I watch the debates, so you don’t have to
Not since the first debate for the Democratic presidential candidates, way back in April, has there actually been some anticipation about what might happen. Last night, in Philadelphia, it was obvious that Hillary Clinton’s rivals would be more aggressive towards the front-runner, but how much? Who’d benefit? Would it make a difference?
We gained some insights into the questions last night. One of the things I thought was interesting was that Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, and John Edwards all went after Clinton, to one degree or another, but they all went about it in very different ways.
Obama characterized Clinton as inconsistent, and therefore, unreliable: “Clinton in her campaign, I think, has been for NAFTA previously, now she’s against it. She has taken one position on torture several months ago and then most recently has taken a different position. She voted for a war, to authorize sending troops into Iraq, and then later said this was a war for diplomacy. Now, that may be politically savvy, but I don’t think that it offers the clear contrast that we need.”
Edwards characterized Clinton as dishonest, and therefore, lacking integrity: “She says she’ll stand up to George Bush on Iran. She just said it again. And in fact, she voted to give George Bush the first step in moving militarily on Iran, and he’s taken it…. I was surprised by Senator Clinton’s vote, I’ll be honest about that, and then I saw an explanation of it in The New York Times for her vote, which basically said she was moving from primary mode to general election mode. I think that our responsibility as presidential candidates is to be in tell-the-truth mode all the time.”
Dodd characterized Clinton as unelectable, and therefore, not worth voting for: “Whether it’s fair or not fair, the fact of the matter is that my colleague from — from New York, Senator Clinton, there are 50 percent of the American public that say they’re not going to vote for her. I’m not saying that people don’t know already. I don’t necessarily like it, but those are the facts.”
In previous debates, Clinton would just laugh off any criticism directed at her, or deflect it with a joke. Last night, that wasn’t an option — the questions dominated the event. Obama emphasized Clinton’s secrecy on presidential papers from the ’90s; Edwards emphasized Clinton’s fundraising; everyone emphasized Clinton’s vote on Kyl-Lieberman.
But in a real change of pace, Clinton actually slipped a little, and actually made a mistake.
Towards the end of the debate, Russert noted New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s (D) plan to provide driver’s licenses to immigrants who enter the country illegally. Clinton had told a New Hampshire paper that the plan “makes a lot of sense.” Clinton hedged, and explained why Spitzer is pursuing the policy, in an apparent defense.
Dodd questioned the policy, saying a driver’s license should be a privilege. Clinton tried to backpedal: “I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do it.”
Oops. She said the plan makes a lot of sense, and defended Spitzer’s efforts, but then isn’t sure if the idea is any good? Clinton supports the policy, but won’t endorse the policy?
Her rivals pounced. Edwards said, “Unless I missed something, Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes just a few minutes ago, and I think this is a real issue for the country.” Obama added, “I was confused on Senator Clinton’s answer. I can’t tell whether she was for it or against it, and I do think that is important. You know, one of the things that we have to do in this country is to be honest about the challenges that we face. Immigration is a difficult issue. But part of leadership is not just looking backwards and seeing what’s popular, or trying to gauge popular sentiment.”
Part of the problem is that Clinton is generally such a mistake-free campaigner, an error like this becomes all the more glaring. All of a sudden, a harmless waffle over an obscure state policy becomes an issue.
Other observations from my notes:
* Joe Biden spoke the least, but delivered some of the night’s most memorable lines: “Rudy Giuliani, probably the most underqualified man since George Bush to seek the presidency, is here talking about any of the people here. Rudy Giuliani. I mean, think about it. Rudy Giuliani. There’s — there’s only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun and a verb and 9/11. I mean, there’s nothing else. There’s nothing else. And I mean it sincerely. He is genuinely not qualified to be president.”
* Obama threw quite a few rhetorical punches, but he continues to be reasonable and polite about it. Nothing he said came across as an “attack.” If you’re skeptical about Obama, you interpret this as lacking a killer instinct. If you’re a fan of Obama, you interpret this as presidential stature.
* Bill Richardson just isn’t good at debating. He doesn’t even seem to try to distinguish himself. His most memorable lines last night came in defense of Hillary Clinton — he encouraged Obama and Edwards not to pick on her — which will probably only reinforce suspicions that he wants to be VP.
* Mike Gravel wasn’t invited, and I didn’t miss him.
* Dodd had a good night, but continues to get less airtime than he deserves.
* Edwards was far more effective in forcefully challenging Clinton than Obama, without taking cheap shots. It made me wonder if Obama is counting on Edwards to bring Clinton down a peg (or two), while he stays more or less above the fray.
* Kucinich is a disciplined candidate — he has a message, and he says the exact same thing in every debate, no matter what. His soundbites sound familiar, because we’ve heard them — word for word — before. Regrettably, his claim about having seen a UFO became a major topic of discussion.
* And Clinton, while sharp as always, seemed to be a little rattled by all the criticism last night. She glared at Edwards in a way I hadn’t seen before.
So, what’d you think?
Mike Gravel wasn’t invited, and I didn’t miss him.
Yeah, all of the other candidates who voted for the
Enabling ActPatriot Act make a lot more sense than old Mike Gravel.Of course, Kucinich has been consistent in defense of our civil liberties and against the unlawful U.S. Military Occupation of Iraq from the beginning. But don’t cast your vote without first consulting what Shirley MacLaine has to say.
I’m a fan of Obama but enough of this nice guy stuff — attack! So who won? Edwards definitely looked good, but as usual Clinton, despite the attacks and maybe because of them, probably comes out on top.
How many times did Clinton mention the word “Bush” to try to change the focus of the debate from her lack of answering questions to the ills of the current administration??
I got home late and didn’t get a chance to catch any of the actual debate. All I got were sound bytes but I thought Obama may have muddled his big moment a little by trying to provide too many examples before he got to the point. I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of people hearing that might need to have it explained to them that that his point was that “Clinton is inconsistent.” I’m also not certain how effective that’s going to be as a line of attack among Democrats, where (a foolish) consistency may be seen more as the hobgoblin of small minds (small statesmen and divines) than as the mark of a good dad, as it tends to be among conservatives — unless perhaps he’s trying to rip the scab off the mileage Bush got out of “Kerry is a flip flopper” in the last general election and try and play on some of that (well earned) primal fear attack Democrats have of the Republican attack machine.
I did think that Clinton’s response (or lack thereof) to Obama was probably smart. Always best for a front-runner to try and stay above the fray and be seen as focused on bigger pictures if possible (and let surrogates do their dirty work). Anyway, it will be interesting to see who wins the spin cycle because a lot more people consume news than watch debates. And god knows the press has long since gotten bored with the Democratic race and it spoiling for a fight — something, anything to turn the narrative back to the kind of horse race election coverage that is apparently the only kind they know how to do.
I think it was the first debate I’ve ever seen where THE topic was one of the candidates.They should have just titled it the “Hillary Clinton Roast.”
The only thing it accomplished in my mind was MSNBC proved it is run by a bunch of morons.
I kind of agree with Jack S. Timmeh Punkinhead and the clown with him appear to have based all their questions on GOP talking points. They might have done better to just eliminate the middleman and let the head of the RNC ask the questions.
Also, I applaud all candidates for taking on the frontrunner–it may help them, but it might also help Clinton to hone her responses if she ends up being the nominee. The only problem I have is that none of the candidates should conclude their aggressive comments against the frontrunner on a note about Clinton–I think they should end each comment by redirecting the discussion to referrence the fricking psychotic candidates on the GOP side, something along the lines of “But no matter what we say here tonight as to each other on the Dem side, the public really needs to be afraid of Romney/Giuliani/McCain/etc. who would continue the stark raving mad policies of the current administration and further drive this country into a hole. In fact did you hear (fill in blank) today and his comment on (fill in blank)? What planet does that guy live on telling fibs like that. You think it is strange that Dennis sees UFOs? That’s nothing compared to what (fill in blank) proposes.”
Jack S: Well you know Clinton has said a couple of times that as a woman of a certain age, it’s kind of nice to know there are still that many men out there obsessing about her.
C-SPAN-2 replayed the debate this morning, and so I was able to see it – and seeing it is a lot different than just hearing the audio or reading about it.
A few thoughts – as the present front-runner, Hillary should expect to be challenged on her positions, and she should welcome that challenge because if she is the nominee, she’s going to be challenged 24/7. If I were her, I would designate 6 people on my campaign staff to do nothing but get in my face and disagree with me so I could get used to responding, and so I could practice not being shrill.
I LOVED Joe Biden’s “a noun, a verb and 9/11” – that needs to be on a bumper sticker.
I’m really, really tired – and completely over – Tim Russert’s “gotcha” technique.
Bill Richardson is a terrible debater; I can’t even see him holding his own in a VP debate.
The Romney “Osama” conflation doesn’t bother Obama? Come on – it has to if he’s human, but I guess he didn’t want to give any of the other GOP contenders reason to start doing it, too. Seriously, though, where’s his fire, his passion – some indication that he occasionally allows himself to feel instead of think? He may be awesome at campaign events – but since (we can only hope) the next president will not be a perpetual campaigner like Bush has been, I think what we’re seeing in this format is what we will see for at least 4 years and Obama’s a little too aloof for me.
I think you missed it. Kucinich didn’t say he saw a UFO, he said he came to Earth on a UFO.
I read a great commentary on how the Dems, which I am one, can stop Sen. Clinton. It is a sad day when a conservative has the right answer.
http://joeleonardi.wordpress.com/2007/10/28/how-to-halt-hillary/
When I said Obama tried to cram too many examples in his 15 seconds of sound byte, might of been more accurate to say he tried to hit too many disparate talking points. (Maybe I’ve already been spun). You’ll probably hear clip that same clip about a dozen times today, tell me if you’re completely sure a minute after hearing it (and without being told) whether it was about: “Change?” Trade policy?
Kerry is a flip flopper“Clinton is inconsistant?” All of the above, maybe?It will be interesting to see how the broader narrative and broader voting public react to Obama’s way of going after HRC versus Edwards’. I thought Obama did a fairly good job of raising the heat without jeopardizing his “new style of politics” theme. Edwards and Dodd, I cringed a bit because I hate to see the kinds of gloves-off shots that make it hard for a party to coalesce come the general election. But I see a lot of commentary this monring that Obama was ineffective and Edwards won the debate.
I still think Dodd is great on substance, but there is a reason he hasn’t caught fire and it showed last night — the same reason Senators rarely move up. They talk like, well, Senators. Clinton fell into some of that last night when she got rattled, too.
In the end, however, I largely agree with bubba: the attacks on HRC last night were probably a good thing. Her “well oiled machine” really hasn’t been tested much. If it can’t take the hits, better to know now. If it can, the attack lines will be old news and she’ll have practiced up her responses before the general. I didn’t think she handled it terribly well last night, but now — not next fall — is the time to get those problems addressed.
Edwards probably wins the night just because of the attention and time he got and gets today, which when you are in third and falling is pretty critical. Richardson, by getting the fewest questions when he had been in fourth and rising and could have made big strides probably is the night’s biggest loser. Which saddnes me, because his new tv spots are very impressive.
And as usual, I agree with pretty well everything in Anne’s post.
JRS Jr., on the other hand, I disagree with: Bush should be a huge focus of these debates for all candidates. As in “unlike my Republican counterparts, who all seem to want to represent President Bush rather than the 70% of Americans who disagree with him. . .” – tie Bush around all of their necks, day in and day out. It is best for the party for general election purposes, but it is also good primary strategy because it is what the base wants to hear.
JRS Jr., on the other hand, I disagree with: Bush should be a huge focus of these debates for all candidates?
As opposed to addressing topic of the question or direct criticism of her opponents? I tend to disagree. It’s simply deflection strategy. I would give the GOP candidates the same criticism when focusing on Hillary vs. the issues directly at hand.
The good news is that it LOOKS LIKE the corporate-and-GOP-owned-media-campaign of annointing Hillary Clinton has finally come to an end. The bad news is that, thanks to that moronicon, Chris “Tweety” Matthews, Lou Dobbs won the most-recent Democratic Party debate.
…and that’s a freakin’ catastrophy…
I saw Terry McAuliffe on one of the talking head shows yesterday. He was conflating challenges on Hillary’s policy positions – or the lack thereof – with personal attacks. It struck me as being very much like the Republicans’ “You don’t support the troops,” response to legitimate criticisms on the conduct of the war.
If questioning Hillary’s voting record or her policies is a “personal attack” then she’s definitely unprepared for the conservative rumor mill’s accusations of everything from enabling Monica Lewinsky to personally shooting Vince Foster in the head.
Edwards did pretty well, I thought. I imagine he’s been getting some coaching on his attack style. He used to always come off sounding a little shrill to me in a full frontal attack and was obviously much more comfortable with the quick rabbit punch to the kidneys, of which he is the undisputed master, IMHO. I still think his, “that was the longest answer I ever heard to a yes or no question,” line (about you know who) still stands apart as the single best zinger of 2003 Democratic debates. But he definitely sounded more forceful on the full-on attack this time than I’ve heard him in the past. I still just find it a little surreal to see him trying to circle around to the left of Clinton and Obama, given his own voting record in the Senate vs. theirs.
what’d you think?
I’m grateful that Steve does the analysis and that the others here do too. Not having seen the debate, it looks like Hillary is still in possession of the #1 thing she’ll need: the “inevitibality” factor. I wish Edwards could catch a break with the media, but I guess they don’t like him or his populism agenda.
I agree with zeitgeist, Bush should be brought up more often, and tied around the necks of all Republicans, because 2008 is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. The worst president ever has never been good for anything, until now.
Bush will be the anvil that drags the Republican machine down to the bottom of the swamp it came out of, but only if we make sure the ropes are tied on very tightly. IMHO which Democrat wins will be less important than how many Republicans lose.
Bush and Hillary have a couple of things in common – they get angry when caught in inconsistencies; they are both secretive. What remains to be seen is whether Hillary will be vindictive toward those who call her on her inconsistencies.
On the up side, the tendency to refuse to give yes or no answers might allow some room for diplomacy if she does become President.
It was refreshing to start seeing people hitting Hillary on the important points: She stands for nothing, changes her views on anything on a whim and, most importantly, is the least electable candidate. I sort of feel sorry for Biden, who always performs so well in these debates, but gets no traction whatsoever. Now I just want to see one of these candidates deliver the final blow that needs to be delivered: Separating Hillary from Bill.
“Senator, I worked with Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton is a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Bill Clinton.”
Let me add a little on the Immigration/Drivers License issue, because three things stand out.
One, if you read the transcript, HRC’s initial answer was good, made a ton of sense, and she was fine on both the policy and the politics – she blamed the entire issue on Bush’s failure to pass comprehensive reform. Damn straight. The highly unusual mistake given the discipline she has shown is that she really let Dodd rattle her into backtracking. I am really surprised by that (and it speaks well of Dodd.) If she had just stuck with her first answer and not re-entered the fray, there would be no story today.
Two, what bothers me about Dodd’s attack, and to some degree the whole issue and how it is playing out, is that I would hate to see Democratic candidates as a matter of desparation start appealing to the lesser angels of the public and demagoging on immigration issues for a cheap boost. HRC is not the most progressive issue, so in the event she does end up President one hates to see her take heat for being too progressive which is what happened here. Sends all the wrong signals.
Three, to Obama’s credit, he actually jumped in to both hit HRC for waffling and to adopt (and thereby defend) her initial answer, and to disagree with Dodd. Obama ends up looking the most progressive of the three who spoke on the issue. But it will be interesting to see where Edwards ends up on this question if he gets asked today to follow up on the dispute. Merely attacking HRC shouldn’t be enough: take HRC out of the equation and ask Edwards (and Richardson, Biden & Kucinich) if they are with Dodd or Obama. That would be a telling exchange. I hope none would go with Dodd, but I have a feeling I would be disappointed on that.
I thought Hillary Clinton was exposed last night as the moderate Republican she essentially is.
Has a foreign policy bias in favor of confrontation and war? Check.
Ardently courts special interests? Check.
Pulls the Thomas Frank Two-Step of rhetorical bait (attacking Bush in every statement) and switch (closely resembling Bush on war, executive power, secrecy and fuzzy answers)? Check.
Obama’s remark about the Republicans talking about Sen. Clinton because “it’s a fight they’re comfortable with” was important, but it left out two points. One (and Dodd obliquely got at this) is that the Republicans talk her up because to primary voters doing so is like waving the red cape before the bull; they hate her, and that hate is what motivates the modern Right. Two is that not only are the Republicans supremely comfortable running against her, the press is as or more comfortable pushing her forward. There are two dimensions to this: first, they know how to cover her, and second, the corporate interests that control the press know she won’t screw with them.
I thought Edwards was outstanding last night, Dodd almost as good, Obama and Biden both strong in bursts, Richardson atrocious, and Kucinich charateristically irrelevant–though I increasingly agree with him on impeachment. FWIW, I think that if Kucinich didn’t look like such a weirdo (or if TV didn’t exist), he’d be in the race. Sad but true in our country.
I think Hillary did quite well when you consider that she was under a constant barrage of attack from her Democratic rivals and one of the moderators.
A good follow-up question to her perfectly understandable and acceptable answer which was, in essence, it wasn’t what she would have done but she understood perfectly well why Spitzer did it, would have been, “Well, specifically what would you have done?”
Dodd’s statement that 50% of Americans have stated they won’t vote for Hillary was innacurate. Her negatives are now down to 41%, according to the NY Times. Much lower than any of the other candidates, except for Obama, who’s negatives are at 38%.
Who won? I’d say it’s a toss-up between Hillary and Obama.
My greatest hope is that all Democrats will be supporting whoever emerges as the candidate. We don’t need another circular firing squad from the extreme left, like we got for Gore and Kerry.
I think Hillary did quite well when you consider that she was under a constant barrage of attack from her Democratic rivals and one of the moderators. -Marcia
Quite well doesn’t cut it. If she is to be the Democratic candidate, she’d better get better at preforming while under attack. No excuses.
If she’s going to triangulate on every issue, she’d also better start taking some Ginko so she can remember what her position was three minutes ago.
My greatest hope is that all Democrats will be supporting whoever emerges as the candidate. We don’t need another circular firing squad from the extreme left, like we got for Gore and Kerry.
Sorry. You can call me ‘extreme left’ all you want, but I won’t support her. Never. She sealed that deal when she rolled out the red carpet for Bush in Iran. Her voting record shows that she’s easily mislead and is willing to give up essential freedoms for a false sense of security.
Re: Marcia @ #22
My greatest hope is that all Democrats will be supporting whoever emerges as the candidate.
Don’t get your hopes up too high. This lifelong Democratic voter (aside from the one Nader vote) will not be casting his vote in favor of any candidate who voted in favor of the Patriot Act or the unconstitutional AUMF in Iraq, of which Hillary has covered both of those bases.
So, I guess I’ll get blamed for President Giuliani out of the typical unmitigated ignorance of this two-party system that Rudolf said has “served us well.”
And since I voted Democratic in 2006, should I also be blamed for the capitulant, complicit Democratic majority in Congress that allows the destruction of our Constitutional Republic to continue? It stands to reason, since I am infrequently blamed for the Bush Disaster because I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000.
I am tired of all of these attacks on Hillary. First the Repugs, now the Democrats. At least Hillary has a record to run on. Both Obama and Edwards are inexperienced and have no meat in their CVs for opponents to pick at. That doesn’t make them better, just unknown.
As for changing her mind…I’m okay with that. More information comes in, time goes by, other variables become more pressing…change your approach. We all know what happens when, regardless of additonal information, we “stay the course”. I hope we can choose someone who will take a new position as new information comes in.
Finally, I don’t like the fact that Obama is always talking about working with Repugs to move things forward. The first thing I want my next president to do is roll back all the bad things this administration has put forward. If he thinks the Repugs will work with him on that, he’s mad. I want someone who won’t work with them, who will force the correct policies down their throats if necessary. Obama needs to understand that there will be no working with the other side of the aisle. Unless our next President is willing to crush the other side, and punish them so that they never again attempt to kill our government and our rights, we’re gonna live in a right wing theocracy even without the conservatives in power.
Geffen was right about the Clintons being such successful liars – nice to see Tilly got caught talking out of both sides of her mouth for once. Triangulain’ Tilly is not going to be President of the United States.
Thank God!
Then maybe we can take the Clintons and the Bushes and put them all in an airplane and send them somewhere they can’t get back from. They’re all the worst things that ever happened to the Republic.
At least Hillary has a record to run on. -g8grl
Yeah, she voted yea to authorize military force in Iraq, yea on the Patriot Act twice, and yea on Kyl-Lieberman. Plus she was ignorant enough to believe Bush’s lies in the first place. What a record.
Both Obama and Edwards are inexperienced… -g8grl
Trollish ravings. Edwards was a US Senator and a Vice Presidential Candidate. Obama was a State Senator and is a US Senator. They have as much, if not more experience than Hillary. Sorry, being the spouse of someone doesn’t count as experience, especially for such an important job. Do you think Laura Bush qualified to be President?
Edwards and Obama aren’t the only two people running against Hillary, either. Does Dodd meet your experience threshold? How about Kucinich? Sigh.
As for changing her mind…I’m okay with that. -g8grl
Changing her mind? She’s pandering. If she had an R after her name, you’d crucify her for it. She’s playing all sides with non-committal answers or ass covering backtracking.
I am tired of all of these attacks on Hillary. -g8grl
I’m tired of Hillary’s poor record, pandering, and apologist supporters.
yeah, that awful Bill stopped HW from a second term and stopped Jeb from following immediately after his father for an unbroken string of Rethug electoral wins and governance disasters.
wish we could have something that awful happen a little more often in my Republican-dominated lifetime.
Don’t forget: Hillary also teamed with Censorin’ Joe Lieberman as a sponsor of an anti-flag burning amendment. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Hillary=Dubya with a brain and wearing women’s pantsuits. They can’t stand criticism, don’t accept people who challenge them, routinely threaten people they feel are getting out of line and are secretive to the end. Is Hillary a Republican? No. Is she a moderate? No. The only party or ideology that Hillary belongs to is the Hillary Party. She’ll say anything to anyone at any time if she thinks it will help her feed her ambition for power, but who knows who the real Hillary is? One fact that can’t be disputed though is that she will unite the dispirited GOP base in a way none of their own candidates will be able to. If she is the Democratic nominee, another Republican president is a distinct possibility and John Paul Stevens can’t live forever. STOP HILLARY NOW!
I actually did miss Gravel, but that’s because I watch the debates mostly for the LOLz. I was rewarded mightily at the close with the hilarious Kucinich answer (“what was the percentage?”) and Barack’s follow-up, probably the best thing he said all evening. I really hope that turns up on youtube soon!
What was really interesting is that, between the laughs and smackdowns, I found myself converted from an indifference to Hillary Clinton to flat-out hatred. Up until now, I’ve been supporting Obama but figured I might get stuck with HRC in the end – and that’s better than some idiot like Thompson. But her complete and utter refusal to answer a direct question was so infuriating, I found myself calling her horrible names by the end of the debate. I understand that most candidates favor political maneuvering over directness, but something about her is just intolerable.
I never disliked her before last night, and now I think I’d rather have “noun verb 9/11” in the white house than Hillary, and I grew up among a sea of girls hoping to see a woman president. Well… I wouldn’t really want Giuliani as president, either.
I’ve long hoped that Obama could win (partly just because I’m curious to see what he’d do), but he does seem to be floundering.
Overall, I give the debate an A+ for hilarity. And an F for apparently causing the earthquake that immediately followed. It was really cold waiting for the aftershocks to die down!
On October 31st, 2007 at 11:58 am, g8grl said:
I am tired of all of these attacks on Hillary. First the Repugs, now the Democrats. At least Hillary has a record to run on. Both Obama and Edwards are inexperienced and have no meat in their CVs for opponents to pick at. That doesn’t make them better, just unknown.
****
I agree. It seems to me that the hatred of Hillary is way out of proportion to anything Hillary has done. It’s nonsense.
Let’s be clear…this was not a debate it was a republican ambush. Williams from the very first question tried successfully to get a fight started between Hillary and Obama, then it was Russerrts turn to get the candidates to start the in fighting. The questions had nothing to do with policy.
Maybe Kucinich should stop being so right on all the issues, it gets boring hearing the right answers to questions right CB?…we want to see some grudge matches or at least you do, Steve. Gravity is just so boring.
The underlying tactic here was to attack Hillary so republicans could have some talking points. They want to get all the ammunition they can to use on Hillary and especially when it comes from her own party.
Here’s a good tell…When Kucinich said more people had said they had seen UFOs than approved of Bush’s presidency, Russert insisted on quoting the statistic of UFO (3 times) at 16% when it is 31-35%. He did this to try to discount the claim of Bush’s approval rating being higher. Why would he have such a statistic handy and why would he insist on interrupting Kucinich to make that point thinking everyones knows Bush is at 25% not 16%. But Kucinich made it backfire on him by making him repeat it 3 times while slyly smiling as if 16% was higher than Bush approval rating?
The Hillary ambush debate was not informative. When are we going to have moderators to theses debates who don’t have an agenda. Bryan Williams?…Tim Russert?…What a joke. Just pathetic.
Really? What is Hillary’s record? Can you name any substantial legislation she has spearhead during her little over one term in the Senate? (When you get down to it, counting his time in the Illinois legislature, Obama actually has more electoral experience.) She hasn’t been a practicing lawyer for ages and first ladies of states and the U.S. have no official responsibilities. If she is qualified because her husband was president for 8 years, does that mean that Laura Bush is perfectly qualified to be president? If you think then that does add up for her total experience, then she’s still outflanked on the experience question by extensive resumes of Biden, Dodd and Richardson. The attacks are not out of proportion to anything she’s done because SHE HASN’T DONE ANYTHING. She stands for nothing other than her own personal ambition. We’re going to have endured eight years under the stewardship who surrounds himself with yes men and cronies, doesn’t allow criticism and worships secrecy. Just because Hillary is smarter than Bush, does that make the idea of a female version of him being president any more palatable? This country must heal after the disaster of the Bush Presidency and Hillary can never be that vehicle.
When are we going to have moderators to theses debates who don’t have an agenda. Bryan Williams?…Tim Russert?…
Fox News is too slanted to host a debate, now NBC/MSNBC isn’t good enough a venue… perhaps the DNC should just host all the debates and pick the moderators!
I agree. It seems to me that the hatred of Hillary is way out of proportion to anything Hillary has done. It’s nonsense. -Jack S.
Then address the substance of the complaints about her instead of just forming a ‘we support Hillary’ circle jerk.
I’ll listen if you can effectively explain to me why:
1. She believed Bush’s lies and sent us into Iraq.
2. She walked all over the Bill of Rights more than once in support of the Patriot Act.
3. She feels justified using the weight of her husbands former office to bully the media.
4. She gave Bush a green light to go to war with Iran.
But if you’re just going to sit around and preach ‘party unity’ then you’re no better than the GOP thugs.
She deserves a share of the blame for sending us into Iraq, and the innocent dead deserve a better explanation than it was ‘unfortunate.’ The Clintonistas want to write her opposition off as the hate-filled fringe, but I don’t hate her; I just hold her responsible for her terrible record. How we can even consider someone for President who was complicit in the failure that is the Iraq war is beyond me.
I love this Country; I love our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and I don’t care what letter comes after someone’s name; I will hold them responsible for their actions. I will not support someone who will continue to tread on what I hold dear for any reason.
Here is the original question/answer on the topic, asked by the Telegraph editorial board:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKGLP9ESnjM
“It made me wonder if Obama is counting on Edwards to bring Clinton down a peg (or two), while he stays more or less above the fray.”
Think Dean vs. Gephardt before the 2004 Iowa caucus and who eventually won.
Ironically Edwards came in second partially by staying out of the big battle, but now he’s in a position where he realizes he must attack Clinton or she might walk away with the nomination.
The viability rules in Iowa also help Obama. As supporters of candidates who cannot get 15% are forced to move to another candidate, an underdog who has not antagonized many people will a large share of such support.
Re: doubtful @ #5
The answer that I have heard parroted in one form or another is, of course, that you have no choice if Hillary wins the nomination but to vote for her. Vote for your favorite in the primary (they say), but in the general, it’s the Democrat or bust! Because, who else are you going to vote for? The Republican nominee? Rudolf? Mitler?
And so, instead of rigorous discourse and a thorough vetting of any given candidate’s record, experience, and policy positions, we are confronted by a similar choice that the NeoCon party wishes to leave for the American People, namely, vote Democratic and die from terrorism or vote Republican (with the notable exception of the Ron Paul campaign, which is not based on fear).
The Democrats (perhaps less directly) leave us with a different choice, but the underpinnings of which are nonetheless similar. That choice is cast your vote for the Democratic nominee (with Hillary being the presumptive choice) or allow Rudolf Giuliani to become your next president. This is no choice, as we know. This is the same brand of NeoCon fear repackaged in a Democratic wrapper.
And they wonder why people voted for Ralph Nader.
Correction: Re: doubtful @ #35
The next substantial defense I see on behalf of Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation will be the first. Perhaps the most revealing moment of the entire debate was when she was asked about her experience–unfortunately framed in that Giuliani attack–and responded by talking about the 1990s… then within 30 seconds gave an astonishing non-answer to the question about her White House archives.
What she implied, without exactly saying it, was that the Archives move slowly and 2012 was the earliest they could be released. Of course the dimwit mods didn’t call her on the fact that she wasn’t answering the question: would she countermand Bill Clinton’s directive that the files stay sealed until then?
I’ve heard it said that Hillary Clinton appeals to the low-information voter. While there’s probably a touch of snobbishness in this sentiment, there’s also definitely more than a little truth. It’s not a coincidence that her spokeszombies intone “strength and experience” in every prepared statement, or that she used the phrase last night, or that she twice gave that canned line about not balancing Social Security on the backs of the elderly. The Clintonistas think the public only absorbs sound bites and simple arguments. They might be right, but this strikes me as a case of pandering to the lowest common denominator and then hoping the rest of us “fall in line”–rather than trying to raise the level of our national conversation, which strikes me as a key element in leadership.
I’ve heard it said that Hillary Clinton appeals to the low-information voter. While there’s probably a touch of snobbishness in this sentiment, there’s also definitely more than a little truth.
I think that would be a little hard to substantiate. In Iowa, where caucus politics is inherently retail, not wholesale, Clinton’s numbers have steadily climbed as the candidates have spent increasing amounts of time here. That would tend, albeit anecdotally, to suggest the opposite of your hypothesis: the more potential voters get opportunities to gain significant information (including seeing the candidates in person), the more they break toward Clinton.
Indeed, one could argue that since Richardson has spent less time in Iowa but has run by far the most 30-second ads, and his numbers have risen over time (although they appear to have stalled recently) that he is in fact the preferred candidate of those with low information who are deciding solely on snippets. (I am not making this argument, by the way; I am merely suggesting this would be a consistent application of your hypothesis).
Or to look at it yet another way, many who dislike Clinton argue that she is the “establishment” candidate among the Dems, the ultimate insider. Others argue, as you did, that she is the candidate of those with low information. But those cannot both be true: here in Iowa, for example, some of the most instrumental long-time activists, those who have won party awards for their work for Democrats over the years, are on board with Clinton. These clearly are among the highest-information voters (although they do support the “establishment” theory).
It is one thing to dislike Clinton. It is, however, as you concede, rather snobbish to suggest that those who support her are “low information.”
the more potential voters get opportunities to gain significant information (including seeing the candidates in person), the more they break toward Clinton.
Are they getting a good look at her Senate voting record, Zeitgeist? Or is that just for us conspiracy theorists to pay attention to?
…the more potential voters get opportunities to gain significant information (including seeing the candidates in person), the more they break toward Clinton. -Z
That makes the assumption that seeing a candidate in person leaves one more informed. I’m just cynical enough to suggest this is not the case.
The best information is their voting and legislative records, and I would suggest that a lot of people (in Iowa or otherwise) are ill-informed about hers, and most of the candidates in general.
I’d love to see a poll of Democrats who would support an unnamed candidate who voted to authorize military force in Iraq, supported the Patriot Act, and voted for Kyl-Lieberman (though you’d have to explain this to them because the majority wouldn’t have any damn clue what it meant.)
Listening to candidates blow smoke up their own asses does not make for informed voters.
As with anything, JKap, I’m sure some are and some aren’t. Many people who actively participate in the run-up to the caucuses are, as you might expect, political junkies like most of us here who follow voting records much more closely than the average citizen, so I would say for many of them the answer to your question is yes. Admittedly not for all of them. But with a chance to see a candidate live, there is ample opportunity for the interested to ask the candidate or a staffer any of those questions, and to gauge the sincerity of the response for one’s self, first-hand.
doubtful, that almost certainly is correct as to general election voters, especially for a high-turnout election like a Presidential. but i think the dynamics in a nominating process are a little different, and in a caucus state (where “voting” is a much bigger investment than just going to a voting machine like a primary state) different still, and in a lead-off like Iowa or New Hampshire where people now expect to get to meet all of the candidates in person in small groups and compare and contrast (and usually do!) it is at yet another level. my guess is that proven, reliable historical caucus attendees in Iowa are considerably more politically engaged and aware of issues, credentials, votes, positions etc on average than the average member of the national, general election pool.
Zeitgeist writes:
Or to look at it yet another way, many who dislike Clinton argue that she is the “establishment” candidate among the Dems, the ultimate insider. Others argue, as you did, that she is the candidate of those with low information. But those cannot both be true: here in Iowa, for example, some of the most instrumental long-time activists, those who have won party awards for their work for Democrats over the years, are on board with Clinton. These clearly are among the highest-information voters (although they do support the “establishment” theory).
That there a contradiction between establishment support and the “low-information” theory would come as news to countless local and state political machines in our country’s history. Of course both can be true.
I would suggest that the Clintons are very much in the machine tradition: the professionals support them from a mixture of self-regard and fear, and the rank and file follow the media cues (“She’s inevitable! Salute Her Highness! We love celebs! Obama has no experience! Edwards looks like a doll!”) and more or less do as they’re told.
The Clintons run effective campaigns. They “know how to win.” As the Operation has ramped up in Iowa, I’m sure that has moved the numbers. And the press is so heavily invested in her victory that only the pro-HRC numbers are going to get attention.
But there’s precious little in her track record, policy views or electability considerations that suggest any committed progressive should support her. As far as I can tell, it’s a combination of name recognition and the gender difference–essentially a Cult of Personality campaign mounted to advance a not particularly sympathetic (or discernible, for that matter) personality.