I agree. This is central to the governing approach of both candidates.

Hillary comes off, to me, as being very much like a student of Karl Rove when she talks like that.

I was surprised to Obama call her on that so clearly and she really had no answer for it. Bad moment for her.

I knew that desperate line of Hillary's would come back to bite her in the ass and I think Obama's statement after hers was restrained but appropriate in its admonishment. And I say this as a Hillary supporter. At least she didn't try to deny she said it.

Some of the MSNBC crowd seem to think Hillary was the clear winner. I think she did fine for the most part but this was a consensus minded debate where extra points are won for style and Obama probably won this one.

You probably couldn't ask for a moment that contrasts the candidates as well as this one did.

Indeed not, and it only served to reinforce my choice. Part of why I support Obama is that I find this mindless fearmongering so deleterious to the commonweal. Sen Clinton's remarks in response to this question were essentially of the same nature as Bush/Rove approach in the last campaign - scare people into believing that they are in terrible danger and only you can save them. The reality is that no one knows when next we will be struck or by whom. As such, by focussing so relentlessly on the prospect of another Al Qaeda attack we ignore other pressing matters of just as great concern, and leave ourselves vulnerably to a million other equally eventualities which are every bit as disasterous as another 9/11. This approach is not healthy and Sen Clinton's willingness to perpetuate it does her no credit.

There was much else in this debate that she said that really impressed me, but this question definitely showed Obama in the better light (at least in my opinion).

Awe, they played nice.

Why doesn't Chris Matthews just leave?

Matthews is full of it -- there was no "power play." If anything, I think HRC was moderately helped by the pure geography of being placed in the center of the table. Olbermann, who often has to call Matthews on his B.S., was being diplomatic. There is an obvious tension between the two (KO has no respect for CM), and to his credit Olbermann let Matthews blow his hot air before getting on with a more sensible discussion. If anyone benefited, I think it was Edwards, who got some valuable extra air time. Otherwise, a three-way draw.

I think it's a simple case of Hillary continuing to learn the wrong lessons. The lesson she learned from the Bush years about terrorism is that fear wins elections.

If you want change. Specific change, and not someone who just uses the word, 'change' vote Kucinich. Don't be afraid. Ignore the big media. Vote with your heart. Media opposition is no reason to change your vote.

Tweety is just trying some reverse psychology. He figures if being gleeful and ugly about her loss in Iowa and her NH debate performance pissed off all the undecided women enough to go out and vote for her that maybe praising her will have the opposite effect.

Of course, when it's the weak minded fool trying to pull the Jedi mind trick, there's not usually much in the way of results.

Is Matthews schizo? In the weekend before the NH primary he was burying her when she was outcampaigning the others.

Tonight he declares her the winner and talks about her being on her way to the presidency when she had only a fair night and Obama had a very good night.

I thought Obama was most impressive overall, after he quit harping on lobbyists so much. Ok , we get it, tell me something new. And he did.

I do agree with the MSNBC crowd on one thing, and that Hillary helped herself more in Nevada than the others did. No one can beat her on the details, and that seems to help her in the closing days of a campaign.

I happen to really like Edwards but it is hard to see what he offers that the others don't.

Why is Matthews pushing this 'Hillary is acting like the nominee' thing? I didn't see that at all. Now he's trying to get the surrogates fighting because the candidates wouldn't.

I thought it was a good debate. I found it interesting that they turned their fire on Bush, rather than on each other, which was a definite step forward for the overall campaign, rather than getting stuck in the stupid mire of the past few days. It was nice to see our candidates remember what this campaign is really all about.

I lean to Obama as the overall winner,since he seemed more calm and displayed some nice touches of humor. Plus, I loved his answer on the gun question with the "two realities" response. But Hillary and Edwards did well too, especially Edwards, who really seemed to get back in the game tonight.

Well I guess Axelrod just pushed send on the Obama nasty-gram for this debate. Got that Obama people? Your new word of the day is Politics of Fear®.

The replay of the debate will be broadcast again at 12 AM EST. It appears that some posters need to view it again. Aside from the first 20 minutes where MSNBC continued its effort to stir the muck and came off looking like ass holes, the balance provided an intimate look at the candidates not seen in other debate formats. Americans really saw the difference between style and substance and my guess is the latter will win out.

Reading the comments here I'm sort of glad I can't access the post debate feed online. Ugh. Tweety makes me want to blow a gasket sometimes.

How many of you live in NYC or were here on 9/11??? Hillary was right on!!! Terrorism is part of our life and we need someone who can deal with it. Hillary is that person. Anyone who has travelled to London, Madrid, Paris or just about anywhere knows how serious the threat of terrorism is. Obama is naive to deny this.

the MSM's Dem 'frontrunners' health care plan is to force us all to buy it from insurance companies. The single payer plan of Kucinich's is far better. He is working NOW to end the war. The 'frontrunners' don't know if we'll be out by 2013. What do you people see in these wimps?

Greg DeLassus wrote:

"There was much else in this debate that she said that really impressed me, but this question definitely showed Obama in the better light (at least in my opinion)."

Agreed. And his restrained but thoughtful response criticizing the sin but refusing to criticize the sinner was a stature building moment.

So far, I'm still for Hillary, but I have three weeks before I have to make my voting decision.

best moment was when obama called clinton's fearmongering for what it was. second-best moment was when clinton asked obama to join her in trying to get bush to pull out the troops, which emphasized edwards' current unemployed status.

the placement and lighting did her no favors, just made her look old. but glad they all managed to keep the debate civil.

winner: democrats
loser: msnbc's russert and matthews

Chris Matthews is so lost it's not even funny. I was undecided before watching the debate tonight but after listening to the candidates I will vote for Senator Barack Obama. Not only were his ideas most sound, he seems to have had the better judgment in the past on important issues. Honestly, I trust him most with my children's future.

I think ordinary voters will walk away thinking that Obama was the more human. He was humorous and the only one able to honestly admit mistakes and show enough comfort in his own skin to discuss them forthrightly. Hillary was relentlessly on message, but I think voters have better radar for that now. One thing underreported is that American Idol's premiere was on, so this debate may not have been watched a lot. Obama had all of the little humor moments to himself tonight.

P.S. Hillary flat out lied when she said that Bob Johnson admitted his comments were "out of bounds." He admitted to no such thing. The fact-checkers may get to this by tomorrow a.m., which could tarnish her performance.

And may I point out, unlike Greg Sergeant's recent distorting headline. Obama wants his campaign run ethically. When one of his over zelous campain workers puts out a memo, he personally takes responsibility for it, although it did not come from him directly. He did not race played at all.

But Hillary would not take the same position on the Bob Johnson statement and did all she could to get around it. The guy was speaking in great degrading tones at a HILLARY EVENT to great applause.

Let me tell you. I can tell who has more class right away. Also I know who is going to make government transparent unlike the backroom deals and half truths the Clinton's obviously prefer.

After they got the race/gender discussion out of the way, I thought the whole debate was pretty good for all the candidates. I call a 3-way tie, as I liked some answers and disliked some answers from each one. If only we could take the best parts of each and discard the worst, we could then have our ideal candidate. Unfortunately, this is real life folks.

Hillary was relentlessly on message, but I think voters have better radar for that now.

Is this meant as a critique? If by "on message" you mean "possessed of the discipline and organization of thought to communicate effectively the points she thinks make her best case" then I agree, but I saw this as credit to her, not a point against her. I am an Obama supporter (sticker on my car, sign in my yard, canvassing in my neighborhood, etc) but I thought that she did a fine job tonight. They all did. All of them sounded very well informed and showed that they are all well qualified to lead this nation (much more so than the competition).

Great shot on MSNBC just now. Pat Buchanan was talking about Mitt Romney and they split the screen into four panes so that you could Kieth Olbermann, Racheal Maddow and Chris Matthews all laughing at him in real time.

Who knows what goes thru Tweety's mind? I'm with Josh on this. Tweety wasn't watching the same debate as I was.

I think they all did well. Loved the approach to substance. Thank you.

I did think Obama looked like he was in pain. He is a much better speaker than debater.

The MSNBC talking heads all agreed Hillary was back to her frontrunner persona. She was OK tonight, but I liked her better when she was on the ropes and fighting for her life.

I am so amazed to see people care about what MSNBC pundits say, voters will ultimately decide not MSNBC. Did you all forgot NH? Or MI? All pundits were pointing at McCain win or at least pushing at his win but it did not happen and I think voters in NV have already made up their minds of who they will caucus for so it does not really matter what pundits think or say. That's my opinion.

Was there any mention of bringing troops out of Iraq? Maybe I missed it. How about impeachment? Single payer healthcare? Military spending? Just what did they talk about?

Greg Sergeant,

I would like to thank you for posting a headline that is not completely slanted in anti-obama rhetoric. Thanks for putting your "real" journalist hat on. Keep it up.

Oooops, sorry was mistaken. Just saw the Obama cocky article, and the Obama "pushing race" article.

Never Mind

I give it to Obama.

His ability to stay on message and show clear vision was evident. He also demonstrated mastery of the issues.

Hillary was fine, but rememember, she is sooooo polarizing.

I would like competence and the ability to change the tone of our national politics.

What's up with MSNBC?

Quick history lesson for folks who think that Obama is naive when it comes to terrorism:

From ages 6-10 1967-72, Obama lived in Indonesia. This was the environment at the time (from Wikepedia)
"Sukarno moved from democracy towards authoritarianism, and maintained his power base by balancing the opposing forces of the Military, Islam, and the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI).[24] An attempted coup on 30 September 1965 was countered by the army, who led a violent anti-communist purge, during which the PKI was blamed for the coup and effectively destroyed.[25] Between 500,000 and one million people were killed.[26] The head of the military, General Suharto, out-maneuvered the politically weakened Sukarno, and was formally appointed president in March 1968. His New Order administration[27] was supported by the US government,[28] and encouraged foreign investment in Indonesia, which was a major factor in the subsequent three decades of substantial economic growth[29]"

Barack's step-father was called back rom his studies in Hawaii to Indonesia in 1966 during a government crack down that saw thousands of students jailed or conscripted (what happened to his step-father).

So as folks decide to play off Obama as some naive dreamer, keep in mind that 30 years before 9/11 he was growing up in the midst of a totalitarian, violent regime in an Islamic nation.

At the fear of sounding hollier than though, it is amazing how the very same Hillary supporters who rail day in and day out about Obama not being vetted have failed to do any due-diligence into the man. Goodness, he's written an autobiography (published in the mid-90s after he became the first African America editor of the Harvard Law Review) and a political manifesto published after his Senate election.

A rule of thumb - before you use a campaign talking point in an argument, thoroughly research it and make sure it is a conclusion that you actually agree with.

Eager to turn the page, the candidates tonight did everything they could to focus on substantive issues. If the ABC debate of January 5th allowed viewers to get a clear sense of where candidates stood on process, tonight featured the most policy-oriented discussions we have seen in quite some time, and the candidates avoided high-profile clashes.

This is not the ideal recipe for fireworks and catchy headlines, but it was the only way for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton -- both of whom have a lot to lose in the recent polemics on race -- to move on. And it made for a debate that highlighted Democratic unity in the face of the Republican bickering that has taken place in recent debates.

Check Campaign Diaries's full analysis here.

HRC deflected from the thrust of the question. The intent of the question, IMO, was to contrast (really no contrast to my way of thinking) Bush/Rove w/ making a terrorism play the night before the NH primary. It was about the timing of her statement-not the substance but she answered about the substance.
I was waiting the hear a reply about the timing but she dodged and I cannot believe she missed the true intent of the question. She just didn't want to address it and that says something important: A) she's being disingenuos B) She is likely to do it again.
I'm surprised no one else, either the candidates or the moderators, called her directly on that but Obama had a nice rebuttal that I think managed to subtly link her w/ Bush/Rove...

Jorge: "So as folks decide to play off Obama as some naive dreamer, keep in mind that 30 years before 9/11 he was growing up in the midst of a totalitarian, violent regime in an Islamic nation."

While the events of youth can and do influence one's outlook later in life, I won't buy into your argument that Barack Obama's childhood in Indonesia should count as some sort of definitive foreign policy experience, any more than I would believe the zany Republican wackadoodles who use those same elementary school years to invoke the ludicrous spectre of an Islamic "Manchurian Candidate" living within our midst.

Suffice, then, for me to say that when it comes to common sense, Sen. Obama is most certainly nobody's fool, quite unlike George W. Bush and all those aforementioned GOP wackadoodles, and I'll leave it at that.

Just kidding. My point is that I want a president who doesn't feed on America's fears. I want a president who respects our fears and will address them.

I want a president who doesn't distort the other side's issues. I want a president who respects the other side's issues and asks us all to participate in a national conversation in order to overcome those issues.

I truly believe that's what we'll get when we vote for Obama as president.

Lis, I see both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as having qualities and faults. Clinton is a pragmatist--but in my opinion, anyone with a valid chance at the presidency has to be. Anyone who appears not to be a pragmatist has successfully created an illusion. However, sometimes she misses the beat, misinterprets what kind of pragmatism is called for. Obviously her campaign is, in a small way, trying to take a few notes from Rove and co. That in itself doesn't have to be bad, from a pragmatic point of view--I may be wrong, but wasn't TPM itself born out of the desire to get Democrats more focused and on-message? "Talking points" aren't always a good thing, sometimes they oversimplify the national dialogue, but they are effective and nowadays necessary. But yes, the Clinton campaign is catching up very slowly (in some respects) to the realization that Bush has fallen and the political landscape has drastically changed. Yes, Clinton does make mistakes occasionally.

But that doesn't make Obama perfect either. He doesn't have Clinton's faults, he has his own faults. Historically, relatively inexperienced politicians such as governors have an easier time getting elected president than experienced politicians such as senators. Obama, as a new senator, is getting that same advantage. He doesn't have much of a record, so as long as he performs well during the campaign it's easy to project all our ideals onto him--to see his qualities and not see his faults. That pattern may be a political reality, but I personally find it a poor way to pick a president, especially during such a crucial historical moment as this--when we are already in a huge mess, and facing drastic change due to the energy situation. What we do see of Obama's past votes and current policy proposals is, in my reading at least, not 100% impressive. If his policy proposals do lean further to the right than Hillary Clinton's, then he has won the support of progressives rather cheaply, and from a progressive viewpoint that calls into question the excellent judgement which he claims to have--if his policy proposals are to the right of the great pragmatist Hillary Clinton.

I believe that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are historically great figures. I think both deserve a more prominent place on the stage than as senators, and we are very lucky to have both of them. But neither are perfect. While I lean much more towards Clinton because I'm in the "experience matters" camp, I think that Obama is well worth supporting.

But I am uncomfortable at the absolutism that I see among so many Obama supporters. Both Clinton and Obama need to work for our votes. They need to be held to task. They need to earn our votes with substance. Electing someone because he "asks us all to participate in a national conversation" is sort of like the Democratic version of electing someone because they'd be fun to have a beer with. It's a plus, but it's not substance.

I will vote for Edwards in California on Feb 5th. However, seeing Hillary tonight I have decided that I will vote for her in a general election, if she were to win the nomination. Something I could not see myself doing two weeks ago. I stil don't think anyone will get 2025 delegates by denver. We shall see. If Edwards can stay above the threshold for delegates in all of the Feb 5 states and beyond it is likely.

Why was the first twenty minutes of the debate discussing what the candidates had decided was behind them?

mg

Every four years there are articles about the possibility of a hung convention. Ain't gonna happen. In modern politicking, the media puts out so many stories about the winners of various primaries adn their momentum that the tipping point is quickly reached each year. Sometimes it's just a couple of primaries, sometimes a few weeks - but the primaries in May and June never matter - it's why all the states are rushing to get to the front of the queue.

It's why the results in Nevada and South Carolina matter so much. Clinton is the only candidate who can afford to lose one of them (and possibly both) - Obama is toast if he doesn't win them both.

I am so dreading the possibility of a Clinton/Romney battle. Cynicism wins, hope loses. The two candidates most disliked and most calculating.

Hillary definitely wasn't prepared for the Rove fearmongering question...you could tell she really didn't have any way to explain that quote away, because it speaks for itself. She basically just said, "Yes, that's what I believe" and Obama nailed her for it.

DC, I guess we agree on something I would take edwards as well, over clinton any day. I am under no illusions that clinton would lose in november if she gets the nomination and she will hurt democratic congress people and senators running in november as well. Let's toss a senate majority and reduce the dem majority in the house. Ah, but isn't it great to at least try to keep the clinton-bush dynasty going. Gee, its so much fun.

Michael A wrote on January 16, 2008 7:52 AM: DC, I guess we agree on something I would take edwards as well, over clinton any day. I am under no illusions that clinton would lose in november if she gets the nomination and she will hurt democratic congress people and senators running in november as well. Let's toss a senate majority and reduce the dem majority in the house. Ah, but isn't it great to at least try to keep the clinton-bush dynasty going. Gee, its so much fun.

LOL. You have no idea who you are supporting, do you, you lousy ABC, you?! Sometimes it is Obama, then Edwards, then Kucinich or Biden when he was still in, until someone told you that Dodd was great...

And, Michael, I seldom subscribe to "the coattail effect" theory. Most politics, except presidential, are local. That is true retail politics. People who claimed way back then that Obama would do better in other states once he started campaigning outside of the early states were right for the same reason that individual house or senate races, where candidates campaign locally seldom, have little to do with the presidential race. At worst, a terrible candidate for POTUS would cause some people to sit out the election, but that is not the case this time around. If Hillary wins the Dem nomination, that would lay to rest your canard that she is despises among the Dems and the moderates... She'll easily win against any Repub but McCain... and that is true for Edwards and Obama, too, except that Obama is the weakest in the field.

As an Obama supporter, I'd have to say that he definitely won this one. He knew his stuff, looked and sounded presidential, and made the other candidates look like buffoons. The other candidates evaded questions or didn't seem to know the answers. Not a good night for them.

On a similar note, I am shocked by the blatant Anti-Obama bias on this site and for that matter, by Matthews and Williams.

As an Edwards supporter, I'd have to say that he definitely won this one. He knew his stuff, looked and sounded presidential, and made the other candidates look like buffoons. The other candidates evaded questions or didn't seem to know the answers. Not a good night for them.

On a similar note, I am shocked by the blatant anti-Edwards bias on this site and for that matter, by Matthews and Williams.

Those supporter posts were very, very funny. Thanks. Good humor is hard to come by on this site.

I hear you Richard.

Either he means that he’s not prepared to meet an attack, in which case he’s both dangerous and foolish. Or he means that he is ready for an attack but we shouldn’t talk about with the voters during the election campaign, in which case he’s just foolish.

Inexperienced and smug, thinks he can play President on his own conditions. Perhaps his staff forget to tell him there’s a world waiting. Good riddance when he leaves the race.

Dear Richard! It is comments like yours that inspire me to send more money to the Obama campaign as well as make more calls and knock on more doors on his behalf.

Dc, here you go I'm glad you got off the poll analysis for obvious reasons, this is by far more interesting.

Point one. Coattails and the coattail effect.

Here's a short description of it for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coattail_effect

Here's a nice summary of the effect through 2000, including graphs and such. Maybe that will help you to understand it.

http://web.missouri.edu/~umcaspolswww/papers/surgeanddecline.pdf

Let me know if you need anything else dc. I am always willing to help.

Point two. cult is in part defined as follows:

Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
The object of such devotion.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/cult

From the posts that I have seen and the complete blind ignoring of facts by clinton people, it seems to me that the phrase "clinton personality cult" is appropriate. On your second coming issue, I have no idea who you are talking about. Maybe the huckster?

Hillary's inner Tracy Flick.
Linky

Well, *I* laughed. There's some truth there, and I saw Tracy-- I mean, Hillary-- on full display last night when she practically trampled the other two to get to the microphone to show us her "leadership" and "experience."

Funny.

Nobody in business pays someone 13 million + bonuses and options, without expecting him to do something underhanded. Jeffry Immelt's [CEO, GE]opposition to Kucinich speaking on his network is a good example.

Keeping the subjects of peace, real health care, and media reform from being discussed was extremely important to the oligarchy. So important that the Supreme Court convened in an emergency hearing to overturn the Nevada court's decision requiring NBC to let Kucinich debate. Of course, it was not important enough to make the evening corporate news.

Democracynow.org tivoed the debate, and allowed Kucinich to respond. He did brilliantly, and showed the flaws in the corporate candidates' responses. Of course, that was what Immelt was trying to avoid.

The privatization of the debates, must be stopped. The elections belong to the country, and should not be brought to you by GE and Verizon. Give it back to the League of Women Voters, or allow a system of petitions. GE has contributed to these 3 candidates, and stands to benefit from their election.

I wouldn't vote for candidates that let them get away with it.