Election Central Debate Roundup

Comments (74)

slcathena wrote on October 31, 2007 9:25 AM:

Sort of sad that you think the UFO question was more important than this exchange. Transparency is a pretty big issue, at least in my view. I know you mentioned the GOP part at the end, but personally, I think the transparency exchange is much more important.

I agree with you on the Iran exchange, but think it was most telling in the Iraq troops question. Twice, in 2 minutes, once while Obama was speaking and once while Edwards was (before her rebuttal) she visibly scoffed at them in the background. She rolled her eyes at Obama and pursed her lips at Edwards. I don't have that clip, but it's between the 32 and 35 minute mark on the MSNBC video.

I will say this, though. After last night the idea of an Obama/Edwards ticket looks better than ever.

moondancer wrote on October 31, 2007 9:29 AM:

Hillary would rather alienate her entire party than give one inch to goopers for an attack on her being soft on "terrorism". In doing so she essentially endorses Giulianis' platform.
Well she successfully alienated me. Fuck triangulation, Hillary the "GOP lite" candidate.

abiodun wrote on October 31, 2007 9:37 AM:

A circular firing squad, against the front-runner-that's what it was! The dems seem intent on giving the repubs more ammunition.

Barry wrote on October 31, 2007 9:39 AM:

Richardson "lies".
Could he have been saying that seven out of the last eight presidential elections were won by governors or former governors?
carter 1
reagen 2
clinton 2
bush 2

That's seven....the eighth of course was Poppy, who wasn't governor.

Do you have an exact Richardson quote?

opulent wrote on October 31, 2007 9:40 AM:

Obama/Edwards 08!!

sassy wrote on October 31, 2007 9:44 AM:

SLC

I am with you about what was the most important exchange of the evening. Particularly since we do not know where Hillary stands on torture and she has not come out against telecom immunity.

BTW, your link doesn't work

Obama and Edwards are our best choices in the primary.

Dodd is looking better and better, as well.

Gene W wrote on October 31, 2007 9:46 AM:

It is not "false" to say seven of the last eight Presidents have been Governors. In fact, it is accurate. Seven out of the last eight Presidents elected were Governors - Carter to Bush II. You are failing to consider that each term as President is served as a numbered President and follows an election as President. The fact that the same person may serve in that position twice does not lessen the fact that they had to win an election to that position. To read that as "people who have been President" and then call the accurate statement by Gov. Richardson "false" is highly misleading AND NEEDS CORRECTION.

Michael wrote on October 31, 2007 9:48 AM:

I am sure if her majesty made a similar statement as Richardson, the word lie would not be found anywhere in the HMM piece. Kind of pathetic really.

illinitarheel wrote on October 31, 2007 9:51 AM:

Obama/Edwards? NO. Edwards/Obama. Obama would be much more acceptable as a veep candidate, and eight years in that role would overcome any reluctance to accept a (at present) young guy black with little experience as leader of the free world.

Anonymous wrote on October 31, 2007 9:54 AM:

When Edwards was asked why Congress didn't pass a particular bill/measure (I forget what it was, probably related to transparency in campaign donations or something), he chose to attack Congress as a whole and how they are all apparently under the influence of lobbyist money.

IMO, it was the best opportunity to tell everyone exactly why Congress is not able to pass ANY bill properly - the threat of filibuster by Republicans whenever a bill doesn't contain anything to make them or their donors happy. And the manner in which traditional media has portrayed this tactic is by saying "Democrats didn't have enough votes". What bullshit! There was so much ammunition on this topic alone, and Edwards had such a great opportunity to hammer Russert (and other traditional media) that it's a shame he didn't use it. Guys like Russert have been tools for this administration all these years, and now this guy has the balls to ask Democrats why they don't pass any bills in Congress? Will some candidate talk about obstructionism by Repubs during this campaign, please?

Erik wrote on October 31, 2007 9:57 AM:

Sounds like Richardson is making a play for VP - Clinton/Richardson?

illinitarheel wrote on October 31, 2007 9:57 AM:

Of course that should be "young black guy." At the last minute I inserted "black" in the wrong spot. I think that's an important point. It's probably difficult in the U.S. at the present time to vote for a black president, but years as a very visible vice president would help overcome that resistance, however illogical it may be.

Goaty wrote on October 31, 2007 9:58 AM:

I also think a very important segment of the debate, about transparency, has been missed in this recap. There was a long discussion about whether or not Clinton will allow the release of records pertaining to her communications with Bill Clinton when he was President and she was First Lady.

Clinton claims to be in favor of transparency, but as was pointed out by her opponents, her actions in this regard are more aligned with the current administration's. What does she have to hide?

In my opinion, Dodd's was the strongest performance of the night. He came out swinging on every question, spoke with passion, and without the "ums," "ahs" and other filler words that the other candidates used so prodigiously.

Why do they hesitate so much? Because they are trying to formulate an answer that fits the situation. Dodd simply speaks from his convictions, without hesitation. I was impressed.

I'll take Edwards/Dodd any time.

dcshungu wrote on October 31, 2007 10:00 AM:

abiodun wrote on October 31, 2007 9:37 AM:

A circular firing squad, against the front-runner-that's what it was!

The circular "firing squad" last night essentially ratified Clinton's position as the de facto front-runner and the candidate to beat. I do no think that this debate changed much. No knock out punches were thrown so that those who already liked Hillary came out feeling even better about her for taking on all the "boys" and standing her grounds unscathed, while her detractors would probably come out feeling frustrated that she was not knocked out or that she dodged questions or that she was not forthcoming, etc...you know the canonical list. Those who had not been following this thing closely would probably break her way because the "witch" was not wearing her MSM-made costume on Halloween night. She is a real person and she is for real!

erica wrote on October 31, 2007 10:02 AM:

Hey, can you please change the overly violent and unhelpful headline and opening line of this article?

There were no knives. Everybody yaks on and on about covering the issues, and then once the candidates actually start talking about issues, the media (and this time, yes, I mean you guys)ignore the issues AGAIN and fall back on some jaded chestnut of a phrase like "the knives come out" so you can focus on the horserace/personality aspect of the primaries instead of what the debate was actually about.

How about something like "Breaking: Dem Candidates engage in vigorous debate about torture, Kyl-Lieberman, Nafta."

You are busted on this one.

yellowdogD wrote on October 31, 2007 10:04 AM:

I doubt Richardson was counting re-election of a president who was formerly a governor as two ex govs. He could have said four of last five presidents were previously governors, been accurate, more impressive, with no ambiguity. On the other hand, he could have said four of the last eleven and been just as accurate and unambiguous, just not near as impressive.

slcathena wrote on October 31, 2007 10:06 AM:

sassy, thanks for the heads up regarding the link.

Try this

Or, cut and paste this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP4bKiYrI7w into a browser.

I may not have picked up all of the nuances of code as we changed over a few months ago. ;)

It's well worth the watch.

slcathena wrote on October 31, 2007 10:10 AM:

Also, sassy I agree with you and Goaty re: Dodd. He's just getting better and better.

Erica, you're right. The wording leaves something to be desired. There were no ad homs last night, no old corruption skeletons (and Clinton has plenty) merely a lot of questions on issues. If she isn't prepared to play that game, she shouldn't be in the race, period.

Leon723 wrote on October 31, 2007 10:10 AM:

I think some "blood" was drawn from Hillary, in large part because she fed the Obama-Edwards narrative herself in two unforced errors: her answer re the Archives and her answer re Spitzer and immigration. One aspect of Hillary's Archives answer that I found particularly maddening was when she said to Russert that "no previous president has allowed the release of his conversations with the first lady." I was dying for someone to say, "Um, Hillary, no first lady has ever sought public office before and no first lady has ever run for national office based on a claim that she had an important policy role in her husband's administration." Obama probably made the more important point, but still I'd like to have heard that as well.

Hillary's answer proved to me that she is so self-righteous that she cannot even imagine how an outsider might be troubled by the claim that holding an unelected, unappointed, unaccountable title -- First Lady -- should count as experience in public office. By releasing her papers, or asking Bill to do so, she could at least erase "unaccountable" from that list of adjectives. I think the reason Bill and Hill don't want the records out is because, as Stephanopoulos and some other Clinton administration insiders said at the time, Hillary was the one urging Bill to move right and follow Dick Morris' triangulation advice. Bill was naturally more of a liberal than Hill, contrary to the popular mythology and the Limbaugh/wingnut meme.

Last night, Edwards was a more effective Hillary attacker, but in a perverse way, that could help Obama. As we all know, there is a catch-22, especially in primary politics and even more in Iowa politics, where a hard hitting attack brings down both the attacker and the attack-ee. If the public has not given up on Edwards already, this performance could really help him. If Edwards is seen as more marginal, Obama might be helped as well, because by making some of the same points as Edwards in a more midwestern polite way, he might benefit from any softening of Hillary support.

gqmartinez wrote on October 31, 2007 10:19 AM:

How many tough guys does it take to beat up on Hillary. Pretty pathetic. Amusing, but rather embarrassing.

rbrooks wrote on October 31, 2007 10:22 AM:

Edwards/Dodd. Obama was always a creation of the MSM as a foil to the Anointed One, from whom God protect us. He has showed consistently that he is not ready for prime time. Edwards and Dodd, on the other hand, have showed maturity, integrity and strength as the season has worn on. It's heartening to see.
It is also heartening that Hillary is beginning to show, in spite of her polished act, what a slick, two-faced pol she is. I hope the lip-pursing and eye-rolling makes it onto Youtube - and that's the only place we will see it. Imagine the wingnut outcry if it had been Edwards....

wes2 wrote on October 31, 2007 10:23 AM:

Is it true that the Obama campaign is now circulating a Frank Luntz "analysis"? Has it really come to that?

Ron Cantrell wrote on October 31, 2007 10:26 AM:

Why is there no mention of Obama endorsing the plan to issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens in New York? I sympathize with Hillary on this, it is a complicated situation and hard to answer in 30 seconds, or even 60 seconds. But no mention of Obama's answer is very suspicious. I started out an Edwards supporter, but the more I see the new EdwArds, the less I can see him as a president. He is starting to really turn me off with his mannerisms and holier than thou attitude.

Anonymous wrote on October 31, 2007 10:29 AM:

I think Hillary lost b/c she clearly let the other candidates get under her skin, much as Dean did when he was the frontrunner in 2004. If you are the frontrunner, you have to be ultra-prepared to get attacked. It's not like the GOP is going to come after her with kid gloves.

She got pretty mad while talking about Kyl-Lieberman and Iran and her refusal to release her records from when she was first lady, blaming it on government bureaucracy at the archives.

They didn't even get to the question of who are Bill Clinton's big donors to his foundation, which is going to be a big issue in the final months. If he's getting a bunch of Saudi money, which seems likely, Dems are going to positively revolt from HRC.

Not a good evening for her at all.

Anonymous wrote on October 31, 2007 10:30 AM:

Obama wins every focus group of the debates. I don't know why that's so hard to accept. MSNBC has Frank Luntz run their focus groups. We all wish they had someone else, but we don't get to do the hiring for MSNBC.

Daniel wrote on October 31, 2007 10:31 AM:

Campaign Diaries's summary is rather similar. The quick take: Clinton attacked Bush; Obama, Edwards and Dodd attacked Clinton; Kucinich attacked everybody; and Biden delivered clever one-liners. The result: Obama and Edwards did what they needed to do, but Clinton (barely) managed to stay afloat...

Full rundown and analysis here.

wes2 wrote on October 31, 2007 10:48 AM:

Anonymous,

As far as I can tell, Luntz works for FOX, not MSNBC. I did check out the last couple debates. Obama gets most of them, but N.H. was Edwards. No matter if it's Obama or Edwards, I think any Dem candidate who uses Luntz to back them up is icky and just asking for trouble in the long term. Lie down with (pseudo-scientific) dogs, etc.

Teresa wrote on October 31, 2007 10:49 AM:

I think it is odd that so many winger pundits think Hillary's answer on driver's licenses is such a loser.

Let's look at the R's on this subject:

Rudy -- sued to keep NYC a sanctuary city, criticized welfare reform because it kept undocumented workers from getting welfare

McCain & Huckabee -- supported Bush's so-called "amnesty" plan for illegals

Romney -- who the heck knows where he is this week. Has used illegals to take care of his lawn. My guess is that a thorough investigation of all his various businesses will reveal use of illegals.

And let's not even mention all the chamber of commerce/small business owner Republicans who want to keep immigrants coming to fill jobs.

So, please, please explain to me again how immigration will be a winning issue for Republicans? Seems to me they will have to engage in some pretty big flip-flops of their own to make that work.

Keith wrote on October 31, 2007 10:52 AM:

Let's be honest, no one "won" this debate. It's impossible to win a debate when you have 7 candidates on the stage giving canned answers to every question.

Biden: Continues to establish himself as the Al Sharpton of this election cycle. If you don't recall, Al would absolutely kill at the debates, but gain ZERO traction as result of his performance. Not sure why he isn't getting more traction, but those are the vagaries of electoral policitics. The Guiliani line was CLASSIC. A-

Clinton: For the most part, I think she handled the increased focus pretty well. I found some of her answers a little wanting/non-responsive, but for the most part I thought she did ok. Where she dropped the ball was on the Archives question and the drivers' license issue, to a lesser extent. On the archives question, her position isn't, in my mind, at all defensible. She's campaigning on her experience, in particular her expereince in the Clinton White House. As they like to say on Law & Order, she opened the door on this one. On the drivers license issue, I think Dodd was playing a little gotcha. I agree that she was less than clear with her response, but I don't think she was truly engaging in double speak. What was telling about the exchange, was how she responded to Dodd. I don't think she was prepared for it and she looked, at least for a moment, off kilter. B+

Dodd--had a pretty decent night, was strong in his statements. Not sure why his candidacy is not resonating with more people. Maybe the lack of face time--what was up with the moderators focus on the Three Amigos during the first hour? A-

Edwards--he did what a good prosecutor should always do, use the witness' own words to hang them. He did it repeatedly throughout the night. That being said, I don't know that he spent enough time making his case to be president. But overall, I thought he did the most to change the perception of this race. A

Kucinich--I'll be frank, I have a hard time taking him seriously. He looks like an Evil Ernie Keebler. He did fine for most of the night, but his rambling about impeachment and the UFO question clearly puts him (IMHO) on the far left of the Democratic Party. NC

Obama--I was worried that he would try too hard last night, and for the most part, he didn't--he found the right balance. Unlike Edwards, I thought he balanced his criticisms with statements on why he's the best alternative to Clinton. I thought the Mitt Romney stuff was outside of his comfort zone, and I hope he drops it. To me he scored the most significant shot of the night on the archive issue. And his answer regarding the life on other planets, was pretty good. I think he answered the call last night (probably not in the way that the pundits hoped). A-

Richardson--He needs to abandon his campaign. Sorry, his defense of HRC, if nothing, demonstrated that he's not actually trying to win the nomination. And his comments on MSNBC after the debate where just illuminating. D+

clare wrote on October 31, 2007 10:55 AM:

Obama gave pretty much the exact answer Hillary did about "illegal" drivers but then attacked her for it. Edwards was way too strident -- and he used to be my candidate ("used to" because last night, after the
debate, I made my first contibution to HRC since she ran for the senate). Was there blood in the water and the knives out? Yes. But that it makes some people feel good is beyond me because it's not a pretty sight for the Democrats. Yes, there should be no coronation, and other candidates should point out, underscore, and all that -- but not this way. And Timmy Russert jumping in to land his blows on Clinton! Pathetic. When was the last time he did something like that with a GOP frontrunner?!! Biden's line about Giuliani was the best part of the debate -- and, sadly, it got lost in all that mudslinging.

Sally wrote on October 31, 2007 10:58 AM:

This attack against Senator Clinton was a political gang rape, say what you will. My hat is off to Governor Richardson for calling out the manly men.

Blue in IA wrote on October 31, 2007 10:59 AM:

Teresa: You assume that Republicans are rational and consistent on immigration. From my perspective (which is not worth all that much), the immigration issue matters most with what are charitably called "low information" voters. Here in Iowa, where even the rabid anti-immigration zealots estimate that there are 15,000 new illegals over the past 3-5 years (out of a population of 2 million -- in other words, just about nada), people are falling all over themselves to blame them for 1) loss of farm lands, 2) meth crimes, 3) closing rural schools, 4) loss of middle-class jobs, 5) stolen recyclables (I kid you not), 6) lack of respect for the elderly and on and on. Immigration concerns keep marginal candidates like Tancredo and Hunter alive. Arguably, immigration is the major reason why McCain's candidacy isn't doing better. It seems to be the main reason why more people haven't gone over to Huckabee. I completely agree that it is irrational, but it's hard to overestimate the passion this arouses, even among people who almost never encounter any illegal immigrants in their daily lives.

Michael wrote on October 31, 2007 10:59 AM:

Good post leon, I agree. I thought obama got a single with that comment. I really don't understand why there is a hold on those docs until after the 08 election, same thing with Mr. 9/11's 9/11 commission testimony. What is up with this secrecy bs? Voters should be able to be informed by information, not surprised after they voted someone into office by information that makes the person voted in look like a complete fool or incompetent or whatever else you could come up with. What ever happened to full disclosure. And, as always, her answer was bs.

On the driver's license blow-up, no I don't think illegals should get driver's licenses. Yes, I think there should be comprehensive reform to address the issue. The problem with her majesty's response, like all her responses, other than the hawk responses is triangulate, obfuscate and not answer. It really is annoying. Take a stand. Answer the question. Be a leader. Mr. 9/11 is, whether you agree with him or not at least answers questions, as do most of the candidates, but not her majesty.

Keith wrote on October 31, 2007 11:01 AM:

Clare:

He didn't attack her on the substance of her answer (or in fact attack her at all). The issue was her apparent equivocating on the issue. I believe Edwards shares the same view on drivers license as well. Again, it was just about her equivocating and posturing on the question. Personally, I think the media is making too much of the issue. The archives question was the bigger issue, at least in my opinion

clare wrote on October 31, 2007 11:06 AM:

Keith,

Listen to his response to it again -- it was virtually identical to Clinton's. I was really struck by it. And of course no one asked or pointed out anything about Obama and the "ex-gay" gospel singer which to me was much, much worse than the fact that HRC does not want the world to see every letter she wrote to her spouse.

wes2 wrote on October 31, 2007 11:07 AM:

I agree with Keith's analysis, particularly on the archive question. When I first heard about the topic prior to the debate, my thought was that it sounded very vrwc/Arkansas project, and that it would be hard for a Dem candidate to use gracefully. But I thought Obama did a brilliant job in tying it to her experience claims. Also, the line about the archives releasing information at their "regular" pace when they've been told not to release it at all was complete and utter poppycock.

dajafi wrote on October 31, 2007 11:08 AM:

I'm amused in these comments by all the Hillary supporters, who've spent months telling us she has the biggest balls in the race and the impenetrably thick skin developed by "15 year of taking on the Republicans," now whining about how the less-than-supermacho Edwards and Obama were mean to her.

There wasn't a single personal shot taken--just some long, long overdue callouts of her relentless trimming, more than occasional warmongering, authoritarian and secretive political nature, and voracious appetite for corporate and special-interest "support." Sen. Clinton has become the ultimate Washington insider; as such, it's pretty hard to imagine her taking on a system that is driving us toward the cliff.

Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation was exposed for what she is: a dishonest but probably competent (certainly compared to Bush, likely compared to her husband) moderate Republican. In a more rational world, she'd be running in the other primary, and winning there. But anyone who cares about progressive ideals should want to do better.

ObamaAggie wrote on October 31, 2007 11:11 AM:

Obama & the rest didn't attack Clinton's driver license position, because she didn't have one. Actually strike that, she had multiple positions. Also, is it really an attack when you're simply trying to get clarity?

Keith wrote on October 31, 2007 11:18 AM:

Clare:

Again, the issue wasnt't the substance of the question, it was her equivocating. When asked, he answered the question directly and explained why he supported the position. He didn't waver, didn't equivocate. Just answered it. She, on the other hand (and as Josh notes on the front page), was reluctant to stake out her position and defend it. And if you still don't understand what I mean, check out the video on the politico where Mark Penn is trying to explain it.

And the McClurkin matter didn't come up, because no one on the stage has clean hands on the subject. At least, that's my opinion.

loki wrote on October 31, 2007 11:19 AM:

Let's be honest...Biden/Dodd would be a great team. Shame it won't happen.

Clinton, Obama and Edwards did just fine overall. Nobody's numbers will change drastically because of last night.

And by the way, it was poorly stated but what Clinton said about Spitzer was pretty much unremarkable. Spitzer has done what he thinks he should do given the lack of action from Bush et al...and she's fine with that. But does that mean it is right for all Governors and all States? No.

Poorly stated but perfectly reasonable.

clare wrote on October 31, 2007 11:37 AM:

I actually agree with loki and Josh on that. Her response was actually reasonable and thoughtful, in this instance, even if it sounded equivocating. There was no reason, really, for jumping on her for that one. She does equivocate and it has to be pointed out but this was a bad example and too opportunistic on their part to use it.

As to McClurkin, and "they all do it" -- I don't buy it. Plus Obama is supposed to be "different" -- esp. to so many young people, quite a few of them gay, who, as his supporters, really bought into this notion of how different he is.

Larry Geater wrote on October 31, 2007 11:41 AM:

I have yet to detect the personal attacks that Sen Clintons campeign and supporters complain about. She has been attacked on the issues and her own statements. The primary should be about seeing if the candidates can stand up to the truth about their record. She appears to have problems with this since she calls foul every time her record is mentioned. She is faking indignation to draw a penalty. It is dishonest and we should not fall for it. Gov Richardson should be ashamed of himself for helping her decption.

loki wrote on October 31, 2007 11:47 AM:

Sally,

Political "gang rape?"

No, that's not too over the top!

keith wrote on October 31, 2007 11:52 AM:

Clare:

You may not think it was a reason to "jump on her" response, but I think you'll find yourself in the minority. We were witnessing her triangulate in living color. Not in print, but in living color.

Again, I don't think this was the issue of the debate. It's unfortunate that this is the one issue getting the most play. The archive question, to me, speaks VOLUMES about HRC and I thought she handled the question about as poorly as possible.

And my final point on the McClurkin matter is this, you take from it what you will. If you believe that Obama does not have a commitment to LGBT issues, don't vote for him. The problem here was one of communication. I'm pretty sure McClurkin (however wrong-headed me, you and others believe him to me) sincerely believes that he's not speaking out of hatred. What he doesn't understand is how his words are interpreted in the LGBT community and the pain those words cause others. And I don't think the LGBT community has done a good job of communicating that point by drawing the klansman/David Duke analogy in an attempt to tap into the passion that most African-Americans have about racism.
In time, I hope, cooler heads will prevail and there can be a constructive conversation on addressing the ignorance underscoring Mr. McClurkin's views.

DonnaG wrote on October 31, 2007 11:54 AM:

A note to the gender conscious on this thread. It is not alright with me for females to posit the image of 'ganging up on the lone female', if you actually truly believe that this woman is to be equal to any guy. Even positing that image is an old female manipulative ploy.

The image i have seen the most in this democratic primary race is that these men, each within their own areas of passionate commitment, have opened the doors to bold stances and forward motion on issues, and Hillary is too timid to walk through those doors unless she can 'borrow' their words and ideas. I cannot think of Hillary as a leader today, even though I give her credit for her earlier life of being a champion for women and children. But, since she has become a Senator, she has shown nothing but timidity and followship.

NCSteve wrote on October 31, 2007 11:58 AM:

Obviously, we all have our preferences and they're well known among the frequent posters.

The things that struck me last night were,

a) More than the eye-rolling and scoffing, I was struck by the note of petulence that crept into Hillary's voice when she was on the defensive. Fair or not, it reminded me of GWB and my sense was that it came from the exact same place, emotionally. Both GWB and Hillary have a vast sense of entitlement and when its challenged, they are aggrieved and annoyed. Hillary's sense of entitlement may be far more justified than GWB's, but its a very bad character trait for the president of a democracy to have.

b) If being president required skill as a debater, Edwards is the guy for the job, hands down. Obama is never going to be comforatable in a debate where he's limited to two minutes. (I thik he'd have killed in the one hour - one hour - one half hour for rebuttal format that Lincoln and Douglas used. Never happen, of course. I'm just saying, that's what a real debate looked like. I hope there's a speech on that soon.

Funny thing though, presidents don't actually have to do a whole lot of debating once they're elected. Instead, the job these people are interviewing for is one in which you have to try very hard to get people to disagree with you. The default mode of your subordinates and virtually everyone else you come in contact with will be to agree with you. If you don't go out of your way to encourage opposing viewpoints, you'll never hear one.

Even if this is lost on the MSM, which treats the presidential race as if it were a big game show, its not (always) lost on people with real jobs who have to deal with real bosses.

c) Maybe I'm crazy, but it increasingly looks very much to me like there's an agreement, whether tacit or explicit, between Edwards and Obama to stay out of each others way and to let Edwards be the bad cop. I'm not saying Edwards isn't in it to win, but, if instead of winning, he ends up being Obama's stalking horse, I honestly think he's okay with that.

d) Dodd would be a great running mate for either Obama or Edwards. He'd be perfect for playing the VP's candidates traditional hatchetman role, he'd provide the wise grey hair that both would need on the ticket and he'd provides regional balance for their tickets. However, he'd be a terrible running mate for Hillary. They're both from the same region, if you're the "strength and experience" candidate (and yeah, I threw up in my mouth a little when she worked that phrase into one of her canned answers), you don't want a VP who's more experienced and acts tougher and he's hit her too hard in this race.

e) Richardson officially wins the Grover Dill Obsequious Toady Award for his transparent play for Hill's # 2 spot last night. It was not even a little bit spontaneous. He previewed it on "All Things Considered," last night, hours before the debate. The fact that it ties in so nicely, and conveniently, with the "all these mean men are picking on her" victim defense she was apparently peddling to the press yesterday afternoon only made it more transparent, and more sickening.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/10/30/hope/index.html

I've been trying to figure out how the Richardson I see in these debates and on the news can be the same guy who has that resume, but I no longer care. If he's not really running for president anymore, he needs to get the hell of the stage and stop stealing time from the ones who still are.

jeanruss wrote on October 31, 2007 12:00 PM:

Edwards did an excellent job of showing the BIG differences between their positions-He is the only viable truly progressive candidate-Their point about why the Republicans want to run against her makes perfect sense-and now her stand regarding drivers licenses for illegal aliens will bring Republicans out of the woodwork-there is no doubt that if she is the nominee, we will have another Republican President, and that would be a tragedy for America and the World.

Ellen wrote on October 31, 2007 12:09 PM:

I'm not using my normal non-gendered TPM account name here because I want to agree with DonnaG and make it clear that there is no upsurge of female support for Clinton-as-victim going on on this thread.

The idea that a female professional can't debate 5 or 6 of her male colleagues without someone crying metaphorical rape is both retrograde and deeply disturbing. This sort of sloppy abuse of gender analysis sets us all back at least three decade.

My suspicion is that some of these "femme" posters are really Clinton staffers or volunteers who are trying to make it look like we're having a Lazio moment.

Shame on you.

If, on the other hand, you all are sincere, then please be aware that there are plenty of women out there who think this sort of crocodile sympathy for the "wronged woman" is itself abusive.

Jeremy wrote on October 31, 2007 12:09 PM:

I would invite Hillary and others to actually read what she voted for. The word "diplomacy" does not occur once in the document. On the other hand, it calls for "combat" with Iran. The alternative was not "doing nothing". She could have supported S 970, which did not include all of the stuff tying Iraq to Iran and also included specific provisions stating that force is not authorized.

Keith wrote on October 31, 2007 12:15 PM:

Excellent point Jeremy. I was thinking that all night. KLA doesn't mention diplomacy at ALL. S. 970 is all about DIPLOMACY. I'd be curious why she didn't co-sponsor it.

slcathena wrote on October 31, 2007 12:16 PM:

DonnaG wrote on October 31, 2007 11:54 AM: A note to the gender conscious on this thread. It is not alright with me for females to posit the image of 'ganging up on the lone female', if you actually truly believe that this woman is to be equal to any guy. Even positing that image is an old female manipulative ploy.

The image i have seen the most in this democratic primary race is that these men, each within their own areas of passionate commitment, have opened the doors to bold stances and forward motion on issues, and Hillary is too timid to walk through those doors unless she can 'borrow' their words and ideas. I cannot think of Hillary as a leader today, even though I give her credit for her earlier life of being a champion for women and children. But, since she has become a Senator, she has shown nothing but timidity and followship.

Seriously.

Oh, and sally, you should be much more conscious of your use of the word "rape." To use it in this context is not only nauseating, it weakens the position of "your girl."

loki wrote on October 31, 2007 12:21 PM:

Kieth,

That was not triangulating. It was stating--poorly--the obvious. Spitzer was doing what he thought he could with what he had. Clinotn is OK with that... for him. Is it the best thing for all governors of all states? No. Obama and Edwards did what they thought they had to do given their place in the polls. I have no problem with that. That's politics. But on the face of it...mountains and mole hills.

Really, I think sometimes your emotional bias against Hillary gets in the way of your ability to think clearly.

Keith wrote on October 31, 2007 12:29 PM:

Loki:

She was equivocating and being evasive on the question--whether or not you think that's triangulating, is immaterial. Obama and Edwards pointed out exactly what she was doing; refusing to answer the question directly--equivocating and evasive. I don't think my bias against HRC has colored my analysis of her position, at least on this issue. And as I've said multiple times on this comment section, I personally don't think this was as big a deal as the media and others are trying to make it.

Now her response on the archives is a different matter. She basically tried to hide behind the "archiving process", when the real issue is why Bill asked them hold releasing them until 2012. If the cornerstone of her campaign is her strength and experience, and particular her experience as First Lady, then she needs to be open to the American people about that. She can't have it both ways.

Michael wrote on October 31, 2007 12:32 PM:

Is it really 2012? I thought it was after the 08 election. For that reason alone, we should not nominate her. What is she trying to hide? This is really absurd.

Keith wrote on October 31, 2007 12:41 PM:

According to Tim Russert, it's 2012. And it looked like he was holding a copy of the letter when he asked her.

Michael wrote on October 31, 2007 12:46 PM:

Thanks, I was wrong. What is going on? How can we even consider nominating someone who is attempting to conceal what she did while she was first lady? Now, I won't concede being first lady gives her any meaningful "experience," but come on, she should just produce the docs and let the chips fall where they may. How pathetic. I am tired of politics as usual. Anybody but her majesty in 08.

Goaty wrote on October 31, 2007 12:47 PM:

I'm with Spitzer on the drivers license thing -- his original plan, not the current three-tiered mess of a compromise he is attempting now. He said he was going to do what was right, and not what's popular... seems the polls and pols wore him down on that one very quickly.

But the issue of the night, IMO, is not that one but the deal with the archives. Russert did say 2012 and he did seem to be holding a copy of the letter. (I thought, is this a debate or is it 60 Minutes?)

slcathena wrote on October 31, 2007 12:53 PM:

Agreed with goaty, keith and michael. When he showed her that letter, and asked the question--only to get obfuscation I was totally disgusted.

She claims more experience. A lot of that claim is based on her time and knowledge of the White House. How on earth do we evaluate her experience without the records?!

Gene W wrote on October 31, 2007 1:01 PM:

I agree the suppression of the communications between President Clinton and his wife is worrisome at best. I know she helped write the President's address to the nation within hours of his confession about the affair. I suspect those documents would demonstrate several traits about Hillary that the American public would find highly disturbing (or confirm the distrubing traits others already detect).

loki wrote on October 31, 2007 1:03 PM:

Keith said: "She was equivocating and being evasive on the question--whether or not you think that's triangulating, is immaterial."

Keith, (sorry about putting the i and the e in the wrong place last time!)

No...she was not being evasive. She was trying to explain to Russert why she had no problem with Spitzer. But also why the NY model may not fit with other states. Pretty simple if you aren't blinded by emotion, which you seem clearly to be. She did not refuse to answer the question. It may have been awkward and jumbled but it was not a refusal.

Keith wrote on October 31, 2007 1:10 PM:

Loki:

No worries on the name, it happens to me all the time. I'll refer you back to my original post on the debate:

On the drivers license issue, I think Dodd was playing a little gotcha. I agree that she was less than clear with her response, but I don't think she was truly engaging in double speak. What was telling about the exchange, was how she responded to Dodd. I don't think she was prepared for it and she looked, at least for a moment, off kilter. B+

I certainly could have expanded to include Edwards and Obama's reactions as well, but I think, on balance, my thoughts aren't hostile to HRC--and in some way, I'm defending her. I don't think she was engaging in double speak; I think she was equivocating and being evasive when she didn't really have to. Just my opinion. But I'll admit, I am biased against her candidacy. Not emotionally biased though. Saw it for what it was worth.

Personally, I think this non-issue is the only thing keeping people from focusing on the real problem exposed last night: the archives question.

What's your take?

shoe me wrote on October 31, 2007 1:23 PM:

I don't blame Hillary for not wanting her archived papers out during the campaign, the way the MSM smear machine works, her words and thoughts could be twisted beyond reconition in no time.

Anonymous wrote on October 31, 2007 1:53 PM:

shoe me wrote on October 31, 2007 1:23 PM: I don't blame Hillary for not wanting her archived papers out during the campaign, the way the MSM smear machine works, her words and thoughts could be twisted beyond reconition in no time.

So you're totally cool voting for her on her "experience" even though there is no documentation as to what that experience is?

Teresa wrote on October 31, 2007 3:34 PM:

Blue in IA -- I realize the immigration thing is a hot bed of seething passion on the right (and some on the left as well.) I'm just saying that the R's have a pretty mixed record on this and that if they try to go after Hillary, she can point to all sorts of things in their own records.

Steve wrote on October 31, 2007 3:51 PM:

I'd like to see an Obama/Edwards ticket for the 08 presidential campaign. Regarding the democratic debate though, I too wish I knew more of what Kucinich had to say. From what I gather the focus was heavily on his UFO comment and not his stance on different issues. I would like to see his impeachment position get more attention though.

DonnaG wrote on October 31, 2007 4:31 PM:

On whether there will be a release of records after 2012 or after the 2008 election, this factoid may increase or decrease the confusion: on Meet The Press, Bill Clinton said he will not release the donor list for the Clinton Global Initiative before the '08 election, but might release that list after the '08 election.

The fact that there's more than one area of non-disclosure on the part of the Clintons, and that disclosure might happen by such and such a date..... could be part of the confusion.

bakho wrote on October 31, 2007 4:48 PM:

Social Security was the BIG loser. What idiot wants to bring up SS funding which according to some scenarios may NOT even be a problem and whatever shortfall there is half a century from now can be easily addressed later. We had to organize in 2005 to beat back the Bush idiocy.

Economists and those who study SS know SS may need a few minor tweaks but is under no threat. Tim Russert is injecting mis-information into the Dem debate. This is the second time he has done so. The BIG benefits problem going forward is health care cost containment. SS is NOT a problem. We are currently collecting hundreds of billions more in SS taxes than we are paying out. The trust fund won't be depleted into 2050 or later. The Dems need to caucus among themselves and embarass Russert for being an idiot to put a stop to his misinformation.

Blue in IA wrote on October 31, 2007 4:55 PM:

Teresa -- Thanks for your response, and also for your handy list of push-back talking points.

I guess my fear on the immigration issue is two-fold. First, it may be hard to rebut by a "your guy is no saint either" response if the attacks are spearheaded by 527s or other non-campaign-affiliated groups. Second, you're dealing with an exceptionally dense group of voters who may be immune to arguments based on hypocrisy. People seem to be using immigration as a catch-all explanation for anything and everything they dislike about the modern world, and as a result, the topic becomes incredibly emotionally fraught.

Here's hoping I'm wrong and you're right!

ChrisO wrote on October 31, 2007 5:05 PM:

I'm not particularly a Hillary supporter (Gore would be my ideal candidate, and I'm liking Dodd more and more) but I'm just curious about something. I've seen several references on this thread to Hillary running on her experience in the White House. I skimmed her web site, and did a quick Google search (admittedly not the most rigorous research) and I'm trying to find where she's said people should vote for her primarily based on her experience as First Lady. She may well have done so. I'm just wondering if this is conventional wisdom that isn't supported by the facts.

And I'm not talking about her mentioning the White House (how could she not?) I'm talking about her time there being her primary selling point. When I see statements like "She claims more experience. A lot of that claim is based on her time and knowledge of the White House" or "So you're totally cool voting for her on her 'experience'..." it seems this is pretty germane to the issue of her correspondence being released. Insisting that a First Lady's correspondence with her husband become public is pretty extreme, and to my mind only relevant if she is truly using her time as First Lady as her primary selling point.

Steve R. wrote on October 31, 2007 6:31 PM:

The "debate" was very disappointing. Most of the "answers" avoided actually responding to the question raised. Some of the questions asked were not even relevant and were loaded to make the responding candidate look bad.
--------------------------------------
The UFO questioned posed to Kucinich was unprofessional, simply thrown in to destroy his credibility, and to make him look like a weirdo. I don't even know who Kucinich is, but I can tell when someone is being smeared. Makes me want to vote for him.
---------------------------------------
Edwards played the touchy-feely card to evoke sympathy for people who have or would loose property as a result of a natural disaster. Evoking the touch-feely card does not solve problems and does not project, to me, that Edwards really has the "guts" to tackle "hard" decisions.

The hard decision is that people who live in hazardous area have to except the responsibility for the consequences. Taxpayers do not have a responsibility to bail these people out over and over again. I do believe that tax dollars should be used to buy these people out and the land converted back to open space.
----------------------------------------
On education, only Biden(?) answered the question. Students need more study time. All the other candidates proposed more useless "programs". Our educational system is in a mess because we teach to the lowest common denominator.
----------------------------------------
Clinton's "answers" were all obfuscation.

Anonymous wrote on October 31, 2007 7:44 PM:

In last night's debate Hillary's constant pandering out of both sides of her mouth, equivocation and inability to state a clear, comprehensible position came vividly into focus. Having received a free pass and anointed status from the press previsously, in this debate she was held to some smidgen of account.

Of course, Eric Kleefied and her other ardent supporters were shell-shocked and have sought to defend her by crying foul. Kleefied says:"The knives came out against Hillary Clinton last night"...and "One of the more contentious moments came when Tim Russert asked Hillary Clinton if she supports New York Governor Elliot Spitzer's plan to issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants....with Russert hammering the question repeatedly." He was simply trying to get a clear answer on where the Senator stands on a major immigration proposal in her state, and where she stands as a potential president. Contentious... hammering. The adjectives evasive and dishonest for Hillary's responses seem more appropriate.

The other charge by her supporters is the all the mean 'ol men ganged up on poor Hillary, the only woman on stage. Where is the Hillary who can stand up to anything the Republicans bring on? Last night would seem mild. Hillary's convenient lapses into Bill's girl and poor female victim when convenient only detract from her image as a strong effective leader.

Finally, if Hillary's going to claim her years as first lady gave her immense experience that dwarfs that of other candidates, then she should allow her First Lady records in the Clinton Library to be released. Instead, she stands behind her man's formal request not to release them until 2012, shortly after that year's presidential election, I'd bet.

Concerned wrote on October 31, 2007 7:54 PM:

ChrisO , Hillary's claim to be running on her "record" as first lady isn't explicit, it's communciated when she says she's lead health care reform, been engaged in policy development for 20 years, and when she says "Bill and I" have done this or that. While first lady of Arkansas, she was a shifty lawyer and well-compensated member of the WalMart board, something her campaign bio omits.

In addition, her service as a follow-the-the-leader Senator in a do-nothing Congress while she organized her presidential campaign, has not given her experience sufficient to be president.

So she's running as Bill's wife and surrogate to sustain the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton dynasty. Jeb is next. Scary!

Diane wrote on November 1, 2007 4:10 AM:

I'm pretty sure that Sally is a Clinton plant. That's why her comment is a hit and run. If you notice, the front web page of the Washington Post states that "campaign says attacks will drive female voters to Clinton." It's obviously a theme the campaign wants to put out there. Hillary is not my top choice, although I think she'd be a competent president. I'd appreciate a more honest and a more progressive Democrat in the White House, such as just about any other Democrat who's running.

Diane wrote on November 1, 2007 4:14 AM:

Sally's rape post is a Clinton plant. Look at the front page of the Washington Post - the "Hillary was attacked by men!" theme is a political ploy by the campaign.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)