April 21, 2008

Tarheel Dems Attempt to Cover for Obama as He Bails on NC Debate

Running from a challenge? Unsurprisingly, that's something they can believe in:

A proposed debate in Raleigh between Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton has been called off, officials said Monday.

CBS had agreed to host a debate next Sunday at the RBC Center and televise the event nationally. Clinton agreed to the date, but Obama, who had earlier committed to an April 19 debate, said repeatedly he wasn't sure whether he could fit an April 27 debate into his campaign schedule.

The North Carolina Democratic Party said in a statement Monday that the logistics of staging a national event on short notice, if Obama were to agree to the debate this week, were too daunting to try to pull everything together. Democratic officials also said there were "growing concerns about what another debate would do to party unity."

That is a truckload of bovine excrement, of course.

The NC Democratic Party could have easily provided for a debate with the resources we have here in the state capitol, even on short notice, and plans were no doubt in place to do just that until Obama backed down from the challenge.

Leading Tarheel Democrats—including both Democratic gubernatorial candidates—are in the tank for Barack Obama, and they understand that another dismal performance by a faltering Obama could give the Clinton campaign the opening it needs to finish a bruising primary season strong and throw the nomination process even further into turmoil. They don't want to risk his double-digit lead and his overall viability when it isn't absolutely necessary.

The NC Democratic Primary isn't about producing the most viable candidate. It's about letting the selected candidate get the nomination with as little risk as possible.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at April 21, 2008 03:34 PM

Waiting on Harry Reid to declare this war lost and over.

Posted by: Conservative CBU at April 21, 2008 04:32 PM

Bob, I really have no problem with them pushing Obama into the nomination. He'd actually probably be easier to beat than Hillary.

Posted by: C-C-G at April 21, 2008 06:48 PM

Yeah, at this point Hillary may be the stronger candidate. Still, it is amusing to watch Obama act like a pansy...

Posted by: Grey Fox at April 21, 2008 07:16 PM

So this would be what, the 22nd debate between these two? Like anyone really needs to see another one of these. I don't, especially if it amounts to watching Obama get hounded with inane and irrelevant questions about flag lapel pins and former pastors. For cripes sakes, enough already.

Posted by: Arbotreeist at April 21, 2008 08:34 PM

Yeah, Arb, such things are just a distraction from the real issues.

Funny how you probably didn't think that way when Bush's Texas Air National Guard service was brought up in 2000 or 2004.

Posted by: C-C-G at April 21, 2008 08:49 PM

One more, Arb, you might check out this article from the anti-Cheney magazine The Nation:

In the circles in which Cheney has traveled throughout his career, Libby might come off as a paragon of virtue and veracity. That ought not much trouble prosecutors, however. The vice president is his own man, and he plays by his own set of rules. Just as Cheney has never felt constrained by any Constitutional definition of duty to the republic, nor has he ever provided even the slightest indication that he is familiar with the textbook definition of "honesty" let alone with the notion that an official ought to value that quality in those with whom he chooses to associate.

(emphasis added by me.)

Hmmm... when it comes to Mr. Cheney, we can look at "those with whom he chooses to associate," but that's off limit for Mr. Obama?

Double-standard, anyone?

Posted by: C-C-G at April 21, 2008 10:04 PM

Deciding not to wear a flag lapel pin and going out of one's way to avoid service in a foreign war...hmm, I'd say not quite on the same level of triviality.

I will agree though that a double standard exists.
There was never a comparable controversy that I can recall about Bush and his "good friend" Pat Robertson. This is the guy who said 9/11 was God's way of punishing America for the supposed error of its ways...not too far off from Jeremiah Wright's comments which have has caused such a tizzy in conservative circles.

Posted by: Arbotreeist at April 21, 2008 10:56 PM

So you think that service in the National Guard isn't good enough huh? Screw you buddy.

Posted by: Conservative CBU at April 22, 2008 02:32 AM

one thing to remember cbu, arbo is as dence as a tree

Posted by: 1903A3 at April 22, 2008 05:07 AM

"dence as a tree"

I love irony.

Posted by: Arbotreeist at April 22, 2008 09:44 AM

What might it be that Obama is afrain to reveal? We know where he stands on the issues. That depends on who he is speaking to. To gun owners he is pro 2nd Amendment. To Hillary Clinton supporters, he is the finger and a smirk. To American he is a danger. Arbo, what will you bet B. Hussein can recite the first six verses of the Koran?

Posted by: Zelsdorf at April 22, 2008 11:19 AM

Afrain (sic) to reveal.

What exactly was said at the meeting between Cheney and energy company representatives?
Probably not anyone's business but those involved and their bosses. Who exactly does Cheney work for?
(Hint: the citizens of the U.S.).

What is he afrain (sic) of?

Posted by: Robert in BA at April 22, 2008 05:05 PM


Why won't the media inform the public that Jeremiah Wright was a marine?

Posted by: Robert in BA at April 22, 2008 05:08 PM

Robert, probably because, in the eyes of the left (which is to say, most of the media), Marines are baby-killers and torturers who enjoy shooting innocent Iraqis just to satisfy their bloodlust. Therefore, to call Reverend Wright a Marine would be, in their eyes, to impugn him.

Posted by: C-C-G at April 22, 2008 05:57 PM

By the way, Arb, I tried to post this earlier but the spam filter was choking on anything with a "ch" in it, so I wasn't able to. Here it is now.

Your darling lefties in the media did try to make a big issue out of Mr. Robertson's comments, as well as Mr. Falwell's (who said essentially the same thing). In fact, they tried it more than once.

So, why did it never gain traction? Simple. The American people aren't quite as stupid as you--and the lefties in the media--think they are.

They realize that an unsolicited endorsement from a crackpot is just that, unsolicited. And it's a lot different from sitting in a church led by a crackpot for 20+ years.

They also realize that an unsolicited endorsement from a loony televangelist is quite a different thing from having a campaign event in the personal home of a terrorist who, years later, says he doesn't think he did enough.

The American public is intelligent enough to see the difference, Arb. It's a crying shame you apparently aren't.

Posted by: C-C-G at April 22, 2008 07:14 PM
There was never a comparable controversy that I can recall about Bush and his "good friend" Pat Robertson.

Your recollection is faulty. Robertson was roundly hammered and apologized for the comments, which is why they've never been a huge deal beyond the huge deal they were at the time. The Bush Administration also repudiated them.

So, Arbo, how was that a controversy about Bush?

Posted by: Pablo at April 22, 2008 11:10 PM

Arb seems to be unable to grasp the concept that the fact that he knows about the Robertson comments is prima facie evidence that the media did try to make it into a big story. How could he have known about them if they hadn't reported it (since I doubt he watches Fox News)?

Ya gotta love it when your opponent is so clueless he refutes his own points.

Posted by: C-C-G at April 23, 2008 07:43 AM