At last night's Obama/Clinton debate, Clinton closed strong on a positive note. Not surprisingly, that's what the pundits focused on.
"Clinton showed her true side at the end."
"Clinton displayed her humanness."
"That was the real Hillary."
Interesting. Does that mean that for the other 95% of the debate, Hillary was "false," "inhuman," and "fake"?
Meanwhile, Barack spent most of the debate purposefully staying on the high road. He remained positive for at least 95% of the debate.
So why give Hillary credit for 5% when Barack was doing exactly the same thing for 95%?
"Clinton showed her true side at the end."
"Clinton displayed her humanness."
"That was the real Hillary."
Interesting. Does that mean that for the other 95% of the debate, Hillary was "false," "inhuman," and "fake"?
Meanwhile, Barack spent most of the debate purposefully staying on the high road. He remained positive for at least 95% of the debate.
So why give Hillary credit for 5% when Barack was doing exactly the same thing for 95%?
I watched the debate at the Y while I was exercising and I was interested in how it seemed the questions were really going after Hillary, throwing her words back on her. I thought Obama did a great job. Unfortunately often the thing that people remember from a speech (debate) is the last thing that you say, and Hillary did a good job on the last thing that she said.
ReplyDeleteFrom my vantage point Obama won hands down.