Dem Debate Roundup: Work Horse Versus Show Horse

Comments (123)

cms wrote on January 6, 2008 8:24 AM:

Wasn't Ann Lewis's comment a bit of a non-sequitur?

KSWheels wrote on January 6, 2008 8:33 AM:

"Tonight change won, and the status quo lost it."

HAH!

Mike wrote on January 6, 2008 8:34 AM:

I thought there was a point--when Edwards talked about the Patients Bill of Rights--where Hillary almost accused him of killing that girl. Anybody else pick up on that?

john mccutchen wrote on January 6, 2008 8:41 AM:

The Old Gray Mare She Ain't What She Usta Be

They Didn’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow
By FRANK RICH
AFTER so many years of fear and loathing, we had almost forgotten what it’s like to feel good about our country. On Thursday night, that long-dormant emotion came rushing back, like an old dream that pops out of the deepest recesses of memory, suddenly as clear as light. “They said this day would never come,” said Barack Obama, and yet here, right before us, was indisputable evidence that it had.

What felt good was not merely the improbable and historic political triumph of an African-American candidate carrying a state with a black population of under 3 percent. It was the palpable sense that our history was turning a page whether or not Mr. Obama or his doppelgänger in improbability, Mike Huckabee, end up in the White House. We could allow ourselves a big what-if: What if we could have an election that was not a referendum on either the Clinton or Bush presidencies? For the first time, we found ourselves on that long-awaited bridge to the 21st century, the one that was blown up in the ninth month of the new millennium’s maiden year.

john mccutchen wrote on January 6, 2008 8:41 AM:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/opinion/06rich.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

Paul wrote on January 6, 2008 8:49 AM:

Ann Lewis' comment is very disappointing. The Clinton campaign is trying to smear Obama with an accusation they know is not true. Obama's "present" votes were part of a coordinated strategy to support choice in Illinois. But the Clinton camp thinks they can fool people at the last minute by putting out a dishonest mailer and then repeating the message. I'm an OBama supporter, but one who was thinking I would enthusiastically support whoever the Democratic nominee turns out to be. I'm not so sure any more. Honesty counts, too!

john mccutchen wrote on January 6, 2008 8:53 AM:

Ann Lewis is probably the worst of all campaign spinmeisters now in active practice in either party.

The Dems trot her out for the women vote every four years. I remember cringing every time she'd appear on my screen - 2004-2000-1996...was she around in '92?

Anyway, no matter, she won't be around much longer but at least since she's been spinning for Mrs. Bill, I can chuckle and not hide

Paul wrote on January 6, 2008 9:01 AM:

Hillary had her chance to reform health care. With the wind at her back - overwhelming public support, a Democratic president and congress. And she not only blew it, she set the cause back by a dozen years. Her secretive, exclusive process took forever, and gave the REpublicans a chance to attack it. What she came out with was ridiculous - no doubt she understood all the complexity, but she didn't have a workable plan. It was a factor in the Republicans retaking Congress (does anyone remember that the Democrats lost a big majority when Bill was in office.) What a disaster! All we need is for her to try again and we'll never get health care reform.

john mccutchen wrote on January 6, 2008 9:07 AM:

"Making change is not about what you believe" Mrs. Bill NH Debate

Luntz focus group colloquy

She deafens my ears. I can't hear her.
But you were supporting her at one point?
Absolutely
But no longer?
Absolutely not

Death by inevitability...she can't win an election, only a coronation

sparky wrote on January 6, 2008 9:15 AM:

I think Josh's analysis is spot on. My own preference is Edwards, but he's not going to light up everyone in a room the way Obama apparently does.

Hillary is just over. 35 years of...what, exactly? Enough aristocracy in this country.

john mccutchen wrote on January 6, 2008 9:18 AM:

Bill Bradley to Endorse Obama Today
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080106/ap_po/obama_bradley_3

All abO!ard the O! Train

blackstar wrote on January 6, 2008 9:23 AM:

i hate this false narrative that says Hillary has the "experience in making change" and Obama lacks it. that Hillary is competent on issues and Obama can only hope his way out of them.

anyone who doesn't believe Obama is capable of presenting real change (read: ethics reform, nonproliferation, civil rights) or that he doesn't understand the major issues completely, simply hasn't taken the time to look up his history or positions. period.

i will note that Hillary is an intelligent person in terms of analysis of policy, but Christ Obama is at the VERY LEAST as intelligent in the same terms.

Jason wrote on January 6, 2008 9:26 AM:

Ann Lewis' comment perfectly encapsulates the smallness at the core of Hillary Clinton. What an absolute opposite of leadership this woman represents.

What was the very first thing she did after the historic wave election of 2006? Have a joint press conference with Joe Lieberman about the danger of violent video games, the 9,842,093d most important challenge facing our nation.

She exudes non-leadership at her core. And in about 60 hours, her Presidential hopes are permanently over.

RiverRed wrote on January 6, 2008 9:30 AM:

Did anyone catch the Obama/Clinton dialogue where HRC talked about "WE balanced the budget, created a surplus, created millions of jobs" and Obama retorted that I don't take away those accomplishments from BILL CLINTON?

Anonymous wrote on January 6, 2008 9:32 AM:

Ann Lewis earned her stripes for the Clintons when she agressively attacked the veracity of Monica Lewinsky and praised the character and honesty of Bill Clinton... oops until the dress turned up.

Ann Lewis a paid hack and not a very good one. But in Hillary La La Land, the plummeting polls are the fault of the media, not the candidate, the blurred message or the highly highly paid media strategests. Right.

john wrote on January 6, 2008 9:33 AM:

look, if you been changing things for 35 years and things still aren't right and the middle class is still getting stiffed, then you either haven't been doing much or you're incompetent.

pick one, ms. clinton.

NCSteve wrote on January 6, 2008 9:34 AM:

If I could take a break from the Obama-Clinton pissing contest, I'd like to join Josh in pointing out how proud I was of all of the Democrats, and of our party, after comparing them to the Republicans. The Democratic debate was at least a serious discussion by serious, albeit totally exhausted, people. (John Edwards gets trial lawyer association tactics points for skipping the 100 Club Dinner to rest up for this thing; it was a shrewd and accurate assessment of where he could do himself the most good. Hillary and Obama, however, did not have the option of skipping it.)

The Republican debate was like listening to a bunch of boneheaded College Republican frat boys who never took a hard class because it was "biased" and never took a test they didn't cheat on offering their silly, shallow, sophomoric solutions for what ails the world.

I don't think the comparison was lost on anyone who watched both other than the boneheaded frat boys and sorority girls in the MSM.

DonnaG wrote on January 6, 2008 9:36 AM:

For me, the absolutely worst statement of the debate was Hillary Clinton using the phrase "raising false hopes". Who is she to dash hopes?

Hillary's hope-dashing reminds me of something I was involved in years ago when I mentored a young mother of three children whose husband had abandoned them. That young woman had to go on welfare and had become so anxious that she couldn't complete a sentence, and so she sought help from a psychiatrist at a local clinic. I encouraged the mother to try some college courses, and in her first two classes, she would often phone me full of anxiety and needing encouragement.
By request from the psychiatrist, I met with him only to have him blatantly tell me, "You are giving her a false sense of expectation."
I surely would have loved to see his expression a couple of years later when she graduated Phi Beta Kappa and sent him an invitation to the awards ceremony.

DemAC wrote on January 6, 2008 9:42 AM:

Well, somehow Frank Luntz’s focus groups always end up in the Hillary hating corner, so there’s no need to bother about what they said. It was preordained from the moment they convened.

The spin from many of the talking heads in the mainstream media was certainly an eye opener for me: I knew that msm was sexist and discriminating against women in general and against Hillary Clinton in particular. After this debate it went from unpleasant to ridiculous.

The charges from msm about Hillary being “angry” (which obviously is unbefitting a “real” woman), Edwards telling her to be quiet, Obama’s stuck-up “you’re likeable enough” moment… The women of America and especially New Hampshire could see and listen for themselves. For me at least the whole thing was a revelation of the blatant sexism in the political discourse.

Edwards and Obama, the kissing couple that were holding hands under the table, made some very inspiring speeches to.

(Obama’s most memorable speech notably was about words. A speech about words – that sort of encompasses his entire candidacy, doesn’t it? And what’s up with Obama’s stuttering every time he gets a question? Isn’t he supposed to be some great orator with an enchanting rhetorical flow?)

Anyway, both Edwards and Obama supported each other through the entire debate, as the Moderator noted, and they both smiled and generally come off as likeable.

However Hillary’s debate performance completely dwarfed Obama and Edwards. Obama on many occasions looked like a little schoolboy being reprimanded by the teacher. And Edwards just doesn’t come off as Presidential at all. On the answers they gave on Pakistan and Defcon hypotheticals none of those two connected the dots nearly as well as Hillary did.

Hillary made a beautiful debate performance. She was in charge, she was on fire and she was in total command of the facts and of the interchange. And Hillary made the case that really needed be made: that electing the first woman President represents a huge change.

random wrote on January 6, 2008 9:44 AM:

It is a blessing in this heated campaign to have some commentators who are insightful truth speakers:

"...What [Hillary]doesn’t mention is that she knows how to fight off the Republican attack machine because she and her husband were so adept at revving it up." Maureen Dowd, NYT 01-06-08

"...But if Clinton operatives know how to go negative, they don’t have the positive balance of a 21st-century message." Frank Rich, NYT 01-06-08

glennmcgahee wrote on January 6, 2008 9:44 AM:

You people have such short memories. Please trot over to digbyblog and read the timeline about what happened to the Clinton health care plan back in 1993. Its a perfect example of what we're up against. When I hear Obama expecting that the republicans and corporations will come around and we'll all join hands for the good of America so we can all "hope" for things, The reality is that there is a fight to be finished that can't be settled with feel good, emotional words. Its gonna take knowing what you're up against and awareness of the power of interest groups and lobbyists, but most of all, the gullibility of the American people in jumping on the bandwagon that the media is presenting. With Obama, you are hopping aboard the "feel good" train. Why do you think every news outlet has lead with Hillary for the last year since the mid-terms. They have plannned to make you sick of hearing her name and you've fallen for it, hook, line and sinker. Bozos.

Davidson wrote on January 6, 2008 9:47 AM:

If only Obama blamed the cause of all this: the corporate stranglehold on our democracy and extremist right wingers (at least, the former). What's the point of mobilizing an entire country if we don't fix the situation? Change will be impossible unless we do.

That's what I love about Edwards: by focusing on what is to blame, we can finally have a way of making a breakthrough.

Anonymous wrote on January 6, 2008 9:51 AM:

DemAC spins "Hillary made a beautiful debate performance."

Good one. Can't stop laughing. Hillary is just digging the hole deeper.

Her message, in effect, is: "America, you want CHANGE? Elect me and I will keep doing what I've done for 35 years. Isn't that right Bill? you tell 'em!"

Doesn't Mrs. Bill Clinton or anyone on her "brilliant" campaign staff understand how ridiculous that sounds?

Ok,DemAC, you've earned your pay today. Put in your time card and log off. Democracy needs some space with out Hillary's attack dogs.

Hudson wrote on January 6, 2008 9:57 AM:

// “Words are not action and as beautifully presented and as passionately felt as they are, they are not action,” Mrs. Clinton said. But Mr. Obama came back at her. “The truth is, actually, words do inspire,” Mr. Obama said. “Words do help people get involved.” //

Oh, great. People are dying in Iraq and from lack of health care in our own country, and these guys want to philosophize about semantics.

I'm sticking with Edwards (that invisible candidate who beat Hillary in Iowa despite getting outspent 3-to-1).

Concerned In Iowa wrote on January 6, 2008 10:01 AM:

DemAC said "Obama on many occasions looked like a little schoolboy being reprimanded by the teacher."

I agree! Hillary did sound a lot like a condescending, know-it-all, badgerng ol' school marm. Most people just hate to hear that. Why does she do it?

Metaphorically challenged wrote on January 6, 2008 10:03 AM:

I recognize that after the Republican debate, many of us may have felt that there must be a pony in there somewhere.

Still, maybe something other than a horse metaphor as the round-up. Please? No work horses, show horses, or Seabiscuit. It's hard to rail against horse-race coverage if we go all equine ourselves.

Also, I don't think the show horse/work horse dichotomy makes much sense unless you're encapsulating Clinton's argument. In which case, should it really be the title?

robbymack wrote on January 6, 2008 10:05 AM:

........ I'd have thought they were leading with her since her ascendance to the Senate in 2000 because they would most like to see her out in front to rev up the cottage industry of tawdry tabloid stories which so fascinate the great part of the electorate. We've heard the name Clinton ad nauseum since 1992, it isn't a recent phenomenon.

buckheaddad wrote on January 6, 2008 10:06 AM:

HAVE YOU FOLKS LOST YOUR RESPECTIVE MINDS????????????????????????????????

You're dealing with POLITICIANS . . .they'll lie, cheat, steal, spin, cover-up, cover-over, kiss a/o kick your ass (ALL DEPENDING ON WHAT SUITS THEM AT THAT PARTICULAR MOMENT)........

THINK NOT?

"Read my lips. . .NO MORE TAXES"

"I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN"

"WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION"

"I CAN'T RECALL"

Anonymous wrote on January 6, 2008 10:09 AM:

PTSD at Camp Clinton

For months, Clinton campaign officials have assumed New Hampshire could play the same role for her that it did for Bill Clinton in 1992, when his comeback in his first primary ignited his campaign. Yet across the state, Obama is drawing crowds that are double and triple the size of Clinton's.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/05/AR2008010502616.html?hpid=topnews

David B Stanton wrote on January 6, 2008 10:09 AM:

we are facing tough time ahead with the breathtaking mess and SQUALOR that the bush people will leave in washington and the rest of the world. it will take some backbone and experience to clean that mess up. hillary clinton stood up to the "popular kids" at the new hampshire debate and made a very serous case for her candidacy. when the shimmer comes off the other candidates, hillary, the workhorse, will still be willing to stand up to bad guys of the world, and we got a glimpse of that. as she stated, when bush was elected. america voted for a president, "they like to have a beer with." i don't want to have a beer with the president, i want a president who is bright, ready to defend lherself and america, and willing to kick some ass when it is necessary. hillary demonstrated that she ain't scared to do that!

moushia wrote on January 6, 2008 10:10 AM:

One line got me in last night's debate when angry Edwards said that Hillary did not use attacks on them when she was ahead. Hah! She was ahead, they were attacking her, did he forget that! I saw it in numerous debates. Then
1) She had to defend herself.
2) Since she was ahead, perhaps she did not see the need to point out their shortcomings, the biggest being Obama's inexperience. Many other great orators took the controls. I've lived long enough to have seen what some of those great orators have done. Would you believe that since Obama's appearance at the Dem. convention I was for him, but now I'm against him, I've seen enough. GO HILLARY!

john mccutchen wrote on January 6, 2008 10:11 AM:

Well, somehow Frank Luntz’s focus groups always end up in the Hillary hating corner, so there’s no need to bother about what they said. It was preordained from the moment they convened.

All a vast right wing conspiracy or is it Hillary?

Ann Lewis is that you?

bnb wrote on January 6, 2008 10:11 AM:

Good for Clinton when she pointed out that Obama's 'bringing people together' sounded a lot like Bush's 'I'm a uniter' Meaningless.

Such a shame that ABC didn't want to hear Kucinich, and that the Democrats put up with it. The GOP is starting to look better.

moondancer wrote on January 6, 2008 10:12 AM:

The GOP sound like caricatures of candidates. Romney is the Ted Knight of the group, mealy mouthed, 2 dimensional. Poor McCain. Once the gooper maverick now the uber establishment guy. Rudy is hopeless. If things continue as they are now, a Goldwater size landslide is heading the RNCs' way.

teacherken wrote on January 6, 2008 10:12 AM:

Clinton said

Words are not action and as beautifully presented and as passionately felt as they are, they are not action

You mean words like these do not matter, do not move to action?

"that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."

"With malice towards none, with charity for all . . ."

"We have nothing to fear but fear itself"

"Yesterday, December seventh, 1941, a date which will live in infamy, the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan. "

"Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans - born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace. "

and from across the seas:

"We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."

Peace.

gary wrote on January 6, 2008 10:15 AM:

No new content from last night's debate, but I think something more informative was on display: Each candidate's character seemed to be magnified. From this I was able to measure more convincingly the vast difference between Obama and Clinton. Hillary is inherently divisive, Obama isn't. And if there's anything that defines government right now, it's division. Unity is on Obama's side. And he does inspire people of both parties. In NH, Clinton is drawing crowds of 600-700. Obama is drawing crowds of 1200-2000. Hundreds of people waiting in line to hear him speak. I'd rather go with Obama's potential than Clinton's experience.

audit the polls wrote on January 6, 2008 10:15 AM:

Obama's being set up to lose to the Republicans. They try to do it every election.

Liam wrote on January 6, 2008 10:16 AM:

Hillary said that she has been changing things for 35 years. Just what did she change in Arkansas, while she worked as a corporate lawyer? She sure did not change anything when she was in the White House for eight years. The one big challenge that she tackled, she failed miserably on, and set back the reform of Health Care by at least two decades.

Hillary gets a lot of her big donations from powerful Washington lobbyists, so she is not about to attempt an major changes in how things are currently done.

LJ wrote on January 6, 2008 10:18 AM:

A work horse would have bothered to read the Iraq NIE before voting for war.

How about a comparison of words vs. action on health care? Which did we get from Hillary in the '90's? A work horse would have gotten it done the first time.

Words versus action is just not somewhere Hillary should go. Remember when she decried negative attacks (words), then launched negative attacks (actions)?

Such a house of cards.

audit the polls wrote on January 6, 2008 10:18 AM:

Words are important. But that's all Obama's got. and he didn't even write the words.

blackstar wrote on January 6, 2008 10:24 AM:

And Hillary made the case that really needed be made: that electing the first woman President represents a huge change.

-------------

hey, you've got nothing to lose. play that gender card hard, then come back and tell us how it works out.

Liam wrote on January 6, 2008 10:24 AM:

Obama has a lot more than words. He has a history of winning, including his recent trouncing of Hillary. That is an example of Obama getting something done, and Hillary adding another failure to her much touted 35 years experience.

pataphonic wrote on January 6, 2008 10:28 AM:

The tone of this coverage again shows the folks who run this website to be notably, and unfairly, anti-Hillary.

All along, Clinton has shined in the debates and this one was no exception -- G.O.P. shill Frank Luntz's analysis notwithstanding. Obama's strength is when he is alone, on stage, making speech after incredible speech. The truth is, they're both impressive, formidable candidates.

Why does TPM need to take sides?

zonk wrote on January 6, 2008 10:32 AM:

As an Illinois resident and statehouse junkie, I just gotta take issue with this whole "Obama's just got happy talk" BS that some seem to be hurling this way.

Obama was in fact a quite accomplished Senator and has an amazing gift for cajolery, for actually listening to opposition concerns - but NOT compromising his principles. I'd point to this post from Kevin Drum for a bit of background, but you'd do just as well -- if you've a Lexis account - to check out the Trib or Sun-Times political stories from Springfield for the 1996-2004 period.

Hell... since we finally got a united Democratic house, senate, and governor --- but lost Obama to the US Senate --- the Illinois statehouse has been a freakin' mess. I'm only half-kidding when I attribute our current gridlock to the loss of an Obama.

Obama's more than talk - and always has been.

Liam wrote on January 6, 2008 10:35 AM:

I can not stand anyone playing the gender card, be it a Woman or a Man. That is a really divisive tactic, and no better than Bush/Rove playing the Religion card.

Last night Hillary played the gender card in order to divide Women and Men. That is not what an inclusive leader should be about.

She might just as well have handed out signs and bumper stickers that said:

Vote for me, because of the way I Pee.

Anonymous wrote on January 6, 2008 10:36 AM:

John McCain just said something very wise on Meet the Press:

"People can support you, even if they disagree with you, if they feel you are telling them the truth."

The problem with Hillary Clinton is, many many many people do not feel she is telling them what she really thinks or will really do. She is telling them what her pollsters, focus groups and strategists tell her will win her the election. It's no working. Post-Bush, no one wants another dishonest, corporate serving, warmongering president whose primary qualification is family ties.

blackstar wrote on January 6, 2008 10:40 AM:

i like the comments on the focus group. do you people seriously think Frank Luntz was out on the street asking "do you hate Hillary Clinton?! COME ON IN"? that's a pretty serious charge, and is predicated on some pretty serious hatred and dishonesty on the part of Luntz. did you not see the hands go up when he asked how many people had supported Clinton in the past? a large majority of the room. were all of those random people lying, or do you think they were told to do so by Frank Luntz beforehand to make Clinton look bad when he asked his follow-up?

this sort of Paulite-esque paranoia and conspiracy theorizing only makes you seem shrill and more than a bit loony.

random wrote on January 6, 2008 10:40 AM:

blackstar said "And Hillary made the case that really needed be made: that electing the first woman President represents a huge change."

If Hillary was an independent woman who had risen to power on her own merits and accomplisments, I would agree. She is Mrs. Bill Clinton, no more, no less. If she wins, it not a victory for women, but another victory for corporate-fueld nepostism. A loss for democracy and America.

nell wrote on January 6, 2008 10:43 AM:

Everybody loves to hate Senator Clinton. The more you guys bash her, the more I like her.
And she can't play the gender card? Why? Does telling the truth make you uncomfortable? You know that her gender works against her just as Obama's race works against him... most of America still clings to prejudice at least a little.

GMFORD wrote on January 6, 2008 10:45 AM:

Back when Dems thought Clinton was going to get the nomination for sure, I read a lot of comments (everywhere) about how she was the least favorite of Dem candidates. She was too conservative. Online, informal poles on progressive websites like DKos rated her 5th or 6th.

Since Iowa, it looks like Obama has the momentum to beat her. Now, all I read are negative comments about Obama. He is too conservative.

It seems like whoever takes the lead is suddenly the worst possible choice.

As for me, I didn't really want Clinton to win but I would/will accept it. Obama wasn't my second choice but I'm happy to throw my support behind him. He's got the charisma, the ability to energize Dems, Independents and young voters to go to the polls...good enough for me.

puzzled wrote on January 6, 2008 10:50 AM:

Nell said "Everybody loves to hate Senator Clinton."

It's so true. Look at the polls. This nation is rejecting Mrs. Bill Clinton in a big way. Hate may be too strong a term, maybe "dislike her intently/" is better.

Who would have thought she would crash like this, when the media and TPM/EC were promoting her as the inevitable nominee, a flawless campaigner. The trouble is, when voters look at her up close, they don't want her for president.

Liam wrote on January 6, 2008 10:58 AM:

People have a voter's right to not go for Hillary without hating her. Just because I do not find her to be a compelling candidate, why should that give you the right to call me a hater. Yours is the tactics of the fear and smear merchants.

Claiming that people who support someone else must be Hillary haters is sheer nonsense, and a pathetic attempt to muzzle opponents. Should all those who support Hillary automatically be labeled as Haters of Obama, Edwards or Richardson? By the logic of those pushing their Hillary Haters" meme, that must make them haters of someone else, right!

Anonymous wrote on January 6, 2008 11:00 AM:

pataphonic? EC/TPM is anti-Hillary? I think Hillary's campaign approves their topics and headlines. Get real.

Hillary's problem is Hillary.

Edwards for president wrote on January 6, 2008 11:04 AM:

Lutz is a political salesman. The idea that he should have a TV show, an infomercial, if you will, is obscene.

The media is the main player in this race. With all this talk of momentum, as if we were a school do fish. It is picking our president for us.

Edwards for president wrote on January 6, 2008 11:06 AM:

that should be 'school OF fish'

dave wrote on January 6, 2008 11:09 AM:

I just thought Edwards looked mean and the double team (from Edwards perspective) looked premeditated down to the simultaneous blackberry soundbites. If you were able to follow the questions and thread of the discussion, the original snap at Hillary was a nonsequitor.

Hillary's "attack" on Obama that he should have his record analyzed and be judged with the same level of scrutiny that other candidates are -- looks pretty tame compared to "the forces of status quo are going to attack every single time" and "you're likable enough". Were people upset about her comment about voting for your favorite beer buddy? Seems like a reasonable statement in a vacuum.

She defended herself well. Change vs. Status Quo is the theme of the November election, not the primaries.

hello_world wrote on January 6, 2008 11:09 AM:

Wow. I absolutely despise Frank Luntz, but that focus group he held was SO ON THE MONEY! I've spent the last 8 years defending Hillary Clinton against what I felt was exceptionally virulent and unfair criticism from far-right trolls. And in her defense, a lot of why she's divisive and hated nationwide is by no means her doing. But after all that time of taking incoming fire, it's clear that something happened to Hillary. She's become part of what she claims to hate.

I started off pretty much undecided. I liked Obama as an idea, but wasn't sure if he was ready. I liked Biden's foreign policy chops, but didn't feel he had the gravitas to be President. I liked Kucinich's character and ideas, but I didn't fool myself about his running a serious campaign. I thought Richardson was interesting, and took a closer look at him at one point. And finally Hillary, who I figured would get the nomination regardless, and I figured that I didn't have a problem with that. I could understand the nuance that she was trying to cut with her Iraq vote, but the why behind her not acknowledging it as a mistake bugged me. But it was by no means a deal-breaker, in my mind. And again, I defended her when I would come upon someone who flamed her for silly reasons, or claimed that Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton was a valid reason to pass her by.

But these focus group people articulated just about EVERY SINGLE REASON I am now solidly against a Clinton nomination. It clearly comes across as if she feels like she's entitled to the Presidency and anyone standing in her way for any reason needs to be crushed. She's defensive to an extreme in the face of criticism, and clearly hates to be questioned. And most importantly, I don't trust the things that she says. Like the woman there said, I want to try to trust Clinton, but when she opens her mouth, I don't.

In essence, everything that I despise and distrust in the Bush administration, I sense in a potential Clinton II administration. Which is a shame, but it's definitely the truth.

And the woman at the end who said that Hillary "deafens her own ears" was right on the money. It was understandable that Clinton was upset with Edwards' attacking her instead of going after the frontrunner (which was very smart on Edwards' part by the way), and she had the opportunity to score points with her response. But her true anger and bitterness shone through, and was so close to the surface for a moment it surprised me. It was a real moment, and one that reflected Hillary Clinton, the aristocrat, upset at being challenged. It was almost a, "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH" type of moment.

I'm sure it played well to a certain type of voter, but I think that moment alienated way more people than it pulled in. And much like Bush found out, you can't govern if you only reach out to a increasingly smaller group of the electorate.

I can honestly say, I hope NH buries Hillary Clinton.

zonk wrote on January 6, 2008 11:09 AM:

Hillary's problem is Hillary.

I hate to lend any weight to anything from the idiot teevee talking heads, but Chuck Todd actually said something cogent a day or 2 back when he commented on HRC's post-Iowa speech.... that it looked like a "yellowing photo of the 90s".

I don't hate HRC - but I'm not a fan. Truth is - I was no fan of Bill Clinton, either. He was a gifted politician, but I think that --other than keeping the WH out of GOP hands - he didn't do a lot for the Democratic party.

Were the 90s better than the aughts? Sure - but can we drop the idea that they were some magic lala land of happiness?

I've got no desire to replay the 90s, even the best of them.

The truth is, yes -- I, as a Democratic primary voter -- want something new. I want to move forward. I want to turn the page. It may be incredibly unfair to a very accomplished, a very intelligent, a very capable Hillary Clinton -- but I cannot see how any of that happens with a vote for Clinton.

Anonymous wrote on January 6, 2008 11:11 AM:

"Edwards for president" said "The media is the main player in this race."

But thousands and thousands of everyday residents of Iowa and New Hampshire are listening to all the candidates personally, directly. And MOST of them are persuaded to support Obama ENTHUSIASTICALLY not by the media, but by Obama himself. The limit on Obama is he can't see everyone who wants to hear him, the crowds are just too large.

CalD wrote on January 6, 2008 11:11 AM:

Another great headline from Sargent.

RE:

Here's a post-debate focus group by Frank Luntz that finds that Obama won the "change" argument -- and that voters found Hillary to be "dogmatic," "angry, "on the defensive"

Nobody else can coach a focus group like Luntz can. Plain and simple, everything Frank Luntz does is marketing for the Republican party until proven otherwise.

brm wrote on January 6, 2008 11:16 AM:

Frank Luntz
Whether you like him or not
Showed exactly the feeling in NH about Hillary.
I know because I live here
They just cant stand her no matter where I go here.
Just the usual political hacks that owed the Clinton political machine(Arkansas mafia) a favor.

Say your final goodbyes to the Goldwater Girl on Tuesday.
Obama will make history and Hillary will be history

colonpowwow wrote on January 6, 2008 11:18 AM:

Wha!?!

Did I miss something? Are the primaries over and we've crowned Barack Obama as Mister Present . . . uh . . . I mean . . . Mister President already?

Long way to go people. Get some perspective here. Again, I'm glad Obama's made the race very competitive. He's a good man and I'll happily support him if he wins the nomination.

Still - it's a massive "if" at this point, IMO. Obama supporters are not helping themselves talking more trash here, thus steeling the resolve of Clinton-backers. Y'all are talking like New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada, and Super Tuesday are over and that Hillary already blew it.

Wait until after Super Tuesday to show your class by dancing on the grave of a liberal progressive who's championed so many causes that you advocate. I seriously wonder what's wrong with some of you so-called Democrats today. I was able to support Bill Bradley without feeling the need to espouse any blind hatred toward the "establishment, corporate candidate of the Clinton regime," Al Gore.

Anonymous wrote on January 6, 2008 11:19 AM:

hello_world, thanks for that very well stated, interesting, personal post. It well documents the fact that many people who oppose Hillary are not the "haters" she, her campaign and supporters want to believe. Many thoughtful, value-grounded, progressive voters, listen, see, think about and reject her.

Gregor wrote on January 6, 2008 11:19 AM:

The most interesting effect of last night's DEM debate, overall, was that Clinton appeared to be simply one, among four. Nothing notable or impressive to distinguish her. I didn't think she did poorly, and I didn't think she did badly. Yes, she showed some emotions, but, people are a tad too hopped up about that.

On balance, she maintained her NEW position: that of Third Place runner. Which is about all she was going to get anyway, given that she is a candidate without any talent.

The talentless often simply can't see they lack talent, and are baffled as to why attention is drawn to the talented. Trust me: just like Mark Penn had no idea Hillary would lose Iowa right up to Caucus Day, Hillary really has no idea why Obama is beating her. She can be told why. But she can't see it.

In the same way she can't see Obama connecting with voters, she is baffled as to why she is not connecting.

Again, talent.

random wrote on January 6, 2008 11:21 AM:

colonpowwow said

"but but but"

And I say: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Hillary and her attack dogs are history.

teacherken wrote on January 6, 2008 11:23 AM:

I think people are very wrong about Luntz and focus groups. I have been in 4 Luntz focus groups, and the only one where I saw him try to push the group where it didn't want to go was one being done on behalf of either AIPAC or the Israeli government, not clear which. I can tell that he got frustrated because the message that the sponsors - who did come in and talk with us - wanted to get was being rejected by the focus group, and I was one of two people leading the resistance.

The other three included politics, health care and medical reimportation, and energy and the environment. The last two were clearly done for corporate clients, Pharma and a major oil company. But even though he was test marketing messages that he had probably crafted, he did not attempt to lead the group where it didn't want to go.

In the political group, he probed but absolutely did not push the group where they didn't want to go. Nor do I think he did with the focus group of which I have seen a 3.5 minute clip on the NH debate. I think what you saw on that clip is very reflective of a lot of independent voters. A lot of women may have wanted to be for Hillary, but over time she has not worn well with them - and that is because she has spent too much time listening to the Mark Penns and terry McAuliffes of the world and the natural charm and grace she has does not seem to come through to people, either on television, or in many public events: note until recently her refusal to take questions.

little ole jim wrote on January 6, 2008 11:23 AM:

Many of these comments are very disappointing. Am I one of the few democrats left who actually like and respect Obama AND Clinton AND Edwards?

I watched the debate. None of them said anything close to out of bounds. They were all making a legitimate case.

Most of these anti-Clinton comments are juvinile. That was not a defensive performance and she is not "the establishment" by a long shot.

Frank Luntz is a focus group manipulator interested in advancing himself and Republican causes. He is so very bad that it's disappointing that TPM would put up any of his stuff except as parody.

Occasionally it really is a conspiracy and anybody with half a brain can see he stacked the group with anti-Hillary people. Their comments were almost an unbroken litany of Frank Luntz anti-Hillary propaganda. It would be funny except that it's so pathetic.

pdiddy wrote on January 6, 2008 11:24 AM:

I agree with the way Edwards describes the problem facing any agent of change. Obama is very naive to think that rhetoric will overcome the combination of money, media influence and Republican congressional allies enabling corporate interests to frame any policy debate on their terms. Even if elected(a big assumption, given the Republican slime machine), Obama may find it impossible to advance meaningful change through reconciliation. Why would Big Business agree to something not in its interest?

And once again, progressives will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

brm wrote on January 6, 2008 11:24 AM:

colon

I cant wait till Super Tuesday
I want to dance from Tuesday till Super Tuesday

The Goldwater Girl will be history on Tuesday
Celebrate the end of the Bush-Clinton era

Gregor wrote on January 6, 2008 11:31 AM:

This very dark period in US history ushered in by Bush and Company is also a big part of why Democrats orginally huddled under the desk with Hillary Clinton, and are still having trouble summoning the courage to go with the clear winner who will take you all the way there: Obama.

I'm older now but I'll be damned if I get too old to remember what it was like to be young, hot on the chase of a big idea.

All you DEM ninnies need to pour over that Iowa data: look at the turnout among the young people, and independents. And try to imagine yourself coming out from under your desk.

The country is looking for CATHARSIS. The Bush years have drilled you down and made you actually believe no such thing is possible.

Wake up.

Joe wrote on January 6, 2008 11:31 AM:

So did Hillary vote "present" on the Patriot Act? Or the Iraq war resolution?

Nope, she voted "YES!"

Basically, from the minute Bush stole the election the Clintons have been been enabling him to run our country into the ground. Why? So the GOP would like them? Do they think we weren't paying attention?

zonk wrote on January 6, 2008 11:39 AM:

I agree with the way Edwards describes the problem facing any agent of change. Obama is very naive to think that rhetoric will overcome the combination of money, media influence and Republican congressional allies enabling corporate interests to frame any policy debate on their terms. Even if elected(a big assumption, given the Republican slime machine), Obama may find it impossible to advance meaningful change through reconciliation. Why would Big Business agree to something not in its interest?

But the thing is - he's done it before. Underestimate Barack Obama as nothing but a naive pretty face that gives a good speech at your own peril.

For the past year, I've been in Edwards/Obama toss-up territory. Edwards certainly resonates with me -- but I think the very problem you ascribe to Obama, that he won't be able to "get it done" is PRECISELY the reason I ultimately decided on Obama over Edwards. Namely, I don't think Edwards is going to be able to accomplish what I earnestly believe he wants to accomplish.

The fact is - Lincoln, FDR, JFK - yes, even Ronald Reagan - the presidents that have brought us seminal shifts in the political landscape didn't do it by being "fighters". I'm not trying to tag Edwards as 'angry' -- but he's trying to woo voters with a feisty combativeness and that just isn't going to rise beyond the partisans (and yes, I consider MYSELF a partisan).

Lincoln didn't win election and preserve the union by promising to end slavery and teach the south a lesson.

It was FDR - and his message of hope, not Huey Long - that swept the New Deal coalition into power and enacted seismic change in how American government works.

Yes, even Reagan - I'm well aware of the seedy underbelly of kindly grandpa Reagan and his coded racism - even Reagan sold America hope and created a whole class of voters... those "Reagan Democrats".

I'm lining up behind Obama not because I don't trust Edwards or don't like HRC -- I DO trust Edwards and I DO (to some extent) like Hillary. But - I think Obama can not only win an election, but bring about a real shift in the political landscape. I think - 20 years from now - we'll be talking about "Obama Republicans"

colonpowwow wrote on January 6, 2008 11:45 AM:

brm:

Unlike with many other so-called Democrats, I don't wonder too much what's wrong with you. It rhymes with "nexist fig." Calling her "Goldwater Girl(!)", "Mrs. Bill(!)," and then crying "foul" when the sexist nature of this is pointed out?

I can't imagine any Clinton supporter tossing around thinly-veiled racial stereotypes in the way that so many people who should know better toss around such things demeaning Senator Clinton's impressive accomplishments in such a "humorous" manner (wink-wink).

Is it part of your agenda to try and alienate us Clinton supporters?

Well, it won't work. Unlike you, we're too sophisticated and experienced to allow that Naderist type of progressiver-than-thou, divisive BS to cost us another Democrat in the White House.

I guess that means you've won (something, I guess) - so you can start up your tiresome gloating again. It IS all over now, isn't it?

puzzled wrote on January 6, 2008 11:46 AM:

little ole jim said "[Hillary] is not 'the establishment' by a long shot."

That is not just false but absurd. Look at her contribution list and endorsements. Hillary is the personification of establishment politics that must be defeated if the nation is goning to unite, change and move forward.

Anonymous wrote on January 6, 2008 11:48 AM:

colonpowwow, you efforts to bully people into supporting Hillary are mean but increasingly funny. She's History. Choose a Republican with some traction and put your "talents" and values to good use.

colonpowwow wrote on January 6, 2008 11:51 AM:

puzzled said:

"Hillary is the personification of establishment politics that must be defeated . . ."

Yeah. Kinda like that personification of establishment politics and Clinton administration holdover, Al Gore.

puzzled wrote on January 6, 2008 11:56 AM:

After his loss of the presidency in the Sumpreme Court, Al Gore embraced CHANGE, shed the equivocation of a establishment politician and tackled a controversial, but arguably the most important challenge facing mankind. He stopped pretense, found himself and invested his talent, celebrity and influence to great effect, and he is being recognized and celebrated for it. Hillary the Hypocrite would do well to study the case.

Sage wrote on January 6, 2008 11:57 AM:

I'm an Edwards supporter but I think all of our top tier candidates are serious, committed, thoughtful. I am proud and thrilled to feel that I could vote for any of them over the real status quo, the Republicans who have and seem to want to continue to lead us over a cliff on foreign policy, the economy, critical social issues like health care and the safety net, the environment, our Constitution and legal system, etc., etc.

I was incredibly impressed with all of the Democrats' performances last night. I thought Edwards in particular shined. I also agree with him that the principal way we need to change the status quo right now is to take on the entrenched moneyed interest that have a stranglehold on the system. It strikes me that the only way this is ever going to happen is if the politicians stop playing footsie under the table with lobbyists because this undermines their integrity and power to the special interests under the superior control of the public interest.

I will say, however, that I was also extremely impressed last night with Senator Clinton. Mark me in the category of seeing her strong responses not as snippy or any of the other negative, and in my book unfair, characterizations, but rather as impassioned, thorough, and extremely well-reasoned. I agree with Senator Clinton that her record supports the view that she has been a powerful agent for change throughout her career. My problem with Senator Clinton lie with these "triangulation" and dynasty issues. I also have to say, however, that I too detect a note of sexism on the "likeability" questions. I think each of these candidates offers many strengths and a few weaknesses, though far fewer weaknesses than any Republican. I love Edwards' passion, feistiness, and integrity. I am wowed by Obama. He inspires me in ways that no one politician has in many years. Clinton, in my view, is rock-solid, steady, professional, experienced and extremely well-qualified. I am impressed by what I hear from her many of her constituents, that she is the best representative they've ever had. I would also love to see in my lifetime a woman have the chance to lead this country, as I would love to see someone like Obama lead us into a new era where we can begin to heal all the destructive political and social schisms that continue to bedevil us, and as I would love to see someone like Edwards lead us to a new era of economic justice. Frankly, I wish we could have all three. And I hope whoever wins the nomination that there will be an important role for each of them.

Moreover, none of our candidates escape the need for some well-deserved constructive criticism on substantive matters. I confess that I have taken issue with some of Senator Clinton's positions, for example, her vote on Iraq and the recent Kyl-Lieberman legislation on Iran. I also have concerns about this aura that she gives off as the consummate politician. This makes me wonder sometimes where her true loyalties are. And I have concerns about both Obama and Edwards as well, all of which have been well-noted and discussed on this and many other progressive websites.

But when I hear such emphasis placed on factors such as candidate likeability, haircuts, and other, from my perspective, totally superficial and irrelevant factors, it does indeed remind me of the comments I heard from the media about Bush's manliness and good-ole-boy likeability related to that sickening flyboy "Mission Accomplished" stunt and all the other fake positive qualities the conservatives have painted themselves with while we "librals" have been cast with all the poisonous (often femininized) labels and spin. While these perspectives may be "real" in the sense that I know some people see things through these filters, they frankly remind me most of all of the way people saw things and behaved when I was in high school back in the sixties (nor does it seem to be much different for high schools now except the perpetrators and the victims have greater access to deadly weapons.) Honestly, it gives me the willies and makes me wonder what it is going to take for us as a society, as especially for the media, to grow up and begin to deal with our very, very serious real-world problems.

Please forgive me if I come off all-school-marmish or condescending or whatever. I'm a tired, cranky older woman who is scared to death about the future for my beloved country and our government and legal system as I see reflected in the incredibly serious challenges we now face and, far too often, the incredibly vapid level of our political and social discourse.

Liam wrote on January 6, 2008 11:57 AM:

I like all four of the candidates that were in last night's debate. I just happen to prefer Obama as my first choice. That said, I do not hate any of his opponents, and I will support which every one of them gets the nomination.

I am now going to hold off on any more posts until after the Tuesday results are in.

They are all politicians, and they all arrive with pre-determined campaign tactics, so all this rubbish about how Edwards had a predetermined plan of attack last night, and the others were just up there winging it is ludicrous

Would you really want to elect a president that did not use foresight and planning!
.

Anonymous wrote on January 6, 2008 11:58 AM:

Colon

I can't imagine any Clinton supporter tossing around thinly-veiled racial stereotypes in the way that so many people who should know better toss around such things demeaning Senator Clinton's impressive accomplishments in such a "humorous" manner (wink-wink).

You ought to visit hillaryis44.org or even taylormarsh.com to see racist stereotypes.
I mean Taylor called Obama a cannibal.

I can imagine it from what I have seen.

Billy Shaheen or Bob Kerrey
Campaign staffers racist email in NY and Iowa.

Want some more

colonpowwow wrote on January 6, 2008 11:59 AM:

anonymous said:

"Choose a Republican with some traction and put your "talents" and values to good use."

Oooh. Ouch!

Sure. Show me a "Republican" with a 95% plus Senate voting rating from the ADA like Clinton has, and I'll consider him/her.

little ole jim wrote on January 6, 2008 11:59 AM:

puzzled: continue with your case by listing the "establishment" contributors and endorsers and contrasting them with those of Obama. I'll listen to you. Especially if you have evidence that Obama would not accept their support, and/or that his financial supporters are much more progressive than hers by some meaningful definition.

colonpowwow wrote on January 6, 2008 12:03 PM:

I'm sorry, anonymous @ 11:58. I was talking about Clinton and Obama supporters on TPM-EC re tossing around stereotypes by people who should know better. I should have been more clear.

Abdul-Rahim wrote on January 6, 2008 12:03 PM:

"“The truth is, actually, words do inspire,” Mr. Obama said. “Words do help people get involved.” Come on, i'm surprised he didn't choke on his own vomit as he said it. What a pretencious and corny line. As if he could really change the face of American politics, be a Kennedy or a FDR. He may in fact be the best Democratic primary candidate, but that is not saying much.

WCG wrote on January 6, 2008 12:06 PM:

The comments here are really fascinating, aren't they? Almost the best part of this site. I think it's important to remember that primary voters tend to be very partisan, and that political junkies like us are even more partisan yet. Edwards seems to be going after those Democrats who'd rather fight Republicans than get anything accomplished. These people NEED an enemy. Compromise is being a traitor to your cause. But keep in mind that, though this might be popular among primary voters, it will not be popular in the general election. And it is not rational, either, though it might feel good. Heck, I hate, too. After seven years of Bush/Cheney, I'm as filled with hatred as I've ever been. But that's NOT the right direction for our party or our government. It's not the right direction for America. After the past two presidential elections, it's hard to hope again. None of us want our hopes to be dashed. But it seems to me that Barack Obama is really what our country needs right now. If anyone can repair the damage, it's him. (Hillary Clinton, unfortunately, would just guarantee more-of-the-same. Republicans and independents just HATE her. Yeah, it might feel good to stick it to the Republicans as badly as they've stuck it to us for seven years, but it's not good tactics, it's not a good strategy, and it would not be good for our country or the world.)

little ole jim wrote on January 6, 2008 12:11 PM:

The Establishment. Any candidate that, for whatever reasons, appears to have a chance of becoming President will receive contributions from people who could be call "establishment".

I recently received email from a Ron Paul supporter which laid out the case that Democrats are the same as Republicans because former Bush supporters were backing some Democrats. This can be twisted all out of proportion.

For example, see http://www.nysun.com/article/53420

You will read about a former Bush Pioneer who now backs Obama. Evidence that Obama is selling out the "the establishment"? Hardly.

You will also read about a former Bush supporter now contributing to Clinton. Big deal.

If Ron Paul had a real chance, he would be receiving such contributions.

CalD wrote on January 6, 2008 12:14 PM:

brm,

Do you have any idea who Frank Luntz is? Are you blissfully unaware of the amount of damage he has already done to this country? There is simply no way Republicans could ever have gotten away with half the shit they've pulled in the last decade or so without Luntz's brilliant framing.

As for Luntz's debate focus groups, note that CNN ran their own focus group for last debate in Iowa, run by moderater without and obvious agenda of his own. The consensus of the CNN group, along with just about everyone else who watched the debate was that if there was a winner, it had to be John Edwards and several said they were leaning more toward Clinton as a result of her performance. The Luntz, conversely, thought Obama had outdone Edwards handily and if you watch Lunt's rather remarkable performance in the few segments the showed on air of his interactions with the group, it's really no mystery why.

In honest market research, focus group leaders are at great pains to avoid telegraphing their own preferences to group participants. That's the single most important thing they have to do because it's a well known phenomenon that people will tend to give you the answer that they think you want to hear if you're not very careful. Focus group research got a very bad reputation for being unreliable before researchers figured that out. But if you watch Luntz interacting with the Fox focus groups he's actually very brazen about it. I watched him in Iowa and he was actually referring to Barack Obama as "'bama" and always took on a very gentle tone of voice when he spoke of him. He frankly could not have been more obvious if he had showed up wearing an "I (heart) 'bama!" T-shirt.

But fear not, once the primaries are behind us you can rest assured that whoever the Republican candidate is will find Luntz's groups to be as sympathetic an audience as Obama does now. They sure did heart George W. Bush in the last two campaigns.

Obamagrl wrote on January 6, 2008 12:23 PM:

Obama theme song?

http://xpatriatealanjlipman.blogspot.com/

RonK, Seattle wrote on January 6, 2008 12:23 PM:

The comparison was not Obama to Bush. It was election 2000 and 2004 to election 2008.

Media, public, and Senator Obama have adopted a very similar framing of the decision process. "What will you do, how will you do it, and how do we know?" has been tuned out in favor of congeniality, natural judgment, abandonment of prevailing conflict models (recall "compassionate conservatism"), and a gauzy vision of smiley-faced inclusiveness.

The comparison is apt, and deserving of closer consideration.

Wordie wrote on January 6, 2008 12:26 PM:

My first response to this post is: Frank Luntz???

But putting that aside for a moment, last night's debate seemed to be a good one, in which the candidates had a chance to delineate their differences on substantive issues. I think they all did well - even Clinton, who gave a good comeback to Edwards. The anger seemed appropriate. Although Charlie Gibson's question about college professor's earnings was off-base, in general the questions were vastly superior to the ones we got from Wolf Blitzer, and Gibson seemed to allow each of the candidates roughly equal time (admittedly easier to do with only four on the stage).

All that said, I think that Edwards won the debate and did an excellent job of making his case. I haven't decided whether to support Edwards or Obama, but Edwards' committment to have absolutely no lobbyists in his administration definitely got my attention.

Anonymous wrote on January 6, 2008 12:30 PM:

Sage,

In analyzing Hillary's troubles, it is important, I think, to draw a clear distinction between "likeability" and "trust." Some of what the media is call "dislike" of Hillary, is more fundabmentally distrust of her.

Many voters, including some of her supporters, do not rank her highly on honesty. Particularly after a President lied us into a war (with Hillary's sanction), the nation is likely to scrutinize trust closely in this election. Given the Clintons' well earned reputation for dishonesty, and Hillary's own misrepresentations throughout the campaign, trust of Hillary will be a big hurdle for voters.

Anonymous wrote on January 6, 2008 12:35 PM:

CalD said "honest market research"

That is an oxymoron.

kucinich for prez wrote on January 6, 2008 12:36 PM:

beware of charisma

Erik wrote on January 6, 2008 12:39 PM:

To put it bluntly, Hillary comes off as a b----. But that's OK. Her problem is that she doesn't come off as an honest one.

Volvo Liberal wrote on January 6, 2008 12:40 PM:

Hate to pimp my diary at another site, but this reflects my feeling and many others similar to me....The end of the Clinton Political Era is here...For a die-hard Clintonite like myself, it is a hard reality to accept. But one we must...it is time to move on....please join the fray:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/5/162058/4971/1019/431216

brm wrote on January 6, 2008 12:43 PM:

brm,

Do you have any idea who Frank Luntz is?

Sure I know who he is. And I stated it from the start. I based my opinion on personal interactions with hundreds of people I meet daily here in NH. Most have that opinion of Hillary.

Please dont bring up the Clinton News Network(CNN) as an example of impartiality

Edwards for president wrote on January 6, 2008 12:50 PM:

We need an election channel that will report on the election without comment. The idea of these corporations being allowed to choose the candidates is very undemocratic.

Camorrista wrote on January 6, 2008 12:52 PM:

Given the tone and language of many of the responses to this post, it might be time for you to run a calendar of Senator Clinton's menstrual cycle.

That way, you could satisfy all her critics. One group could attack her for (a) the smell of her blood; (b) the viscosity of her blood; (c) and the color of her blood.

Another group could attack her (she's cold, she's manipulative, she's incompetent, she's
calculating) for even having the effrontery to bleed, thus taking the spolight away from younger, poorer and more authentic bleeders.

And in the event that Senator Clinton has reached menopause, another group could attack her for being too old, ugly and dessicated to bleed at all.

The calendar would save a huge amount of bandwidth yet still allow Senator
Clinton's critics to achieve their twisted little orgasms.

baschenis wrote on January 6, 2008 12:56 PM:

blackstar says: "anyone who doesn't believe Obama is capable of presenting real change... simply hasn't taken the time to look up his history or positions. period."
Consider this: "Since declaring for President, this person has called Social Security a 'crisis', attacked trial lawyers, associated unapologetically with vicious homophobes, portrayed Gore and Kerry as excessively polarizing losers, boasted as his central achievement an irrelevant ethics bill, ran against the DC establishment while taking huge amounts of cash from DC, undermined Ned Lamont in 2006, criticized NAFTA while voting for a NAFTA-style trade agreement, compiled opposition research on the most effective liberal pundit in the country, refused to promise that American troops would be out of Iraq by 2013, and endorsed the central plank of the Bush-Cheney foreign policy doctrine, the war on terror." http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3002

The idea that progressive change is going to come in this country--dominated in every sphere by the conservative movement, through bipartisanship or some kind of post partisan approach is a terrible, counterproductive delusion.

I think anyone who thinks Obama represents real change simply hasn't taken the time to look up history.

CalD wrote on January 6, 2008 1:03 PM:

Anonymous,

No, "honest marketing" might arguably be an oxymoron in many cases but effective marketing requires accurate information and accurate information can only come from honest research. When people first tried to use focus groups for market research, results were wildly mixed. Back in the 80s they used to say of focus group research that there's often a big difference between what people will buy and what they will say they will buy. But in other cases it could work great.

When marketers started studying the problem they found that the most unreliable results came from groups run by people with a stake in the outcome -- something any psychologist who had ever conducted an experiment could have told them off the top of their head. Since then, more disciplined techniques and the advent of third-party research firms with no stake of their own in the research results have greatly improved the reliability of focus group research as a predictor of consumer behavior...

...unless of course there were some reason you wanted to skew the results, something an experienced group leader could easily do if they wanted, I expect.

little ole jim wrote on January 6, 2008 1:07 PM:

Volvo Liberal: I clicked your link, read your comments. You could be right about all this, but it's still funny to me. For instance, your following sentence:

In 1992, Bill was the candidate of change. It was time for new leadership. Today, the time is not right for another Clinton. And everybody, more or less, knows it...Win or lose, it is time for something new. It is not something that can be necessarily quantified, measured or understood rationally. It is just something you know in your heart and soul.

I can only guess that I don't suffer from this sort of fatigue because I've never been "in love" with any politicians. When it comes to politics, I am not ready to separate my heart and soul from rationality, quatification, etc..

Richard L. Adlof wrote on January 6, 2008 1:14 PM:

I hate how the Republicans keep excluding Hillary from their debates and forcing her to debate the icky Demoncrats cuz she's a girlie girl . . .

CalD wrote on January 6, 2008 1:15 PM:

Wordie wrote:

My first response to this post is: Frank Luntz??? ...

Ever heard of:

the "Contract with America?"

"Partial Birth Abortion?"

the "Death Tax?"

"9/11 Changed Everything?"

"Personal Accounts" (a.k.a. Social Security privatization)?

“Clear Skies” (Bush's gutting of air pollution regulations)?

“Healthy Forests” (give-aways to timber interests)?

That's a only short list of some of Luntz's greatest hits. Just go google him if you want more.

Pigboy wrote on January 6, 2008 1:24 PM:

All of the candidates come across as orders of magnitude better than their Repubican counterparts. Sen. Clinton is obviously a qualified, determined, knowledgeable candidate, but the debate did expose some of her weaknesses. She rose like a carp to Edwards' bait, which was a tactic that she should have expected knowing that Edwards needs to kill her off to be viable. It was a tried and true tactic from a very good trial lawyer, and it worked. Sen. Clinton is no doubt a great person and should be lauded for her support of progressive causes, but her argument about working for 35 years to bring about change is a nonstarter because, at the bottom line, she and her cohorts failed to overcome the Republican machine (she can blame her husband for that). Remember folks, we're coming off 8 years of GWB, and we can't afford a rerun of the 90's.

The real debate is how change can best come about, how can you put a stake in the heart of Nixonian/Cheney Republicanism. Is it calm cajolery and soaring oratory (Obama), or is it happy class warrior (Edwards)? Honestly, I don't know which is more effective, but I would like to see the primary process work that out, instead of diversion into whether or not people like Hillary as a person. She's probably a fine person, but who cares?

Presidential politics is largely about class, and if you're not talking about class, you lose. In this respect, Obama and Edwards have the most compelling narratives. Sen. Clinton doesn't have such a narrative -- she's not Bill. She's born of privilege and has progressive ideals. That's what Edwards was getting at with the "this is personal" stuff.

Obama's style is impressive, but I wonder if it is more suited to the legislative branch. Americans tend to like presidents with a good bit of fight in them. He has a presidential bearing, but he let Edwards defend him, and that may have been a tactical mistake. That said, he has an amazing way of inspiring the politically disconnected. I kind of wish Hillary would get out of the way and let Obama and Edwards play this out, because I think the Edwards camp's spin about "change winning" is essentially correct. Sen. Clinton needs to be where Al Gore is, and she's nowhere close. In my book, that makes her less relevant and, ultimately, an obstacle to real change.

Shoes4Industry wrote on January 6, 2008 1:29 PM:

Hillary = Toast.

vena wrote on January 6, 2008 2:02 PM:

The best part of last night was watching the Repubs try to come up with something to say about Obama. They had nothing and two of them(Huck and Paul), couldn't even say anything bad about him. Romney as usual adopted Obama's message, Thompson called him a liberal(way to state the obvious Mr. Law&Order), Giuliani called him inexperienced as did McCain. That was it. It was a thrill to watch.

Anonymous wrote on January 6, 2008 2:16 PM:

I think anyone who thinks Obama represents real change simply hasn't taken the time to look up history.

History didn't start in 1994, either.

You have to have faith that Obama is the harbinger of a new era - a real transitional politician like a Lincoln, a Roosevelt (either of 'em), a Kennedy, or a Reagan.

I do.

I'm in.

Ni Daye wrote on January 6, 2008 2:36 PM:

Anon - your faith can very likely be wishful thinking. Embrace for brutal awakening! Please don't screw up this country with your emotional decisions. It is unfair for Obama to win with 33% overall vote that is supported by 67% of youth vote. You may be the future but also the most immature bunch. In your young ages, you don't value experience. many of you may not even have a chance to interview for a real job yet. Many of young people have the "experience" of being rejected for a job asking for some experience. You certainly think you are treated unfairly and you think who need experience.

But any successful corporations will tell you experience counts! do you think a fortune 500 will hire an employee from a corner store who talks a good game?

Anonymous wrote on January 6, 2008 2:56 PM:

your faith can very likely be wishful thinking. Embrace for brutal awakening! Please don't screw up this country with your emotional decisions. It is unfair for Obama to win with 33% overall vote that is supported by 67% of youth vote. You may be the future but also the most immature bunch. In your young ages, you don't value experience. many of you may not even have a chance to interview for a realy job yet. Many of young people have the "experience" of being rejected for a job asking for some experience. You certainly think you are treated unfairly and you think who need experience.

But any successful corporations will tell you experience counts! do you think a fortune 500 will hire an employee from a corner store who talks a good game?

You're kidding right?

Where did I post my age?

I'd lay even money I'm older than YOU (47 for the record).

I've seen the irrational exuberance of youth, but I also know a phenomenon when I see it.

I really and truly am sorry for John Edwards because I like him an awful lot -- been a good long time since the Democrats truly used some good old fashioned populism -- but I'm ready to put the 90s as behind me as I was 80s and 70s.

...BTW - I'd add - doing a bit of interviewing and hiring myself - you're absolutely right. I look very closely at experience - but only a fool uses "experience" as an absolute requirement. You don't pass up truly exceptional candidates. They don't come around too often, but on that rare occasion you do -- you snap 'em up.

roo_P wrote on January 6, 2008 2:59 PM:

Good commentary, for the most part. Here are my impressions:

* I doubt any of us was swayed either way and I would not bet on undecideds having been either.

* Clinton blatantly took credit for Bill Clinton's successes, such as they were, in the 90's. I admire a man with a subtle wit, and Obama did point out that it was BILL Clinton who did this. Here though, he and Edwards should have just called her on it directly instead of finessing around (and perhaps mention that Bill is term-limited.)

* Obama pushed the meta-narrative of people wanting change too much. It is a valid point, sure, and although I am fairly confident that he knows where the line goes, there is a small risk of seeming to concentrate on that over substance. Overall he did OK.

* Edwards was passionate, very much so. I was put off by the fact that he was passionate about one thing, though. You cannot answer an Iraq question just by talking about special interests and corporations and he was dangerously close to doing so. (Although of course there is a valid link to be made too.)

* Clinton did well in her presentation, I liked her better than in the previous debates. I remain wary, however, on substance. She still claims experience without specifics and falls into the pattern of attacking something other than issues too often compared to the other three.

* Richardson got a nice amount of time, too, and he was able to make his case pretty well (although he must be careful that his delivery does not veer into the petulant.) I think Richardson was actually the one that may have been able to best sway voters his way.

* It seems a lot of the press was dividing it as Obama and Edwards vs. Clinton and Richardson but interestingly, Richardson and Obama found common ground against Edwards and Clinton on how to best achieve change. He actually got Edwards to try to explain how he is both going to fight and work together at the same time which did not come out very well.

GMFORD wrote on January 6, 2008 3:11 PM:

Experience doesn't win elections, charisma does. Bill had it, Hillary doesn't. Those of us who are political junkies slice and dice each candidate down to the cellular level but in the GE, the most charismatic candidate will win.

zonk wrote on January 6, 2008 3:24 PM:

Experience doesn't win elections, charisma does. Bill had it, Hillary doesn't. Those of us who are political junkies slice and dice each candidate down to the cellular level but in the GE, the most charismatic candidate will win.

Yeah, I think that about sums it up for me.

Most folks just don't have the passion on the nuts and bolts of our government and its players. An awful lot of GE voters aren't even going to know who Scooter Libby is - much less care to the extent that I think he belongs in prison... neither do they care to the extent a Dittohead thinks he should have never been convicted.

I spent the last 6 months wavering from the Obama bandwagon because I was LOOKING for a reason not to believe... he's spoken in GOP frames... his health care plan is the least ambitious... he's not a full throated attack dog...

But in the end, trust me.

You'll be much happier when you just accept that, for a change, the guy with charisma coming out of his ears - the guy that even reliable GOP voters look at and say "Hmmm... I kinda like this guy" -- for a change, he's not only a Democrat -- but he's actually a rather liberal Democrat.

Be happy.

20 years from now, we'll be talking about how we hang on to those "Obama Republicans".

pigboy wrote on January 6, 2008 3:42 PM:

This "experience" argument is pointless. Sen. Clinton does not have that much experience or, more specifically, experience that matters all that much. She wasn't president from 1992-2000 -- her husband was. "Being there" is not the same as actually having the experience. She's where she is largely because of being married to a former president. She would have never been elected senator in New York without that name recognition. No knock on her as a person or her talent, but she might be a relatively obscure lawyer if she had not been married to Bill Clinton.

I'm tired of her trotting out her "experience," because it really is Bill Clinton's legacy she's claiming. To use a metaphor previously applied to a current occupant of the White House, she's woken up on third base thinking she hit a triple. Arguably, Obama and Edwards have more of the kind of experience that matters. Obama has built a wildly successful political career starting in the world of bare knuckle city and state politics - on his own. Edwards was one of the country's most successful trial lawyers and got himself elected to the Senate as a relative unknown running in his first race. She's just not that kind of talent. And no, this isn't sexism, I'd vote for host of other female dems over Clinton in a heartbeat. For example, if I wanted an "experienced" female legislator, I'd pick Feinstein, Boxer or Pelosi, or, if you want an experienced executive, Napolitano or Sibelius. I'm sure there are plenty of others. Hillary Clinton is merely a celebrity.

roo_P wrote on January 6, 2008 3:44 PM:

Ni Daye,

Your argument is typically bizarre, not the least because you are completely misrepresenting Obama's constituency (Obama only starts losing support at 45+ years and still enjoys a fair bit even among the older crowd.)

If you allow me, though, here is the counterargument:

The old people screwed this country up. It is about time that the young who have to live with the consequences of your actions long after you are gone are standing up for themselves.

phenomonous wrote on January 6, 2008 3:52 PM:

Edwards and Obama, the kissing couple that were holding hands under the table

So sexism is okay for HRC supporters, I gather? Or is that just mere homophobism? Or just a really infantile sense of humor? Either way, sounds like you've picked a candidate who mirrors your own limitations. Good luck with that.

Chris wrote on January 6, 2008 4:26 PM:

I agree with the way Edwards describes the problem facing any agent of change. Obama is very naive to think that rhetoric will overcome the combination of money, media influence and Republican congressional allies enabling corporate interests to frame any policy debate on their terms.

You're right, pdiddy, that would be incredibly naive if he thought that. But he doesn't. Senator Obama isn't a fool and knows precisely what he is up against. The majority he is building is not there simply to help him to get into office, he intends to keep using it once there.

There is a very interesting set of videos on barackobama.com filmed during a speech and q&a session at Google where this exact subject came up and when asked how he intended to defeat the special and corporate interests he said "Shame". Our politicians are a craven and cowardly lot by and large but they can't get where they are without us.

The problem is we are more interested in buying a new trinket or what the latest goings on are with Britney and Paris. This needs to change and with Senator Obama's help it will. He wants to build a real, active, passonate majority that will not only elect him but continue to work for him once in office. To call and write and email their representatives and shame them into finally doing what needs to be done.

I am a 32 year old, fairly disenfranchised independant voter who has seriously been wondering if this experiment called America is a dismal failure. I think I have just enough hope left in me to see this through, I'm onboard the Obama train.

Big River Bandido wrote on January 6, 2008 4:31 PM:

Re: Luntz

The Republicans have been trying, for months now, to set up the expectations game that Clinton would be the Democratic nominee. One of my cousins, a right-wing loony if there ever was one, attempted to get me to opine this summer on whether Hillary would win in November! Recognizing this as hopeful thinking on his part, I did not rise to the bait. But in fact, I believe that's what the Republicans are desperately hoping for. Demonizing the Clintons is the one card they have left, the magic bullet that will cause all their old-time donors' wallets to open again, the Hail Mary play that maybe, just might let them extend their political machine and buy their party 4 years to think of how they'll get us out of the mess they've gotten us into.

All this makes perfect sense, if you are a Republican. Most of the rest of us, however, recognize this for the same addled "thinking" that led to Iraq and Katrina.

Seen in that light, Luntz' "bias" doesn't quite add up.

llywrch wrote on January 6, 2008 5:15 PM:

Sparky said it best, way back at the top: "Enough aristocracy in this country." All of this talk about Hillary being "cold" or "distant" is simply code for the perception that many people see her as creating a Bush-Clinton lock on the US government, that is friendly to the most wealthy & at best indifferent to everyone else.

What is worse is that she had several years as a Senator to disprove this perception; instead, she spent those years preparing to run in 2008.

Geoff

zk0sm0 wrote on January 6, 2008 5:55 PM:

responding to: I agree with the way Edwards describes the problem facing any agent of change. Obama is very naive to think that rhetoric will overcome the combination of money, media influence and Republican congressional allies...

zonk wrote on January 6, 2008 11:39 AM:

But the thing is - he's done it before.

oh really? do you have any examples of all these great accomplishments of obama?

the truth is obama has never accomplished anything of any real magnitude as 'an agent of change'. his successes as a community organizer/politician were/are very modest.

obama's greatest accomplishments have been winning elections by generating enthusiastic electoral support. not something to be sneezed at to be sure, but not the same thing as causing real change on significant scale.

Anonymouse wrote on January 6, 2008 6:53 PM:

Just curious, but WTF is Frank Luntz really doing in New Hampshire?

I wouldn't trust that man (or any situation he was able to craft beforehand) to tell me the sky was blue.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 6, 2008 7:36 PM:

Gosh, for what little my opinion is worth, I thought that Sen Obama did fine (he really only needed not to say anything stupid, and he did not), but it was hardly his greatest debate performance. He is usually quite "nimble" (as it were) but last night he seemed very tired.

To my eye, Sen Clinton seemed tired also, but less affected by the fatigue. She actually impressed me, which is really saying something, given that I am an Obama man through and through.

I hate to say this, for fear of the reaction that it will provoke among the Edwards supporters, but Sen Edwards seemed rather plastic to me. He brought everything back to working in a mill, which seemed false and forced. Mind you, I really like Sen Edwards as a candidate, so I will hardly hold last night against him, but I am unable to credit the many glowing reviews of his performance which I have read.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 6, 2008 7:39 PM:

I was, however, fascinated by the tag-team that Edwards and Obama ran. What is the game there? Does Edwards think that if he can knock Clinton out of the running early he is the best one positioned to pick up her leavings (given the deep antipathy many of them presently bear towards Obama)? Or is he just angling for the #2 slot on an Obama ticket?

Also I would like to agree with the claim that our debate showed how vastly superior our candidates are to the other party's. This is going to be a great election season for this country, and the only question at this point is whether it is going to be simply great or super great.

kucinich for prez wrote on January 6, 2008 8:25 PM:

Racism is still alive and well in the US. Nobody's proud of it anymore, but I think in the privacy of a voting booth [as opposed to a public caucus], it could rear its ugly head. The Republicans know this, and combined with Obama's inexperience, figure he's beatable. That's why there's so much money flowing to him.

Post a comment

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