That was a 'save'?
Heck no. All he did is further divide, when instead he could have had an opportunity to explain WHY she was making a ridiculous comparison. Driving a wedge further and further between the factions serves no purpose.
You think that would work? I don't. Someone holding a picture of Obama with a Hitler moustache and asking a leading question about a nazi healthcare policy isn't interested in debate. Quite the opposite. They are interested derailing reasoned debate by linking Obama with Hitler and universal healthcare with Nazism.
Ridicule was the proper response. He should have embarassed her until she wanted to crawl under a rock, effectively shutting up anyone else present with similar ideas. Then the debate could move on to its intended purpose... discussing the pros and cons of the Democrat's proposed health care policy.
BTW, the same tactic is used here. When certain people on this forum begin losing a debate through logic, they resort to name calling. If the person ignores the name calling, and the name calling is persistent, the labels begin to stick and the person who won the debate by logic looses credibility. Reasonable people start ignoring you. After all, who would listen to a Nazi?
If the person defends themselves from the name calling, then the subject of the debate changes to whether or not someone is a Nazi. The person called names still looses credibility. Its impossible to win that type of debate. So ridicule is probably the correct tactic to deal with the ridiculous.
But if you think you could win that debate, then perhaps you could explain why Obama isn't Hitler and the Democrat's proposed communist health care policy isn't a form of Nazism. I'll respond by ignoring whatever you say, waving my Obama/Hitler photo and screaming, "NAZI!, NAZI!..." If you take me seriously, I'll win that debate every time.