evening’s opening question, the pattern was clearly established. Obama was invited by Williams to bang away. Please kill the pig, Williams said:
QUESTION 1, WILLIAMS (10/30/07): Senator Obama, we’ll begin with you. You gave an interview to the New York Times, over the weekend, pledging in it to be more aggressive, to be tougher in your campaign against your chief rival for the nomination, the leader among Democrats so far, Senator Clinton, who is here next to you tonight. To that end, Senator, you said that Senator Clinton was trying to sound Republican, trying to vote Republican on national security issues. And that was, quote, “bad for the country and ultimately bad for the Democrats.” That is a strong charge, as you’re aware. Specifically, what are the issues where you, Senator Obama, and Senator Clinton have differed, where you think she has sounded or voted like a Republican?
Obama had made “a strong charge”—and he was asked to repeat it. His answer was exceptionally vague, as we’ll see below. But nothing he said about Clinton was challenged, and we moved on to Question 2:
QUESTION 2, RUSSERT: Senator Edwards, you issued a press release, your campaign, and the headline is “Edwards to Clinton: American people deserve the truth, not more double-talk on Iran.”What double-talk are you suggesting that Senator Clinton has been engaging in on Iran?
In his answer, Edwards made a baldly false statement about Clinton (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 11/107). But so what? Russert seemed happy to move right along. Having invited Obama and Edwards to bash Clinton, he now quoted a third, absent party who seemed to be doing the same:
QUESTION 3, RUSSERT: I want to stay on Iran, Senator Clinton. As you know, you voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, the only member on the stage here who did that. Senator,Jim Webb of Virginia said it is for all practical purposes mandating the military option, that it is a clearly worded sense of Congress that could be interpreted as a declaration of war. Why did you vote for that amendment which would—calls upon the president to structure our military forces in Iraq with regard to the capability of Iran?
Basically, a fair question. Of course, Dick Durbin of Illinois said the opposite thing. Somehow, he didn’t get mentioned.
At any rate, the evening’s shape had come into focus. Candidates would be asked to batter Clinton; if they fudged or made factual misstatements, that would be A-OK. The moderators’ conduct would grow more problematic as the evening proceeded, of course.”
MessNBC can go to Hell!
Senator Obama: What is your name?
Senator Clinton: Name the governors of all the states whild James Buchanan was president.
MABlue — Very much on point with the Howler recap. this was the turning point.
It was also the debate that begat Edwards “Politics of Parsing” youtube … and nobody in big media ever went back to see how he spliced and rearranged those clips, or whether the premises of the set-up questions were true of false.
Totally OT, I notice there is no user ‘MIBlue’ at dkos. Somebody’s missing a bet.
Thanks River Daughter!
OK WAT THE FUCK IS UP WITH BARACK OBAMA!? HE WONT EVEN SAY THE NATIONAL ANTHEM AND HE WANTS TO CHANGE IT! PLUS HIS WIFE HATES AMERICANS WHEN SHE FUCKING IS ONE!!!!!!