Election Central Debate Roundup
• The transcript of last night's Democratic debate is available here.
• Hillary Clinton's performance last night was much stronger than last time, and is being widely hailed by organized punditry as a comeback. That said, her challengers are still coming on strong in the wake of the last debate, and they didn't let up, either.
• David Yepsen gave the win to Hillary. "After two bad weeks in the 2008 Democratic presidential campaign, she recovered her footing and pushed back sharply at her opponents in a debate Thursday night," Yepsen writes. And as for the challengers: "They blew it."
• Hillary Clinton said she was not playing the gender card or running because she is a woman — and then skillfully played the gender card to great applause. "And I have to tell you, as I travel around the country, you know, fathers drive hours to bring their daughters to my events And so many women in their 90s wait to shake my hand," she said, "And they say something like: I'm 95 years old, I was born before women could vote, and I want to live long enough to see a woman in the White House."
• John Edwards did not attack Hillary quite as brutally as he has in past debates, possibly a sign that they know it can go too far and alienate voters. But at one point he criticized Hillary for taking money from lobbyists, and the audience booed — a sign that it might already have gone too far.
• Barack Obama also gave a forceful attack against Hillary, accusing her of distorting the facts on Social Security. He was met by a mix of loud applause and loud booing, but in his case there were far more applause. "You know, this is the kind of thing that I would expect from Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani, where we start playing with numbers," he said. "We start playing with numbers in order to try to make a point. And we can't do that. No, no, no. This is too important."
• The Dodd campaign brought out the talk clock again on their Web site:
• The first 10 minutes or so of the debate were quite rough. Hillary Clinton attacked Barack Obama for not enforcing universal health care in his plan: "But when it came time to step up and decide whether or not he would support universal health care coverage, he chose not to do that," she said. "His plan would leave 15 million Americans out. That's about the population of Nevada, Iowa, South Carolina and New Hampshire."
• Obama responded: "The only difference between Senator Clinton's health care plan and mine is that she thinks the problem for people without health care is that nobody has mandated, forced them to get health care. That's not what I'm seeing around Nevada. What I see are people who would love to have health care. They desperately want it. But the problem is they can't afford it."
• John Edwards came in and hit Hillary for her vote on Kyl-Lieberman, among other issues: "She says she will turn up the heat on George Bush and the Republicans, but when the crucial vote came on stopping Bush, Cheney and the neocons, on Iran, she voted with Bush and Cheney."
• Joe Biden broke through the negativity when he was asked to join in. "Oh no, no, no, no," he said jokingly. He then said that the American people don't care about the squabbling of the candidates on stage, but are concerned about paying their bills, the worsening world situation, etc. And from there the debate got pretty dull.
• Bill Richardson brought out this line about being positive: "You know, it seems that John wants to start a class war. It seems that Barack wants to start a generational war. It seems that Senator Clinton, with all due respect on her plan on Iraq, doesn't end the war. All I want to do is give peace a chance."
• Chris Dodd was asked about his recent criticism of John Edwards for being too negative — and he not only hit Edwards, but also went after a recent slogan of Hillary's: "And, frankly, when a campaign is about turning up the heat or who's angrier or who's yelling louder, the American people turn off, in terms of listening ... We want a Democratic candidate who can unite our party. And I think if we waste time on the shrillness of this debate, then we lose the American people."
• In light of Edwards' recent hesitation and qualifications about supporting the eventual nominee, the candidates were all asked the question. Edwards jokingly asked Wolf Blitzer if this was a planted question, and then got it right this time: "Yes, I absolutely will support the Democratic nominee for president."
• All the candidates pledged to support the nominee, except Dennis Kucinich: "Only if they oppose war as an instrument of policy."
• Hillary defended her vote for Kyl-Lieberman, saying the Iranians are a terrorist faction in Iraq, but also co-opted Obama's message of diplomacy: "She says she will turn up the heat on George Bush and the Republicans, but when the crucial vote came on stopping Bush, Cheney and the neocons, on Iran, she voted with Bush and Cheney."
• Joe Biden cut through the other candidates' calls for renegotiating trade agreements with China, in light of safety concerns: "Look, it's not the agreement; it's the man. Under the WTO, we can shut this down. What are they all talking about here? It's about a president who won't enforce the law ... I don't know what anybody is talking about here. Enforce the agreement. Shut it down."
• Dodd got in a good Bush-hating line: "Well, first of all, I hope maybe others don't find this as ironic as I do that have President Bush urging the Turks not to invade Kurdish areas of Iraq and lecturing Musharraf about restoring the constitution."
• Dennis Kucinich whipped the crowd into a pro-impeachment frenzy: "I don't think that the first questioner's question was really answered about what are you going to do about this president, and for that matter the vice president, because they're out of control, and Congress isn't doing anything ... It's called impeachment and you don't wait ... You do it now. You don't wait ... Now. Impeach him now."
• A UNLV student whose name shall not be repeated here — but quite frankly should be stripped of her suffrage — asked the single worst question ever posed at any of these debates: "And my question is for Senator Clinton. This is a fun question for you. Do you prefer diamonds or pearls?" Shame on you. Shame, shame, shame.
I thought Hillary did great (especially with no real journalist following-up on the drivers' licenses issue).
November 16, 2007 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
CNN
These three cnn.com highlights essentially expose the purpose of the debate, simultaneously summarizing the deeply troubling faults of our national political discourse. The race shouldn't be, primarily, about entertainment CCN. This isn't Jerry Spriger or Oprah or Montel. The CNN prepared questions were all questions we've heard a thousand times before. I agree with those bloggers who noticed the audience questions were the only informative, worthwhile portions of the debate. The border/terrorism question, and the earlier racial profiling question were the only moments even remotely worth any voter's attention. The final question, as usual, made me vomit a little in my mouth. The few bizarre boos, and even the exuberant applause at times, left the debate resembling the recent Iowa J-J dinner, rather than a professional debate.
November 16, 2007 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I must be the only one who wasn't impressed with Hillary. When she talked to the three-tour soldier about Iran, I thought she was really terrible. She talked about Iran attacking U.S. troops to a soldier who has been there. She came off as way too hawkish to me.
I think she bobbed and weaved and wasn't hurt by the debate, but I don't think she was all that good.
November 16, 2007 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought they all performed well. This was the best debate by far. I didn't see anyone winning. Just because you don't screw up doesn't mean you "won." Clinton was mostly straightforward. As an aging babyboomer, I appreciated Senator Obama's clarity on the need to raise the SS cap. Biden, Dood, Richardson, Kucinich all looked good. I think Blitzer was ghastly.
November 16, 2007 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have given up on cnn/fox entertainment subsidiary. It really is pathetic. I have not watched the full debate, but from what I have seen and heard, once again cnn was a complete joke. What stupid and offensive questions.
On another note, I didn't hear any mud slinging. It's interesting when clinton II is challenged on anything, her response is either one of two, (1) I'm going to divert attention by claiming the "attack" is a republican talking point, which usually its not or (2) I've answered that thousands of times already so I'm not going to answer it again (The american people know where she stands and have known for 35 years).
Well, new flash, we don't have a gd clue about where she stands, because she won't tell us. I see her and hear her and I get so depressed. I do not want to relive the 1990's. I want something new and different, not more of the same bs garbage. I just hope that all this fluff and talk of inevitability just turns people off and they vote against clinton II as the nominee.
Anybody but clinton II in 08. If she wins it all, we will be arguing about laura bush in 2012. This is really depressing.
November 16, 2007 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
The blatant sexist pandering to HRClinton in this debate was nauseating.
Campbell asking Hillary about what she meant about the 'good ol boys club' was the worse...if this gender crap is going to be the order of the day why isn't Hillary decked out in pearls and diamonds since she can't choose.
One thing for sure questions like these show Clinton to be consistently INDECISIVE even about inconsequential matters. Recall, this is the same waffling she did on the RedSox questions, claiming she would root for each team one the first half and the other the second half. She has also said the same thing about the war, claiming she is against it but she isn't willing to not do anything as a justification for voting for the K-L amendment. Same thing goes for the driver's license question she was against it , before she was for it only to be against it 2 weeks later.
America please wake up, this women is the most indecisive, equivocating, doubletalking politician running in this race. Romney has nothing on Hillary. Hilliary obfuscates far better than he does, when she starts talking folks think she is giving them an answer only to be completely flummoxed by the time she is finished as they have no clue what she just said or where she stands on the issue.
Will someone please tell me what counts as her 35 years of public service? It is unbelievable how the media lets blatant distortions such as that go without any questioning.
Hillary will never be able to move us forward using diplomacy as she simply is too unprincipled to take a stand and she things that partisianship trumps coherent discussions.
No wonder that...
Barack Obama has won the endorsement of the United Auto Workers in Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota.
The best line of the night was when Barack told Hillary that the top 6% of income earners are NOT the middle class!!
And then schooled her as to how it would not be raising taxes as it is the MIDDLE CLASS people who are already paying SS on their entire incomes...,it is the TOP 6% who do not pay on their entire incomes.
Let the Warren Buffets, Clintons, Edwards, Bidens and Dodds of the world pay SS on their ENTIRE incomes too!
November 16, 2007 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amazing how those who got to talk the most are said to win the debate by pundits. The attacks on Clinton stopped when the others realized that every attack was another chance for Clinton to speak.
It was clear that Wolf didn't want Kucinich to speak. I think that's because he's been right all along. The only people who get on big media are the ones who thought Iraq should be invaded because "everyone thought they had WMD's!"
November 16, 2007 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is doing better and better and she feels/seems to be more at ease with herself. It must also take some for her to find "herself" and her own style. She will be a great president.
November 16, 2007 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ Eric Kleefield - Hillary supporters heckled Edwards for even MENTIONING she supported Peru free trade
HIllary supporters either think this is supposed to be a game show or have no interest in learning about the differences between the candidates.
what happened to free speech?
November 16, 2007 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
John Edwards didn't attack Hillary quite as brutally? What the hell are you talking about son?
Nobody in this race is "brutally" attacking anybody. This has been and remains a relatively sedate primary election. If the other candidates did attack Hillary brutally it would be newsworthy, but to say it has been done at this point is either deliberately misrepresenting the situation or displays a sophomoric understanding of what does and does not contstitute an serious political attack.
Both Obama and Edwards have criticized Her Royal Highness for being inconsistent and talking out of both sides of her mouth (which is true), and for being for the war in Iraq from day one until this day and not being honest with the nation about her poor judgement in authorizing the war (which is also true). Edwards also criticizes her for defending an obviously corrupt system of government in Washington DC and pointing out that nobody who defends that system is going to change it which seems like a self-evident truth to most people. He also implies, with good cause, that she is a corporate Democrat. None of this constitutes anything even approaching "brutal".
Could it be that Mr. Kleefeld is either naive or perhaps displaying a sexist double standard about how much criticism is allowed of a girl vs how much is allowed of a boy candidate? Either way, it's just patently inaccurate to say that Edwards or any other candidate has done anything "brutal" to Her Majesty to date because they have not.
November 16, 2007 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Roger Simon most thoughtfully captured the essence of last night's Dem debate on CNN: The (rhymes with rich) is back!
November 16, 2007 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agree with midwestblue.
I think the Marine got in the best attack on Clinton of the night, without saying a word. Did you see how he clenched his jaw when she was trying to rationalize her Iran vote? He made her look like a tyrannical drill sargeant: SHE WHO MUST BE OBEYED.
Oh, and I love the fact that Clinton only managed to thank him as an aside, midway through her remarks.
November 16, 2007 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought CNN did a bad job. The event had more of a feeling of a reality show. This gang debate thing is nonsense. The danger of giving up "the sound byte" that ruins hangs over their heads like the proverbial sword.
While I like the concept of lots of opportunities to see the candidates, there has to be a better format.
November 16, 2007 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Michael sez:
I feel your pain. She was back in control and, as I had predicted she would be, her so-called faux pas about driver's licenses was a brilliant set up to diffuse the issue and the verdict is: it worked like a charm. Now it is Obama who's left holding the bag, yet another stick to be clobbered by the GOP machine in the GE with.
November 16, 2007 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton's opponents came out swinging early to try and replicate what happened in Philadelphia. But Hillary Clinton was prepared, and she shot back at them for the first time from the get-go. Taken aback, the rest of the Democratic field let Hillary off the hook for the rest of the debate. And just for that, Sen. Clinton has to be considered tonight's winner.
Read full analysis at Campaign Diaries.
November 16, 2007 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I also was appalled by the young woman's question. But what about Suzanne Malveaux? Didn't she know what was going to be asked? Double shame on her!
November 16, 2007 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
One more thing that struck me. I was stunned at the idea that anyone making over $100,000 a year is still part of the great middle-class. I know this might not be the case in Manhattan or Brentwood. Still, most anywhere else in the country, you are considered extremely well to do if you make this (upper middle class). I thought most of the candidates simply do not grasp how most of us live.
November 16, 2007 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
The bottom line is that, once again, all of the candidates were on a stage together -- and one clearly came across being able to lead and handle the job of being president much, much more than the rest. I understand the intrigue with other candidates, all of whom are fine. But Hillary is the one who can win and can lead in the right direction once she's elected.
November 16, 2007 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to be that debate analysis is a Rorschach test for viewers' biases (Obama Ruled!). That said, how the hell can CNN have David Gergen (former Clinton advisor), James Carville (former Clinton campaign strategist and current Clinton sycophant), J.C. Watts (current Republican and former Congressman) and a non-entity do the post debate round-up? Isn't the pretense of fairness and objectivity a good thing?
Shouldn't the Kucinich, Edwards, Biden, Richardson, Dodd, and Obama camps be up in arms about this? Shouldn't they have their former advisors (pretending to be objective while shilling for their candidate) on the panel too?
Oh, and Wolf Blitzer was, the be charitable, atrocious. To share my true feelings (long held) would lead to banishment from this site.
November 16, 2007 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
CNN lost the debate
November 16, 2007 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was amazed that Edwards got booed when he mentioned that Clinton takes money from lobbyists. Was the audience full of Hillary plants?
MSM are portraying her as THE candidate so that the sheep will all follow along. That's bad news America. Hillary in the Whitehorse means more of the same crap we've been getting for 7 years.
p.s. CNN suck! Really, they are pathetic.
November 16, 2007 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards should be the candidate..clinton just is too divisive and can't win the general..and I agree wolf might be the worst moderator at a presidential debate EVER
November 16, 2007 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's so weird reading people ramble on about how Hillary can't take a stand or won't tell us what it is. You have to wonder what it is they are thinking when she speaks or when they read an interview with her. Are they so obsessed with finding any gaps in her rhetoric that they can't actually hear what she is saying? Do they find someone addressing the nuances of any given situation distressing?
Very bizarre.
November 16, 2007 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, I don't think that she can win the general either. Her campaign is fumbling all over the place and she triple talks constantly. The republicans will come out in droves to vote against her and, other than blind hillary-lovers, no one wants to relive the 90's and the clinton administration. People are desperate for change.
If she wins the nomination, I guess we have mitt the flip to look forward to for the next 4 years. Mitt the flip in 08.
November 16, 2007 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought the candidates were a little better at taking some of the stupid questions and refocusing them on the more important issues.
I thought Obama in general was more forceful and confident than in past debates. I thought his answers on immigration were excellent--he stood his ground and did his best to answer a complex issue in 60 seconds, and refused to trivialize it with a cliche answer. Those who described that answer as "waffling" are the ones who like to watch the screamfest faux "debates" on cable news shows. Unfortunately, I thought Obama sounded less sure when he spoke on foreign affairs.
Hillary was Hillary. If you like her, you liked her performance. If you don't, she reinforced every reason why. The gender question response was excellent--not only did she smack the soft pitch out of the park, but she totally pantsed the twit from CNN at the same time. Her answers on Iraq are scary.
I thought Edwards did well. I still can't figure out why he doesn't do better in the polls.
For the first time, Kucinich looked really bored and disinterested.
Richardson gives some good answers, but there is just something a little off about him, IMO--his "give peace a chance" answer was really lame.
I thought all the candidates grievously missed the boat on two questions: About falling casualties in Iraq--no one brought up the fact that violence is down because so many Iraqis have been uprooted and so much ethnic cleansing has taken place. On tainted products from China--this was an excellent opportunity to blast bush/republicans for their total incompetence at governming and the base conservative philosophy and only Biden barely touched on that aspect. In general, the dems are not attacking republicans enough in these debates.
It struck me that you could have the basis of a pretty good Cabinet with those who were on stage last night.
November 16, 2007 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
The national media is pushing its preconceived "Clinton comeback" story, which was utterly predictable.
But the national media is not completely in control of this process anymore. So, it remains to be seen how the substance of the candidates' various answers on key issues like Iraq, Iran, healthcare, trade, and Social Security play out in places like Iowa and New Hampshire (where the candidates are advertising and the voters are just now starting to pay more direct attention to the campaign).
November 16, 2007 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's position on Iraq AND Iran still STINK.... Theses positions are pro-Bush, pro-war and pro-Neo-Con.
Hillary is Republican Lite.. She has already begun TRIANGULATING even before she has been elected... sad
November 16, 2007 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, the candidates running against Clinton seemed to have lost some ground.
It also appears that Clinton was the recipient of at least two favorable planted questions. The idiot question on diamonds or pearls and the gender card question. Neither of these questions should have been asked.
I would like to suggest that this forum have a graph on who did or did not answer the question asked. (Not whether the response was good versus bad.)
I get tired of candidates sidestepping a simple yes/no question - such as whether an illegal immigrant should or should not be allowed to have a driver's license.
If a candidate, in answering a yes/no question, obscures his response with rhetoric then he/she is not really telling us what they stand for. (Yes - I know that some questions are "loaded" and that sometime you have to qualify your answer.)
November 16, 2007 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can easily determine which candidate did not meet expectations or gave a lackluster performance by whose supporters think the moderator was "atrocious"...
November 16, 2007 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's truly a shame what an awful job CNN did with this debate. Shameful both in terms of Wolf Blitzer, the most insufferable newscaster alive today (WHAT is with his beard? It looks like he fell asleep in a bowl of creamed wheat) and in terms of their near-constant technical difficulties throughout the coverage. They looked like terrible amateurs as they continuously described themselves as "the best team in news" or some other such ridiculous crap.
Its also a shame the they only had right-wing commentators analyzing the debate afterwards, and yes, I include Carville in the category. Whether he's a Dem or not, he uses right wing talking points all over the place. And of course all of them gave a 'win' to Hillary. And she did a fine job, actually making one or two clear statements which couldn't be interpreted in 12 different ways. But there was no clear winner, and a pre-disposed audience booing a statement should not count against a candidate in terms of their debate performance. John Edwards was booed while saying "I believe everyone should be held to the same standard." Shame on anyone who would boo such a sentiment, come on people! Grow up.
If I had to pick a winner in this debate, much as I dislike him at times, I would give it to Biden. He sounded more knowledgeable and confident when giving answers and offering his perspective than any of the other candidates last night. I think that's an objective reading of the debate on the whole. Merely not messing up terribly is not enough to give a 'win' to Hillary, although it is quite obvious that she is in general a very good debater. Obama just sucks at debating. If it were a speech-off, he'd win every one. But it's not, its "Wolf" Blitzer trying to trick the candidates.
Edwards doesn't need to back off criticizing Clinton (and again, she played victim stating that she was being personally attacked when Edwards merely listed policy differences and contrasting methods of campaigning) so much as he needs to stop repeatedly giving the exact same word for word answers that he gave in all of the other debates! He sounds like a broken record. And for that matter, why were so many people impressed with Hillary's "they're attacking me because I'm ahead" and "I'm comfortable in the kitchen" lines? Haven't we all heard those same statements a thousand and one times already? Lame. All of them need to learn to improv a bit more, that's where Biden won, in my opinion. He doesn't come off as rehearsed or polished.
I liked Obama going after Hillary's BS statement that lifting the cap on income levels for SS taxes would be a trillion dollar tax increase on the middle class - such a blatant lie I can't believe she gets away with crap like that! But again, he just comes off as stiff in this format and didn't score too many points. Hillary's answers about gender were very good, even as she did exactly what she was saying she wasn't doing. What was up with the airhead in the audience who asked Hillary if she preferred diamonds or pearls? Ugh. Boxers or briefs?
November 16, 2007 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
dc, you didn't think blitzer and cnn were awful? Some of the questions, even for clinton II, were stupid and designed to make the candidates take unnecessarily devisive positions.
November 16, 2007 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, the winner of the debate was...
Wolf Blitzer.
That's because once again, he talked so damn much. And because once again, he made the whole debate a vehicle for Clinton because that is who CNN and the entire corporate media has decided to make the Democratic nominee.
That said, I think Obama, Edwards, Kucinich, and Richardson all did an excellent job last night, and I'd be more than happy if any of them became the next president.
Biden and Dodd, I just don't like. Biden always comes off so sarcastic and full of himself, and Dodd's abrasive, rapid-fire speaking manner totally rubs me the wrong way.
Hillary again proved that she may be as articulate and slick as her husband, but she's still the corporate whore/special interest(s) candidate who will obviously maintain the status quo for the entire upper class.
The truth is, the upper class/Robber Barons of this nation have done so exceedingly well during the Reagan-BushSr.-Clinton-Bush Jr. years that the rest of We the People simply can't afford that outrageously lucrative status quo to remain in place any longer.
November 16, 2007 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Consider "blue state" places like New York City and the SF Bay area and you might get a hint as to why Clinton would say that raising the SS cap might be found "burdensome" by some. Yeah, $97k is a shitload of money in, say, Arcata (google it), but not in SF.
I personally don't care about the SS cap going up. I've never not paid SS tax on any part of my income, so I'm not likely to know the difference (although I am working on finding out). What pisses me off about this discussion, and why I oppose raising the SS cap, is that, as any regular reader of this site, among others, should know, Social Security is not in trouble and there's no need to do anything but get our fiscal house in order. Why are we even discussing this bamboozlement non-issue?
November 16, 2007 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Steve R.,
What every single candidate on that stage should have said to Blitzer was, "Wolf, take that infantile yes/no question and stick it up your ass! You want to know where I stand on an issue? Ask. But don't pull that yes/no crap with me. We're adults here...so, presumably, are you. So how's about growing up a little?"
But none did. And as a result, of course, you'll now get to see it repeated in various forms from this debate forward. Enjoy.
November 16, 2007 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
John Edwards has never been credible criticizing anyone about taking lobbyists or corporate money. The people are smarter than they're given credit for. The booing last night effectively took that rant away as a viable campaign issue, further certifying the manifest irrelevance of JRE's Quixotic quest.
And, John Edwards is "populist"...yeah, right.
November 16, 2007 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
As some have mentioned, I think the audience sounded skewed in favor of Clinton. I'm amazed at some of the stuff they booed. I think a sizable part of the television audience's impressions comes from how the live audience reacts at the debate, which is why CNN needs to tamp the live audience way down.
This didn't necessarily happen, but it is very possible to put some plants in the audience, and skew everyone's sense of the debate. I really hope, for democracy's sake, that such a tactic was not used.
November 16, 2007 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is working to build a consensus around the progressive solution of making the SS tax non-regressive. Hillary wants to let the Republican privatizers have their say before she'll share her views with us plebes. I'm sorry, but "I won't tell you what I think until after you elect me" isn't much of a conversation.
November 16, 2007 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, dcshungu, for misquoting me--an ellipsis would be nice if you are going to pull sentences from different parts of the quote to make it seem like they went together. I guess honesty isn't the strong suit for Clinton's supporters either (or maybe that's just you).
Pointing out just how awful Wolf Blitzer was (and how awful he has always been, in just about everything he has done in his life) is completely unrelated to how I think Obama did--and I think he did quite well thank you very much. That doesn't change the fact that Wolf did not control the debate well, interrupted people when they were finishing, asked questions intended to be used as soundbites in Republican attack ads (of all the candidates) and so on. None of that has anything to do with how I think Obama (or how Hillary, or anyone else, did).
November 16, 2007 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Wolf Blitzer WAS terrible. To my memory, I don't recall a debate where audience members were allowed to heckle candidates during their responses or boo them during their responses. The moderator's job, in part, is to ensure that audience does not become a part of the debate (this wasn't the YouTube debate). His talking over the candidates as they were answering (he did it, it seems to all of them) was distracting and it wasn't as if he was saying time, just "Ok . . . uh . . ."
The bigger complaint I had about Wolf, and the other CNN questioners, was it was clear that none of them understood the issues or what the candidates' positions were coming into the debate. For example, I thought there was a real opportunity to talk about the differences in the healthcare proposals by ALL of the candidates (yes, even Ernie Keebler's proposal). Instead of following up with Senator Clinton on how she plans to enforce her mandate or calling on Kucinich (who looked like the know-it-all kid in class that the teacher hates to call on), he said they come back to healthcare. I'm still waiting....
HRC has the media victory she needed/wanted (if you doubt me, notice that dcshungu is in full gloat-mode this morning), but I think we lost a golden opportunity to flesh out some of the differences between the candidates.
One upside, I now know that Hillary prefers diamonds and pearls. {retch}
November 16, 2007 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Marc Ambinder is reporting some interesting stuff on his website:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/11/diamond_v_pearl_student_blasts_1.php
November 16, 2007 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I was amazed that Edwards got booed when he mentioned that Clinton takes money from lobbyists. Was the audience full of Hillary plants?"
Duh! Of course they were Hillary plants. This is the camp that plants questions in the audience. Does anyone really think they didn't prep their supporters on how to react when Edwards and Obama (or perhaps anyone on stage) criticized her?
What bothers me most about her is that her mode of operation is so similar to Bush's and also pretty Nixonian. But this shouldn't be too suprising given that she was raised as a Republican and was a Goldwater Girl back in 64. A Democrat she ain't.
November 16, 2007 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is utter nonsense. Having in front your very eyes evidence of the brilliance of Clinton's campaign and making such a statement makes you seem (I'll be nice) a bit dazed. Just the day before, we were wondering what they were smoking over there to let Hillary come out and apparently contradict herself on the driver's licenses issue. It made so little sense that the only conclusion was that Hillary wanted to make sure that she was asked about this issue so that she could "clarify" her position. In other words, it was a set up, and guess who went for it and got caught: Obama. It is the Good Senator from Illinois who is now holding the bag of explosives! Not a bad trick, ey?
I would not mind reliving the 90s, during which the country was so prosperous that I made enough money just playing my TIAA-CREF stocks to secure a comfortable retirement. And you should stop this notion that the Repubs would come out in droves to vote against her. It won't matter because there is only a limited number of them (35-40%). Hillary would also automatically at least 40% of the vote just by being the Dem nominee. The battle would be for the remaining ~20% of the electorate, but we cannot really determine now how they would vote because we do not even know who would emerge as the GOP candidate! If it is Rudy, Hillary wins; if it is Romney Hillary wins; if it's Huckabee or McCain, Hillary would have a tough fight but she would prevail. Put up a coherent theory of why Hillary can't win (while she currently is the only one already winning among the Dems) that does not repeat the MSM or echo chamber noise. She's shown that they were wrong on just about every count: From her AUMF vote dooming her to her never getting more 40% support among rank and file Dems because of her "high negatives"...
November 16, 2007 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't figure out if Edwards or Obama actually wants to beat Clinton.
--
As to dcshungu's criticism of Edwards above, you should keep in mind that Edwards is one of the few on that stage who got rich for being something other than a politician (or by marriage or inheritance). He's a populist who helped average American's sue the bejeezus out of corrupt corporations. That's more than most big shot Democrats have ever done for any American.
November 16, 2007 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Michael said:
I'm beginning to wonder whether you should be allowed to vote.
November 16, 2007 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
In other words, it was a set up, and guess who went for it and got caught: Obama. It is the Good Senator from Illinois who is now holding the bag of explosives! Not a bad trick, ey?
I guess we need to knock this down NOW. He's not holding a bag of explosives, as it were. He actual gave the best answer I've seen on this issue. To bad Wolf was looking for his Tim Russert moment.
If need be, I can go through the exercise of posting HRC's response from the Philadelphia debate (and therafter) and Obama's from Las Vegas, but I'm pretty confident that Obama isn't in the same position that HRC was post-debate--he didn't waffle, he refused to pretend that this driver's license issue is anything but a canard.
November 16, 2007 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Steve R. wrote on November 16, 2007 10:52 AM:
I get tired of candidates sidestepping a simple yes/no question - such as whether an illegal immigrant should or should not be allowed to have a driver's license.
If a candidate, in answering a yes/no question, obscures his response with rhetoric then he/she is not really telling us what they stand for. (Yes - I know that some questions are "loaded" and that sometime you have to qualify your answer.)
Steve, I respectfully disagree with you using the drivers license question as your example.
I thought that question was the perfect example of a bullshit question that takes a tiny part of a complex issue and turns it into a tool to create a contrived "controversy". It's the kind of question that candidates should call "bs" on and refuse to answer. Obama did that with his response.
In my opinion, too many of the "yes/no" questions fall into the "contrived bullshit" category and the candidates should denounce them as such.
November 16, 2007 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wolf is trying a new way to keep Kucinich from winning the debate [and edection]. Don't let him talk.
November 16, 2007 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
incorrect. Hillary attacked Obama for not *proposing* universal health care. Obama responded by claiming that Hillary did not *enforce* her mandate.
November 16, 2007 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Before you accuse anyone who supports HRC of being dishonest you'd better ask yourself first whether the charge is actually valid: I would never, I repeat never, sacrifice my integrity at the altar of any politician's ambition. I made the remark about Obama's supporters' reaction to Blitzer in relation to Hillary's supporters' reaction to Tim Russert's questioning in the previous debate, that even she had admitted was not her best. Strangely enough, I did not hear any of Hillary's detractors complain about Russert's utterly "atrocious" performance. Did Blitzer do a great job last night? No, and nothing in my comment had suggested otherwise. What I say remains plausible: A candidate whose supporters are loudest about the moderator's performance more than likely did not meet expectations and they believe that the moderator was wholly or partially to blame. It happened after the Drexel U debate with Clinton's supporters bitching about Russert, and it just happened after last night's debate with CampObama going after Blitzer. Got it now?
November 16, 2007 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone ,please read Paul Krugman today in the New York Times - it is scathing about Obama's position on Social Security. A very good lesson to learn
November 16, 2007 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I knew I'd get a rise out of you dc. Too funny. No, I don't think the driver's license issue was "brilliant," nor do I think that her campaign handled it "brilliantly." Same thing goes for a host of issues that have come up over the last two weeks. Also, I don't see obama holding a "bag of explosives" on the issue.
On the polls, we go round and round on these meaningless polls at this point. You constantly focus on national polls that are skewed and by and large irrelevant at this point. In turn, I try to focus you on the state polls, where she is losing to republicans in purple and light blue states and you ignore those polls.
Also, you can ignore all you want how she riles up the republican base. Basically, your argument is to continue perpetuating a divided country. I would rather see a united country, for instance I'll say it again, obama draws nearly 40% of republican voters and may ultimately draw 50%. You on the other hand are writing off nearly 50% of the country and are assuming that 100% of dems will vote for clinton II, which won't happen. There is always cross-over in any election.
I have repeatedly put up coherent arguments why she won't win. See the blue and purple state polls. She's losing to the republican in florida and virginia alone. See the poll that shows 78% of republicans will never vote for her. How about the fact that in some polls 51% of people have said that they won't vote for her. Why aren't any of these arguments coherent arguments? You just want to ignore them.
On the drama of the nineties. How about wiping out welfare? How about nafta? How about don't ask, don't tell? How about cutting off social programs to balance the budget, when republicans run up huge deficits and borrow hand over fist for war? How about the rich getting super rich and the middle class and poor lose more and more ground? How about the privatization of government, which is basically handouts to donors of taxpayer dollars, which clinton I started? No thanks, I want something new. Who wants to live in the past?
Finally, Loki, I am not the only one who doesn't know where she stands on anything other than war. I am not blind like you are apparently. Just keep up the blind loyalty and ignore the facts. I like to be informed not guess what I think a politician might or might not do.
November 16, 2007 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tenacious D. said:
"Edwards is one of the few on that stage who got rich for being something other than a politician . . . "
Like by making half a million bucks working for Fortress Investments - manager of one of the nation's foremost offshore tax-dodge hedge funds - after campaigning against offshore tax-dodge hedge funds in his 2004 stump speech?
Nothing political involved here I'm sure. It was just coincidence that he got this offer right after an undistinguished senate "career" voting consistently favorably for the financial interests that so predominate in Charlotte - with the Republican majority and against true progressives like Senators Kerry, Kennedy, Wellstone, Feingold, Boxer, and Clinton.
Or, perhaps his campaign has also benefited from donations, not from any dirty K Street lobbyists, (oh, dearie me no), but only from corporations who hire and use K Street lobbyists.
I credit the unflinchingly honest Senator Obama for recognizing this degree-without-a-difference and not parsing it, like the $400 haircut sainted populist does, into a campaign "issue."
Obama in 2016!
November 16, 2007 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you serious? Obama waffled just like HRC had, regardless of the content of the answer (which is pretty amazing considering that Obama should have known that this issue would come up again). The "bag of explosives" here is that coming out in favor of giving illegal immigrants licenses, as Obama did after Blitzer had blitzed him into saying "yes", would provide the Repub smear machine with a potent issue to hang around his neck should he be the Dem nominee. Hillary achieved what she'd wanted: go on the record with a firm "no." He's now holding the bag...
Any questions?
November 16, 2007 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
dcshungu:
The point about your honesty was not directed to your belief in Wolf Blitzer's ability to moderate. It was directed toward your misquotation of what I said.
It is absolutely plausible that supporters of a candidate who performed poorly would like to blame to ref/moderator. But I happen to know what I think, so when I criticize Wolf, the useless sack that he is, it is unconnected to my perception of how Obama did. It is evident that my perception of Obama's performance is seen through my view of the candidates. I am biased toward Obama, and it would be liberating for you to admit you are biased toward Hillary. (Again, I would point anyone and everyone to read the Political Brain by Drew Westen for a discussion on how support of a candidate or party destroys objectivity.) Even so, trying to put on my "objective cap," I think Obama did quite well. And since I think he did quite well, I have no need to blame Wolf for bringing him down (as the Clinton supporters brought down Russert, who also sucks). I am not part of Camp Obama, and I have not seen anything done by the campaign to complain about Wolf. My complaints about Wolf, like many others', have to do with how horrific he is independent of how his awful performance may have impacted Obama. Got it?
November 16, 2007 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
NYMARJ. Krugman is wrong. Obama is turning the argument back on the privatizers and pushing to make the Social Security tax less regressive. Krugman ought to pay some head to Hillary's use of rw talking points in attacking Obama for proposing the progressive solution to SS's long term problem.
We can't wait for 2016, colon. Obama is running because of the fierce urgency of now.
November 16, 2007 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm left with the impression that "CNN" really stands for "Clinton News Network," something that, especially in the case of Blitzer, has been apparent for some time now. The obvious over-representation of Clinton supporters in the audience (it seems someone should have seen to it that there was a balance among the audience members) as well as the failure of Blitzer to stop the audience from interfering (the booing, which Blitzer did nothing to stop) with the statements of the respondents, not to mention the makeup of the after-debate panel of pundits, leaves no other possible conclusion to be made.
The media should not be interfering in the democratic process in this manner. The democratic leadership should either set some firm guidelines to prevent this kind of nonsense from ever happening again in the future, or simply stop having CNN run the debates. I'm disgusted.
November 16, 2007 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You'd be right if you stopped your sentences after the "I don't think" part....
November 16, 2007 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just a quick note on the Prince question (Diamonds and Pearls). The student who asked that question is posting on her My Space page that CNN didn't allow her to ask her pre-approved question on Yucca Mtn, and instead had her ask that bs farce. The woman is being pilloried when it was CNN's dumbing down the process because they're too stupid to recognize that the populace actually wants to learn about the candidates.
MSNBC's First Read has a blurb about the woman.
November 16, 2007 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction - it's Marc Ambinder that has the info on the Diamonds and Pearls.
November 16, 2007 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Got it. There is nothing like a friendly exchange and "clarification". Both Blitzer and Russert sucked. End of story.
November 16, 2007 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Am I supposed to take solace in this fact? The fact that there are even more of you so irrational about a candidate that you cannot even see straight? Yikes.
November 16, 2007 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wordie wrote on November 16, 2007 12:22 PM:
"The obvious over-representation of Clinton supporters in the audience (it seems someone should have seen to it that there was a balance among the audience members) "
and "The media should not be interfering in the democratic process in this manner. "
Yeah, I think they should set supporter-balance-ratio of the audience according to the consensus of the top five national opinion polls. Would that help limit the proportion of Clinton supporters in the audience? Well, perhaps not.
Anyhow, maybe they should handpick audience members after applying a "who do you support?" litmus test, and tell them that if they do not sit quietly, they will be removed by goons.
Oh wait, where have I heard of such a thing before?
November 16, 2007 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton repeatedly slugged Edwards and Obama so hard and so effectively within the first 10 minutes of the debate, they seemed stunned and stupified for the remainder of the night.
In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they both were still stammering about in a daze.
I give a double TKO to the little lady and hope that Elizabeth and Michelle had some ice-packs waiting at home for the boys!
November 16, 2007 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyway, for those who have any doubt that last night was not Clinton's from the point of view of the all-important press coverage and perception that had turned sharply negative on her after the last debate, just read a recap of the MSM/blog views and opinions by Howie Kurtz titled Hillary's Turn in the WaPo.
Gotta go...
November 16, 2007 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought they all did really great except Edwards.
My vote is Clinton/Obama '08-'20, so I was thrilled.
If you thought Edwards did fine, okay; we'll see where his polls in Iowa go.
His supporters forget that both Clinton and Obama had to CATCH Edwards. That means he once had the lead and he LOST it.
Even leaving Clinton out of the conversation, Edwards' supporters should ask themselves why Obama has gained in Iowa over their own candidate -- who was once LEADING in Iowa.
I'd like to comment on Clinton bringing up the fathers and the old ladies.
I do not feel this is as much of a "gender" issue as much as simply a "personal experience" issue.
It doesn't seem any different to me than Edwards saying he's the son of a mill worker. Some of us hear that and say, "Who gives a fuck?" But he's appealing to people who understand what that means. My father didn't work in a mill so I don't get it and I don't care.
My mom (85 and a Democrat) and my aunt (83 and a Republican) are both voting for Clinton because of THEIR history. They still remember, and now talk about, how thrilled their mother and two grandmothers were at being able to vote in the 1920's.
I think it is the same with the dads. My husband coaches little girls soccer and I wear my Hillary sticker to games. Men talk about this time in history for their little girls with me at every single game.
The guy candidates don't have this experience, just like Obama isn't the son of a millworker. Obama has different experiences from being African-American and from growing up in a more exotic childhood than Kansas might offer.
Richardson talks about unique experiences as a Hispanic.
Hillary has legitimately unique experiences running as a woman. Simply bringing those up to highlight the uniqueness of her experience is not "playing the gender card" imo.
November 16, 2007 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wolf and Hillarys paid plants couldn't beat Obama and the truth. !!
""PLEASE YOUTUBE"" THE IRAN VOTE AND IRAQ WAR VET CLAPPING AGAINST ATTACKING IRAN WITH HIS MOM
Hillary also stated that she thought the american education system served us well ?? NOT ! !
AND THE TAX CAP
Hillary votes no to win votes but she won't speak the truth. Barack has the courage to speak the truth. Citizens need everybody to have drivers liscense so they can be monitored for insurance and accidents and alcohol related deaths. He also pointed out the need to PASS an imigration bill to get those people on a path to citizenship. They will be needed to feel like americans so they can keep our social secuirty system fluid.
Hillary also got BUSTED on her statement about not RAISING THE CAP on social secuirty because she says the tax increase will hurt the middle class!
Barack stated that the 6% getting paid 97,000.00 a year is NOT THE MIDDLE CLASS !
Hillary also stated that she thought the american education system served us well ?? NOT ! !
Hillary also got BUSTED on her vote for the kyle Lieberman and the mother and the Iraq war veteran son who clapped when the rest of the candidates pointed out they were AGAINST the Kyle Lieberman bill to make the Iranian guard a terrorist organization and how the bill also allows for Bush to keep troops in iraq !!
Yes Hillary got busted BIG TIME the truth always comes out.
Thank God we have a candidate like Barack Obama who speaks the truth and doesn't shift back and forth trying to get votes. Hillarys thinking people won't catch her shifting her point of view from one location (town) to another as she lies lies lies trying to sway the american voters !!
Hillary on pakistan http://www.liberaloasis.com/2007/11/clinton_on_pakistan.php
Here's Sen. Hillary Clinton discussing Pakistan at Thursday night's debate: = http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/us/politics/15debate-transcript.html?pagewanted=print
... there's absolutely a connection between a democratic regime and heightened security for the United States. That's what's so tragic about this situation. After 9/11, President Bush had a chance to chart a different course, both in Pakistan and in Afghanistan, and could have been very clear about what our expectations were. We are now in a bind, and it is partly -- not completely, but partly -- a result of the failed policies of the Bush administration.
So, where we are today means that we have to say to President Musharraf: Look, this is not in your interest either. This is not in the interest of the United States. It is not in your interest to either stay in power or stay alive.
Sure sounds like she wished Bush pushed for democratic reform in Pakistan, instead of propping up Musharraf's dictatorship.
But here's what she said in a debate from August, = http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/us/politics/07demsforum.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
when criticizing Sen. Barack Obama's pledge to strike terrorists in Pakistan's border region if Musharraf would not act on actionable intelligence:
I think it is a very big mistake to telegraph that and to destabilize the Musharraf regime, which is fighting for its life against the Islamic extremists who are in bed with al Qaeda and Taliban.
Of course, as everyone now knows, Musharraf is primarily fighting for his life against lawyers and judges, not the tribal militants.
Sen. Clinton is not alone among Dem candidates in supporting Musharraf.
Both Sen. John Edwards and Sen. Chris Dodd have expressed support for Musharraf to maintain "stability."
Whereas Obama, Gov. Bill Richardson and Sen. Joe Biden = http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3498294
have been more consistent in supporting democratic principles.
November 16, 2007 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
dcshungu:
Apparently you don't know what waffling means. It means to equivocate or vacillate. It means "to avoid committing oneself in what one says".
That's not what happened here. Obama nailed Camille Brown's two part question (check the transcript). He even nailed Wolf's initial attempt at being Tim Russert. The problem everyone seems to be is when Wolf asked what amount as the third question on this point: there position on issuing driver's licenses to undocumented workers, assuming no comprehensive reform. Problem is when Obama tried to answer with this "position" Wolf tried to turn it into a yes or no question. At least that's how I read what occurred.
BLITZER: All right. I want to just press you on this point, because it's a logical follow-up, and then I want to go and ask everyone.
On the issue that apparently tripped up Senator Clinton earlier, the issue of driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, I take it, Senator Obama, you support giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.
Is that right?
OBAMA: When I was a state senator in Illinois, I voted to require that illegal aliens get trained, get a license, get insurance to protect public safety. That was my intention.
(APPLAUSE)
And -- but I have to make sure that people understand. The problem we have here is not driver's licenses. Undocumented workers do not come here to drive.
(LAUGHTER)
They don't go -- they're not coming here to go to the In-N-Out Burger. That's not the reason they're here. They're here to work. And so instead of being distracting by what has now become a wedge issue, let's focus on actually solving the problem that this administration, the Bush administration, had done nothing about it.
BLITZER: Well, let's go through everybody because I want to be precise. I want to make sure the viewers and those of us who are here fully understand all of your positions on this -- avoiding, assuming -- there isn't going to be comprehensive immigration reform.
Do you support or oppose driver's licenses for illegal immigrants?
OBAMA: I am not proposing that that's what we do.
What I'm saying is that we can't...
(LAUGHTER)
No, no, no, no. Look, I have already said, I support the notion that we have to deal with public safety and that driver's licenses at the [state] level can make that happen.
But what I also know...
BLITZER: All right...
OBAMA: But what I also know, Wolf, is that if we keep on getting distracted by this problem, then we are not solving it.
BLITZER: But -- because this is the kind of question that is sort of available for a yes or no answer.
(LAUGHTER)
Either you support it or you oppose it.
(APPLAUSE)
November 16, 2007 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
colonpowwow wrote, in response to my comments on the obvious bias within the audience of last night's CNN debate:
"Yeah, I think they should set supporter-balance-ratio of the audience according to the consensus of the top five national opinion polls. Would that help limit the proportion of Clinton supporters in the audience? Well, perhaps not.
Anyhow, maybe they should handpick audience members after applying a "who do you support?" litmus test, and tell them that if they do not sit quietly, they will be removed by goons.
Oh wait, where have I heard of such a thing before?"
The expectation that the audience will not itself become part of the debate is not an unreasonable one. Since CNN has done so much to push the "inevitability" of Clinton over the last several months, which of course affects the opinion polls, your suggestion of using opinion polls to determine the makeup of the audience seems absurd. It's not clear whether you're being naive in making the suggestion, or perhaps entirely disingenuous.
Nevertheless, like the "Clinton inevitability" meme so prevalent on CNN, audience reaction is something that can shape the way the viewer perceives the debate, and thus influence the vote that viewer ultimately casts. CNN should not be in the business of shaping viewer attitudes toward the candidates, but should limit itself to presenting objective information so that viewers can make informed decisions on their own, free from the effects of subtle (or not so subtle, as the case may be) propaganda.
November 16, 2007 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Water under the bridge. The prevailing opinion is that Obama lost that round (follow link to WaPo above and read the stories it links to). Clinton did what she needed to do. Job done, case close. On to the next "hurdle."
Gooa really go...
November 16, 2007 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yepsen's analysis: That's why the lady is a champ
November 16, 2007 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton would be a disaster for our country at this point in time.Michael at the top of the page is right, this is very depressing and I cannot believe people are this NAIVE.
November 16, 2007 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoever wrote this needs English lessons.
November 16, 2007 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
maybee I kan get sum in our publik skools
November 16, 2007 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Little weenie O-Bomb-A really BOMBED again last night. When he pulls that little petulant lemon sucking face, you can just see that he's out of his depth.
And when the Breck girl got slapped with the "mud slinging" bit, well... can anybody say emasculation?
Well, time is running out. Thanksgiving is here next week and then the Xtians shopping spree is upon us, followed by Iowa the first week of 2008.
It looks like Senator Clinton is still the one to beat!
November 16, 2007 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
News from Nevada grassroots Dems. Obama and Edwards held back in front of audience filled with Hillary plants:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/16/32040/765
I the Las Vegas fix was in for Hillary's big "comeback" debate.
November 16, 2007 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kucinich gets less time on this blog than he did in the Las Vegas debate. Yet there is never a criticism of anything he says. How could there be? He answers all questions directly, invariably proposes a well-thought-out solution and pledges to end the silliest and most self-destructive war in American history posthaste. And, for a chaser, he would mete out punishment to the evildoers who got the country into this mess, i.e., impeach Cheney and Bush. Any electorate which remains blind to this man, well, it remains blind, period.
November 16, 2007 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Clinton attacks stopped because every time Clinton's name came up, she got to talk again.Clinton spoke 15 times, Obama,14, Kucinich, 4. You get up to bat more often, you get more hits.
November 16, 2007 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just FYI, here is some information suggesting Manhattan in particular has the highest average wages (by county) of any place in the country:
http://www.bls.gov/ro2/fax/qcew9310.pdf
The thing is, the average weekly wage in Manhattan was still only $1453 as of that report (middle of 2006). That works out to $75556 per year.
The bottomline is that $97500 is a lot of money to be making anywhere. And of course since everyone is taxed on the first $97500, lifting the cap doesn't really make a particularly significant difference in your overall payroll tax rate until you are well above that level.
November 16, 2007 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cuckoo for cocoa puffs!
November 16, 2007 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
In response to my questioning his/her contention that the audience was unfairly packed with Clintonites -
Wordie wrote on November 16, 2007 1:13 PM: "It's not clear whether you're being naive in making the suggestion, or perhaps entirely disingenuous." (my suggesting that perhaps the proportion of supporters in the audience should be based on some sort of national polling snapshot).
Well, yes I was being disingenuous because I think your point that CNN showed bias somehow by not screening and limiting the audience response per their political candidate preference is laughable.
For a better environment in which your preferred candidate can parse things like what "no money from lobbyists" really means, etc., without being booed (ridiculed), I suggest trying the Karl Rove Konsultants Kompany.
November 16, 2007 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "boxers or briefs" question was also posed, as I recall, by a black woman who had an intelligent question she'd wanted to ask, but had been pressured and prevailed upon by the blow-dried blowhards running the show to ask a question that would make her look like a vacuous peawit bimbo.
I am utterly disgusted. As if CNN hadn't already botched and degraded the debate enough.
November 16, 2007 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not one question about impeachment.
November 16, 2007 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
CNN... The New Fox.
November 16, 2007 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Kucinich for prez and Jay Stout, for mentioning the one and only candidate whose positions are clear, Dennis Kucinich.
In a thread with 84 posts (and counting), two people mention DK. Everybody else argues over Clinton vs. Obama.
Why? Because that's what the media (including TPM, apparently) want you to do.
Where was Wolf's YES or NO question on impeachment??? (And thank you merryll for mentioning this.)
All the Senators are conveniently able to duck any vote, because they're in the Senate (and impeachment happens in the House). Only one candidate has any courage on this issue, and he gets the least time to talk.
Do you support the impeachment of Vice President Cheney, yes or no?
Do you support the impeachment of President Bush, yes or no?
C'mon people, we're all falling for it, taking the MSM bait, focusing on the "horse race" rather than the real issues and the best candidate out there.
WAKE UP, will ya?
Impeachment NOW!
Support Dennis Kucinich for President.
-- ARG
November 17, 2007 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink