Hillary won by not losing - and Obama lost by not winning. Simply appearing presidential--he certainly has grown into at least looking the part -- wasn't, and isn't, enough to put him over the top. In order to continue his momentum and vault into the lead, he needed to show that there are large differences between him and Hillary on crucial issues - and other than on Iraq, he failed to do so. Full Story »
Posted by Rory O'Connor
This is a sarcastically written critique of the Obama-Clinton California debate -- one that I found refreshing in its civility, its occasional conversations on issues and its resistance to letting Wolf Blitzer incite bickering on trivialities.
This opinion piece provides very subjective interpretations on whether or not Clinton 'won' the latest CNN debate with Obama, without offering much evidence to back the author's points. We're mostly hearing one person's speculations, with a couple quotes from CNN. And the focus on winning or losing is unnecessary, at a time when there's already too much horse race coverage.
Echoing another review, the article represents what's wrong with politics -- and media focus -- today. All they seem to care about is the horse race. I thought it was a better than usual debate because it did have some substance.
Retrieving Comments
