Crush Liberalism

The reactions from the left and the MSM (pardon the redundancy) over the Obamessiah’s performance (or lack thereof) during the debates with the Hildebeast the other night are hilarious.

These same people who for a decade have defended former Clinton mouthpiece and current ABC News “journalist” George Snuffalupagus are now going all “Dawn of the Dead” on him, trying to devour him alive.  Allah has details, plus makes the following observation:

To appreciate the dishonesty of their reaction, ask yourself this: If Gibson and Stephanopoulos had spent the first 45 minutes raking Hillary over the coals about Tuzla, Whitewater, Monicagate, and whatever else they could scrounge, would there be similarly high dudgeon about the dearth of “real” issues broached? Of course not. There’d be a few “gee, rough night for Hillary” reactions, a few “good, maybe this will convince her to get out” responses, the obligatory uproar from Jeralyn Merritt, Taylor Marsh, and the rest of the left’s dwindling pro-Clinton wing, and that’d be that. It’s entirely a means-ends analysis. ABC hurt the Savior, which is, and can only be, unfair.

Ace properly nails the “why the gossip, can’t we talk issues?” (kinda like jen) whining crowd:

The whole why-don’t-we-talk-about-the-issues whine is childish. Obama and Hillary have extraordinarily similar declared programs by this point. The only real surviving differences between them are what parts of their declared programs do they really intend to follow through on, and which unstated agendas will they also pursue.

Simply allowing them to blather for an hour each about nearly-indistinguishable programmatic posturings does not advance the debate whatsoever. If you want to know what crap they’re claiming they’ll push as President, check their websites.

What distinguishes them among Democrats are issues of character (Hillary’s lying, Obama’s discomforting comfort with radicals and terrorists) and the widespread belief on the left that Hillary is a “neocon” moderate who lies about her liberal leanings, whereas Obama is the general article and really believes in old school big-L Liberalism, and is in fact lying about his moderation to preserve his electability. Only by asking about issues of character and background and a candidate’s real, unexpressed political thinking can possibly shed light as to whether those readings on the candidate are true or not.
…
But when an actual debate breaks out at a presidential debate — one that is somewhat effective in exposing Obama’s character flaws and also hints at his real political agenda (not-moderate-at-all left-liberalism), he shrieks it’s all so “Rovian” and that we should talk about the “real issues.”

Right. A debate on the “real issues” where both candidates say they agree with each other for two hours, except on the point of who can better execute the exact same program.

Pass…the…popcorn!