Posted by Adam @ 4:11 pm on July 26th 2007

Obama bites back

Obama hit back against the Clinton spiel that he’s prepared to meet with the bad guys without a tough enough approach. Obama said:

“Nobody expects that you would suddenly just sit down with them for coffee without having done the appropriate groundwork. But the question was, would you meet them without preconditions, and part of the Bush doctrine has been to say no,” he said.

“You’ll have to ask Senator Clinton what differentiates her position from theirs,” Obama added.

That was my read on what he said (personally, I think that it’s the sane position and Clinton was making a cheap shot if that is the position that Obama really has) but I didn’t hear the debate so I don’t know whether that’s what Obama was really thinking.

MSNBC just reports that Clinton has hit back a bit; before we cut away from Tucker Carlson to see Michael Vick’s lawyer say that his client is innocent, Carlson was saying that Obama should shut up because he thinks that Hillary is winning. Maybe that’s true — although I don’t think that it’s the result of logical thought, if she is — but I think that Obama pretty much has to go for Hillary because Hillary’s out in front.

In other news, a really important question is “who gets Edwards’ votes if Edwards doesn’t last?” I think that Obama would be favourite to get more of them than Clinton, although that’s just a feeling (I don’t have any data to support it).


  1. Sounds to me like Obama’s walking things back a bit. Which is smart, under the circumstances. He may even mean it in policy terms; I hope so.

    As for the Edwards business: I think you’re correct, and the key data in this case would be Hillary’s high negatives. At this point it’s a little hard for me to see her gaining much of the support of ANY other candidate who drops out–all of those people have had a good long look at Hillary and have said “no, thanks.”

    The key question, though, is WHEN he drops. If Edwards (or anyone else) lasts long enough for Hillary to gain perception as an unstoppable vote-juggernaut, then the eliminated candidate’s endorsement of Clinton will probably be enough to swing at least half of his support her way. And if she can pick up an extra 10% in this manner, more or less everything else becomes irrelevant. An EARLY elimination, though, of Edwards or otherwise, probably means a sizable swing to Obama.

    Comment by Rojas — 7/26/2007 @ 4:40 pm

  2. As I didn’t hear the comments in the debate, I may have been looking for a sane position in what he said, of course.

    Obama got some good electability numbers in a battleground poll, today. I will see if I can find them.

    Comment by Adam — 7/26/2007 @ 4:58 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.