| Big Govt | Breitbart to AG Holder: Investigate ACORN or We’ll Release More Tapes Just Before 2010 Election |
0 |
| Politico | 0 | |
| Ras. Reports | 0 | |
| Patterico | L.A. Times Columnist Uncritically Quoted Star of Latest ACORN Video |
0 |
| ABC News | Major Hasan’s E-Mail: ‘I Can’t Wait to Join You’ in Afterlife |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
And the winner of last night’s debate is …
… John Edwards, according to a Daily Kos insta-poll taken after the debate:
Daily Kos Readers Declared Edwards The Winner. According to the Daily Kos poll, “Who won the debate,” as of 10:30 pm after the debate John Edwards led the pack with 20% of the vote (1034), leading Obama at 17% (881), followed Clinton at 10% (530). The answer “More than one of the above” received 12% of the vote (600) and “None of the above” had 11% of the vote (584).
Edwards, BTW, was one of the four candidates who did not raise his hand in the affirmative when Brian Williams asked the candidates if they thought we were in a global war on terror. I’m sure that helped him win over the Nutroots contingent at Kos.
BTW, last night in my liveblogging on the debate, I talked about how I couldn’t get over how long it took for John Edwards to answer Williams’ question: “Who do you consider to be your moral leader?” For those of you who couldn’t bear to sit through the debate in its entirety, here’s a clip of that particular question and Edwards’ contemplating of a response. It’s just slightly over a minute, and worth watching, I think, just so you can get a feel for just how bizarre it was that it took him so long to answer it:
It took him ten seconds before he opened his mouth to answer the question. C’mon, is it really that hard to come up with someone who is your ‘moral leader’? I guess it is, if you believe you’re better than everyone else but don’t want to come right out and say so.
Update: ST reader CZ has the line of the night:
He really wanted to say his moral leader has been his hair stylist. But that would have raised questions that are even more difficult to answer.
Heh.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
13 Responses to “And the winner of last night’s debate is …”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
He really wanted to say his moral leader has been his hair stylist. But that would have raised questions that are even more difficult to answer.
Look, it appears that all these wannabe leaders are afraid to say ANYTHING and who can blame them? They’re democrats.
Anytime they go on the record with their true feelings they know it will eventually reflect on who they really are. Or worse, a drop in the polls.
Our Lord and Savior Barak Obama didn’t win?!?!
IT’S RACISM!
They all sucked if you ask me.
And the loser of last night’s debate is……America!!!!!!!
“The answer “More than one of the above” received 12% of the vote (600)…”
I’d think that ” “Who won the debate?” would be a question so simple even leftards could understand it. So, what’s with the egalitarian “We’re ALL winners!!” waffling of a full 1/8 of the KosMoanut kontingent?
I bet only 13 people voted in that “poll.” Nutrooters are so adept at cheating and cooking the numbers that they’ll lie about results just for sheets and gigglies.
I think America was a winner. Refreshing to see the Dems in their unbridled glory. Despite how many times Hillary says “The American people have spoken,” can’t they find a single candidate that opposes partial birth abortions, the one issue that the voters are probably most united on? Of course the first debate was for the benefit of the nutroots followers, once Hillary has locked up the nomination, she will move back to the center and try to pretend that she never supported partial birth abortions.
LOL I am sorry, but My Lord could mean anything. Even satanists call Satan My Lord, so that means little. It is amazing how he can’t say Jesus Christ like George Bush did. – Lorica
Ah, what would the anti-Edwards people be talking about now if the Queen of Fatuousness, Maureen Dowd, had not decided that the most compelling thing to write about in her column last week was the curious affair of the Edwards haircut(s)?
I once saw on the Romenesko site that a bar-owner in Washington has placed a poster up at the bar with a picture of Maureen with the caption, “Is Maureen Dowd Necessary?” (We were all spared her column for a few months a while back while she was engaged in writing a book called “Are Men Necessary”?)
Well guess what? The publican is wrong. Maureen Dowd IS necessary (who else would take the time to inform Times readers about the superficial and trivial side of politics?). She is actually essential reading for those engrossed in ferreting out political minutiae.
In fact, I shall go so far as to say: “if Maureen Dowd did not exist, it would be necessary to invent her.”
It’s too bad we can’t read minds, so I’m just guessing that John Edward’s ten seconds of brain-activity went something like this:
“Moral Leader, I can’t say God, or Jesus because that would offend the secularists and athiests and people of other faiths, what do I say that won’t offend any potential voter? I’ll just say my wife, so I lose the guys who just went through a bad divorce vote, and this is the first debate of a long campaign…
You know what that reminds me of? In my management career of twenty years, I’ve conducted a lot of interviews and been on a few myself. When the interview comes to that part where they ask “What are your best qualities?” and “What are your worst qualities?”
This is the last one: You don’t answer truthfully, because the first thing that clicks in your mind is “Oh, God, I can’t tell him how lazy I am! Or how much of a slob I am! Or (insert bad quality)!”
You try to give a so-called “bad thing” and spin it into a good thing, like saying “I’m too caring” or “I’m a neat freak” or something like that, right? That’s exactly what Edwards is doing here.
He should have been honest and said his moral leader is whoever the polls say it should be.