|
I'll admit to start, that I'm an Obama fan, but I have always conceded for the first couple debates that Hillary did in fact win and not Obama. But last night I saw something different.
I guess this question left me angry and annoyed at the media yesterday, and I dont usually get angry with them. Why does Obama have to go after Clinton in order to have a good debate performance? Why is it that he is declared the loser for presenting his positions, while at the same time looking Presidential. It just infuriates me to hear people bash him because he doesnt bash other people. So I guess I dont understand what doing well in a debate means. Apparently anything Hillary does is a good peformance, oh please. To me, the loser of the debate is somebody who looked bad or said something wrong (Mike Gravel and his lame ass excuse for his credit card issues). Maybe I dont have a point and am just rambling because Im angry. I just feel that he's damned if he does and damned if he doesnt, because he wants to elevate our system of politics to something better than it is now.
Any thoughts?
|