Barack's Whining Over Debate Shows Why Hillary Is Best to Beat McCain

To the disdain of the Obama campaign and it's supporters, last Wednesday's debate seemed to veer off script. The beginning of the debate was filled with hard questions on subjects he did not want to answer. The same type of treatment Hillary Clinton has been receiving throughout the campaign. Yes, life in the political spotlight can be tough and you need to be tough to withstand it. Of course the Obama forces have reacted with shock and dismay that their candidate candidate would be given a hard time.

This continued once again with issues Hillary brought up about associations from Obama's past. Accusations about a "kitchen sink" strategy that has no place in a campaign. News to Obama, if he wins the nomination, this is only the warmup act. The Republicans have shown over the past two elections they are willing to search for any shread of information and distort it to smear the Democratic candidate. In addition to what we have seen publicly I refer people to Allen Raymond's recent book How to Rig an Election, for a view as to what goes on behind closed doors.

The unaccustomed pressure of the last couple of weeks has already caused Obama to shed his image as a "new" type of politician and engage in negative attacks on Hillary. Could this be the real Obama, going off his script? The candidate who runs against the Republican attack machine has to be able stand up under pressure and not crack. A candidate who has experience doing that will be the strongest Democrat. It is clear that candidate is Hillary Clinton.

The Republicans have been after her for more than two decades and as she said all the skeletons in her closet have been found. Yet she is still standing. The best candidate will not be one who whines about unfair treatment when attacks happen but one who has withstood the pressure before and knows how to give it back. There should be no surprise attacks that Hillary will not be ready for if she's the nominees, but that could be a concern for Obama. Whoever is the nominee we need to win and not be ambushed by Republicans.

Comments

[vsign]

I was proud again of the media after the ABC debate. Finally the questions I have as a voter trying to decide if I could ever vote for Obama - were asked. Finally someone on Huffpo is calling it as I see it. Thank you Larry. I don't expect my media to throw all the calls in my direction. After all - this is a democracy and a free media and Americans believe different things.

For too long in the primary campaign - my questions of Obama were not asked. And I saw why not. His supporters participated in a cover up job and intimidated the media and are still doing it. The internet is playing too big of a role. 93% of internet users are under the age of 30. They will continue to erode our freedom of speech. They are not open to the way other Americans think and feel. They are very self righteous.

Do not cover up Obama's weaknesses. It all just makes him weaker as a candidate.

If Obama is not able to answer my questions to my satisfaction - I will not vote for him. Obama needs to answer these questions and his supporters need to stop covering up for him.

[Patriot0259]

Would Clinton have won New Hampshire had she not cried on cue for the camera? I haven't seen Obama crying yet. Obama laughs off such tactics as the politics of personal destruction that they are.

OBAMA ~ For a better America

[OneLiberalLady]

Oh grow up! All Obama said was that it was too bad most of the questions in the first hour were about matters so trivial and unsubstantive. Do you want information on health care and foreign policiy or should we discuss whether Hillary was fired on in Bosnia or someone Obama knew was a member of a fringe organization?
I can't think of a politician more cool, calm and collected than Obama, or someone I would trust to make the important decisions in event of a crisis more than him. It is obvious that your side is trying to spin things in a direction to favor Hillary in a last ditch attempt to derail Obama, but I don't think it will work.

[Syco]

If you pay close attention he claims th be the best candidate to be president

she claims to be the best to beat the republicans

Those are two different jobs

[LeeScho]

Indeed. You get it, I get it. Please, folks, get it.

Even so, she is not the best candidate to beat the Republicans. Based on what? That she is far closer to the Republican positions than Obama? If this Democrat wants a Republican in office, I wil vote to put a Republican in office. And that would beg the question why am I a Democrat.

I understand that being a liberal is often, by definition, a state of flux, of fluidity, of quicksilver, mercurial and quixotic. As such, often all that is left to mitigate its passions and its impulses is a fairly defined set of ethics (public) and morals (personal), of principles that adhere to certain stations of social and politcal issues, however flexible even they might necessarily and wondrously be. Those stations mandate that beyond here you shall not venture lest you forfeit your claim of residency. The Clintons have so ventured on Welfare Reform, on discriminatory drug laws, on NAFTA, on flag-burning, on insinuating that McCain is more qualified to be President than Obama.

Perhaps Senator Clinton can beat the Repubicans. But I would much rather have a Democrat do that.

[aquarius2001]

Oh puh-leeez!! Hillary whines about everything!! "They pick on me because I'm a woman...why do I have to get the first question?....The media doesn't like me....wah, wah, wwah!" Give her some cheese with all that 'wihne!'

[MrChris]

As a FORMER Clinton admirer (both Bill and Hillary), I am once again completely disappointed by them (the first time being Bill's poor judgement in getting blown in the Oval Office then lying about it.) I have been against Hillary as the Democratic nominee from the beginning because I find her divisive and having way too many skeletons in her closet to be able to survive The New Rovian Era.

Clinton hasn't even BEGUN to face the fire that will be directed at her in the fall if, my some miracle, she gets the nomination. The Republicans want HER to be the nominee and we all know why: she's a much, much easier target. Recent history has shown very clearly that just because you've dealt with an issue of your character in the past doesn't mean it won't be trotted back out when it's useful and she's got plenty of them waiting in the wings.

I haven't donated yet but will once Obama (or, God forbid, Clinton) secures the nomination. There are plenty of others like me so once he's in, just stand back and watch the money flow into his campaign small increments of $50 and $100. It'll make his fundraising to date seem minor.

[jvarga]

Luckily for you, Senator Clinton never complained about the debates. Particularly never complained about getting the majority of the first questions asked.

[jvarga]

Surely, Mr. Hirsch, you were not unaware of Senator Clinton's complaints about the debates? Some sort of update to your post addressing this would be nifty.

[sparkandy]

It's a good thing you posted something even vaguely negative about Obama on HuffPo instead of DKos. At least the posters here try to reason with you instead of throwing hissy fits and using profanity. But if the Obama supporters want Obama elected they'd do well to pay attention to your warnings. It hasn't even started to get ugly and you can bet there's stuff on Obama that the Repubs are holding back until just the right moment to do the most damage. If Obama's not tough enough to take what happened in the debate, how will he be tough enough to face what the opposition plans to throw at him?

[mamak]

Don't use the Republicans as a reason to push Clinton.
The people will choose the rightful nominee on positives NOT negatives.
Remember "Audacity of Hopelessness", sir!

[Kencleanersystem]

Give it up, buddy. Lost cause, those Clintons. Part of the past.

[chasgoose]

The difference between Clinton and Obama's complaints was that Clinton was not whining about the fact that she was getting hard/unfair questions, but rather her problem was that she was getting far more of those questions than Obama was. Clinton had every right to complain about the unfair treatment she was receiving. If the media were going to ask those sort of questions, they have a responsibility to be evenhanded in their questioning. I am not saying that ABC's debate was evenhanded (and it was probably the most slanted against one candidate of any debate), but it was probably the first time that the tough questions were disproportionately distributed towards Obama. The absurd levels of outrage expressed after Wednesday's debate (I mean the New Yorker ludicrously suggested that the debate was "akin to a federal crime" REALLY?) justified Clinton's complaints. Where were these people after the numerous times the moderators favored Obama over Clinton?

Obama's complaints, on the other hand, about the questions themselves as though they had no business being brought up in a debate. In a perfect world, that might be true, but in our current political reality, those sort of questions matter to many voters. Obama can bemoan that fact as much as he wants but that doesn't change anything. At some point he is going to have to face the questions head on instead of glibly deflecting them.

[mexamerican]

yeah, EVERYONE is wrong but the clintonistas.

[SpawnOfJerry]

This is the funniest piece of satire I've read in at least the past five minutes. What's that? It's not satire. You mean he's serious? Oh. . .ummmm. . . yeaaaahhhhh. . .

[Gonefishing]

Hillary is CEO of "Whiner Inc." She leads a family of whiners from Bill to "why, why, why aren't you voting for my mommy" Chelsea and on to adopted whiners likeCarville and Ferraro.

Barack is positively stoic by comparison.

[fourex]

Larry is Nash McCabe your mother?

[Denni]

So if Obama had a SNL skit to whine about in order to prove he was being discriminated against by the media, would you think he was just being 'truthful' instead of calling him a whiner??? Is it merely pointing out 'fact' when Clinton whines?