Hillary, Obama, And Edwards Explain Their Strengths, And Their Weaknesses

Comments (63)

Josh wrote on January 15, 2008 9:41 PM:

Nice post and I agree, Greg.

Tom wrote on January 15, 2008 9:44 PM:

"Edwards perhaps to a slightly lesser extent"

care to explain that further? What makes him less impressive or formidable?

greg wrote on January 15, 2008 9:44 PM:

thanks Josh. we'll see how many others agree with this... :)

Dave C wrote on January 15, 2008 9:45 PM:

Amen, Greg!

along wrote on January 15, 2008 9:46 PM:

on foreign oil and energy, Obama's sounding like a Senator. And that's really good for him.

Greg wrote on January 15, 2008 9:49 PM:

tom, good question. I feel that edwards is a very powerful speaker and an exceptionally talented politican, and his campaign has been very impressive in the sense that it's driven the debate in many ways.

Nonetheless, I can't escape the sense that in some senses Hillary and Obama are slightly weightier figures. It's a very close call. I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise, but that's my impression right now.

Radix wrote on January 15, 2008 9:50 PM:

If we really get lucky whomever wins will find ways to hire the other 2 into their Cabinets. Wishful thinking I know.

eorse wrote on January 15, 2008 9:50 PM:

Obama is a class act.

HRC just speaks from memory. She never answers questions. And, questions to her are easy. Why about Iraq?

Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 9:51 PM:

Josh- This is getting framed on my wall:

I'm going to venture something. This primary has gotten really ugly at times, obviously. But whoever you are for, the bottom line is that Hillary and Obama, and Edwards perhaps to a slightly lesser extent, are impressive and formidable figures who have the potential to be important historical figures, and Dems are lucky to have this array of choices before them.

ajax wrote on January 15, 2008 9:53 PM:

That's how I feel every time I see them - really proud. They're all pretty awesome.

Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 9:53 PM:

"If we really get lucky whomever wins will find ways to hire the other 2 into their Cabinets. Wishful thinking I know."

I have and will continue to contend that both your Presidential and VP candidate are both on that stage tonight, just uncertain of the order as of yet.

Greg wrote on January 15, 2008 9:53 PM:

Anonymous -- you're not being sarcastic, are you?

Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 9:53 PM:

Oops, I mean Greg.

Gregor wrote on January 15, 2008 9:53 PM:

One of these candidates consistently thinks as they answer questions. The other two candidates consistently reach for canned answers. Lots and lots of regurgitation.

I remember Bill Clinton in 1991. He consistently was thinking, while he was answering. It's a very appealing quality that voters pick up on.

Interesting, isn't it?

Greg wrote on January 15, 2008 9:55 PM:

gotcha anon.

Donal wrote on January 15, 2008 9:55 PM:

I would have watched the debate had Kucinich been there.

TEL wrote on January 15, 2008 9:57 PM:

Great post, Greg. This election has me and most of my extended family (who I spent time with over the holidays) all excited for that very reason. We never used to talk politics, but Bush has definitely changed that.

Josh wrote on January 15, 2008 9:59 PM:

Obama is doing well. Humorous but serious. It's not an easy line to walk.

Hillary, so far, walking a pretty good line between wonky good and too prepped.

Edwards isn't getting as much time.

along wrote on January 15, 2008 10:00 PM:

OH! Williams just implied Hillary was a loud talker!

Senator Clinton is really great at the wonkish details, but she can't modulate her presentation, so everything point she makes in a 6-point answer sounds alike.

NTouch08 wrote on January 15, 2008 10:00 PM:

Thanks for the reply to Tom, Greg, because I am inclined to agree with him. Our judgement on what kind of president someone could be can really only be based on their campaign. Judging by each candidate's message, I would argue that outside the historical aspects of the first African-American or first woman, an Edwards administration could lead him to be the most "important historical figure" of the three. Policy makes history, and I for one buy in to his pledge to fight for bold substantive change, making him "impressive and formidable" to me.

Michael A wrote on January 15, 2008 10:01 PM:

I am tired of debates. There have been way, way too many and they keep going over the same ground over and over again. No more debates.

John M wrote on January 15, 2008 10:08 PM:

Greg - Very well put about the stature of the Dem candidates. The first Pres campaign I got involved in was Gary Hart's in 1984 when I was in college and I can't remember the last time the Dems had this impressive a field of candidates running for President.

I hate to say it but it is almost as if the Dems and Repubs have switched places with the Dems having the impressive field and the Repubs having the Mickey Mouse one. Their field reminds me of the Dems 7 Dwarfs field in 1988.

It makes me feel really good to be a Democrat.

Lis wrote on January 15, 2008 10:08 PM:

That was indeed a great closing paragraph to this post. The Dems do indeed have a lot to be proud of, and there are four very impressive people currently running.

That said, I'm still most impressed by my candidate of choice, Barack Obama. He is a very clear thinker, and a clear speaker to boot (and that's not as easy as it looks).

Hillary and Edwards are also saying a lot of things that make sense to me, but they somehow come off as car salespeople who are trying to talk me into buying the most expensive car.

Barack talks as if he's trying to solve a problem.

There's the difference.

Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 10:10 PM:

Tom, I'll answer the question from my perspective..

John Edwards is basically a fake. I like what he is saying now that he is a progressive Democrat but it isn't who he has been up until now.

He supported the bankruptcy bill and just apologized for it. He co-sponsored the Iraq war resolution that he continues to apologize for over and over now that he is a real progressive. He spent six years in the Senate being a corporate Democrat.

I'm sorry to be blunt but the Edwards folks must be incredibly shallow people to think just because he starts shaking his fist and yelling about fighting for little people, it means anything other that he will say or do whatever it takes to be President.

sue wrote on January 15, 2008 10:11 PM:

Obama has recovered really well.

I hate that fat-assed, big-nosed, blowhard Tim Russert.

I hate him. I hate him. I hate him.

frank wrote on January 15, 2008 10:17 PM:

Obama really has improved in these debates

DemUnity08 wrote on January 15, 2008 10:19 PM:

Greg: "This primary has gotten really ugly at times, obviously. But whoever you are for, the bottom line is that Hillary and Obama ... are impressive and formidable figures who have the potential to be important historical figures, and Dems are lucky to have this array of choices before them."

Great point. I think what we need is to get behind a possible Clinton-Obama (or Obama-Clinton?) ticket. We deserve to have the best two candidates in the White House, and Clinton and Obama are the best.

colonpowwow wrote on January 15, 2008 10:26 PM:

Not only did Edwards support the 2001 Bankruptcy Reform Act, he supported the 1999 version that President Bill Clinton vetoed as being "too hard on the poor and middle class."

Worse yet, Edwards sided with every Republican and against all the liberal Dems (Boxer, Kennedy, Feingold, Clinton, etc.) and opposed the two Wellstone Amendments to the Bankruptcy Act. One of the Wellstone Amendments was to exempt those who went belly-up due to medical bills - like, say, their spouse was diagnosed with an incurable cancer and they quickly ran up $50,000+ in medical bills.

When one considers how many important financial institutions are headquartered in Charlotte, it becomes even more apparent what a shameless phony this guy is.

Back on topic. Oh, I LOVE all the Democratic candidates, especially Clinton, Obama, and Kucinich.

...

Okay . . . Heck . . . even (ugh) Edwards.

Matt wrote on January 15, 2008 10:35 PM:

GBCW--

I'm done with TPM and its centrist, myopic views. If Edwards is treated as a "less impressive, formidable and historic" candidate then the editors obviously dont have a grasp on the platforms of any campaign within the past 30 years. Yes, I will vote for the democratic candidate, without a second's hesitation. But I cant endure anymore two-horse-race-and-anyone-else-is-completely-irrelevant-like-mike-gravel talk.

good luck on reporting your total centrist viewpoints and say hi to centrist Josh Marshall, Eric Whatshisface, Greg Marshall, and all the blowhards on TPM Cafe.

"It is from numberless diverse acts
of courage and belief that human history is thus shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance."

--Robert F. Kennedy

Lis wrote on January 15, 2008 10:36 PM:

Colonpowwow -- you're letting your hair down for once! It's nice to see!

Liam wrote on January 15, 2008 10:37 PM:

On the subject of clean energy, Hillary just preached about the need to have a President come in to office who will tell the American people we can do this, like the Apollo Moon project.

When Obama talked like that, Hillary accused him of selling false hope. Look who is the Hope Monger tonight.

Hillary has now become a Hope Monger.

sue wrote on January 15, 2008 10:37 PM:

Latino vs. Blacks question for Obama - Obama is doing amazing!

Clinton was trying to be divisive and it backfired!

colonpowwow wrote on January 15, 2008 10:42 PM:

Say, Matt,

So what do you think about Edwards voting against the Wellstone Amendments to the 2001 Bankruptcy Act and also voting for the 1999 version that President Clinton vetoed as unfair to the poor and middle class.

Those left-of-center Charlotte banking interests must have pulled a campaign finance string or two wouldn't you say?

Or, did he just oppose the Wellstone Amendments on principle. Maybe they weren't left-wing enough.

Yeah. That's it I'll bet.

Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 10:57 PM:

Did anyone else get a shiver of delight when Hillary said "operating the bureaucracy"? I'm so inpired I want to run out and shuffle around some paperwork.

Hillary Clinton: Operating The Bureaucracy '08

Matt wrote on January 15, 2008 10:58 PM:

Say Colonpowow-

So what do you think about Hillary voting for designating Iran's military as a terrorist organization and giving Bush another war to fight? Perhaps it was to "leverage diplomacy" or whatever her excuse d'jour is. I guess she voted for funding the war until it became unpopular out of principle.

Please, continue to cut and paste your previous arguments for hillary as you have grown so accustomed to. Perhaps the 7 examples out of the thousands of bills on which she has voted will prove to be a representative sample size. To save you some time, press Control + C to copy and Control + V to paste. Please, continue.

Duane wrote on January 15, 2008 10:58 PM:

So what do you think about Edwards voting against the Wellstone Amendments to the 2001 Bankruptcy Act and also voting for the 1999 version that President Clinton vetoed as unfair to the poor and middle class.

Those left-of-center Charlotte banking interests must have pulled a campaign finance string or two wouldn't you say?

Or, did he just oppose the Wellstone Amendments on principle. Maybe they weren't left-wing enough.

Where do you think Edwards is getting all those unfortunate folks to do photo-ops with?

Dawn wrote on January 15, 2008 10:59 PM:

Obama has impressed me a lot more in this debate than the others. His answers are a lot clearer and he seems more relaxed. I had forgotten how mad I was when he went for that energy bill, but he did explain himself.

I live in Florida so my primary vote won't count anyway, but I am genuinely undecided at this point. I like whoever is speaking at the time. Not a problem I have when I watch the Republicans, I might add. Oh who am I kidding, I don't watch the Republicans.

Liam wrote on January 15, 2008 10:59 PM:

Now Hillary is playing the terror card. I find it strange that she is claiming that she is the one who would best handle terror attacks, because during the Clintons' eight years in the White House the same terrorists hit the US at home an abroad, several times, and the Clintons never took robust action, and that is why the terrorists were still around to hit us on 9/11.

Hillary may talk tough, but during the Clinton years, the terrorists hit us again and again, and lived to hit us again after the Clintons were out of the White House.

Sounds like Hillary is now claiming that she would have responded to the terrorists than her man Bill did!

Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 11:03 PM:

I was hoping that during the questions about running on fear, Hillary would lean forward, look into the television and say, "Please mute your television if you are under 60".

"The rest of you - BE VERY VERY AFRAID.."

colonpowwow wrote on January 15, 2008 11:13 PM:

Matt:

Oooh. Ouch.

Nice duck on answering the question about Edwards sticking it to the poor and middle class schlubs like us re the Wellstone Amendments.

BTW - I hated Hillary's vote on the War Authorization. Others too.

Q. What is Edwards greatest weakness?

A. Debating Dick "Silvertongue" Cheney.

And when one does their own extensive research on an issue, one puts it in what's called a "file" so that when someone who constantly forgets their former position (like Edwards and his supporters) and asks the same thing over and over again - you don't have to do the same research every time. You can just, what was that you said(?), cut and paste it.

Matt wrote on January 15, 2008 11:24 PM:

Colon-

Yes, I can see how the Wellstone Amendments are as important as the war authorizations (plural) that Clinton enabled. Money vs. American kids' lives. Perhaps a no-brainer in corporate politicians minds but not for the rest of us.

Say what you want about a candidate's past voting record, all we have to judge them on now is what they propose and how they plan to govern. Edwards has seen a profound turnaround in his platform towards the progressive side. Unfortunately, Hillary hasnt. Isn't what we want more people coming towards the progressive end? Answer carefully.

colonpowwow wrote on January 15, 2008 11:33 PM:

Matt:

I agree 100%. I'd like to see people come towards the progressive end today.

Like advocating environmental protection, energy efficiency, proper land use, conservation, strong unions and populist principles.

Then, on the other hand, I see many others who refuse to take personal responsibility for these progressive principles by clearcutting large swatches of virgin timber animal habitat and building 28,000 square foot gated estates using non-union labor.

Well maybe not many others, just one guy that we all know of.

So what is a progressive populist supposed to, like, do?

BTW - The KL Amendment wasn't about authorizing war on Iran. If so, why did noted warhawks Durbin, Levin and others vote for it. Stop mischaracterizing things to fit your leftist "principles," comrade.

Duane wrote on January 15, 2008 11:39 PM:

Edwards has seen a profound turnaround in his platform towards the progressive side.

Yeah, and it couldn't have happened at a more opportune time.

Lookingforhome wrote on January 15, 2008 11:39 PM:

Oh well Greg,

It was nice while it lasted. And now...

...back to the closed-minded talking-point wars!!

Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 11:45 PM:

Edwards looks to be running just as far from his conservative record as Kerry, in 2004, ran from his liberal record.

One of the things I like Obama is that he has a progressive record and isn't afraid to embrace it.

Finally, we have a real Democrat running for President who isn't afraid of his Democratness, who is confident enough in his core values that he doesn't have to try to look tough by voting for war, or look more business-savvy by voting against poor people, doesn't have to be scared of asking for Republicans to vote for him because he has a solid progressive record that can't be impeached.

It is so refreshing to see someone run from confidence of who is he instead of fear of who he might offend.

Obama '08

colonpowwow wrote on January 15, 2008 11:52 PM:

Lookingforhome wrote on January 15, 2008 11:39 PM:

"Oh well Greg,

It was nice while it lasted. And now...

...back to the closed-minded talking-point wars!!"

The primary battles are going on right NOW. When do you propose we argue things? Sometime after they're all over?

I'll bet the candidate whom you support is ready to go into battle with closed ranks and talking points tomorrow morning.

What's wrong with them anyway?

PEACE

savvy wrote on January 16, 2008 12:29 AM:

This debate in a roundtable format made it easier to see the differences in the communication style of the candidates.

Hillary talks at you.

Edwards implores you.

Obama talks to you.

And are there any votes Edwards was right on?

He opposed healthcare.
He voted for bankruptcy.
He voted for Yucca Mtn. dumping
He voted for the war.

I like Edwards, but damn he has poor judgment and all the regrets in the world just won't do, when you can attack countries with the power of the Presidency.

I am tired of these debates too many.

shelter jack wrote on January 16, 2008 12:44 AM:

Appearence, demeanor, likeability - I have to give this one to Obama - He looked cool, polished, intelligent and appropriately humorous. Hillerary looked a little tired, haggard and maybe a bit too aggressively political like she was constantly trying to calculate how to appeal to different groups. She was constantly unrolling multi billion dollar government fixes to every problem. Edwards while passionate in his answers came across too much as a one noter - every answer eventually ended up as anticorporate, the middle class is getting screwed

DonnaG wrote on January 16, 2008 1:41 AM:

I too notice that Obama held the stage with humor and seemed the only one who elicited delighted laughter from the audience......except when, after a station break, the crowd was roaring, but I missed what it was about. Did Williams state the wrong venue [NH instead of Las Vegas?] That was my guess....

Wordie wrote on January 16, 2008 3:03 AM:

I agree with Greg that we have a terrific group of Democratic candidates this year. I take exception to the "Edwards to a lesser extent" comment (although I'm glad his name is getting mentioned). Edwards' championing of progressive values - at a time when we're in such a dire need of them - would surely create a historic presidency.

There's something to add to what Edwards said about what constitutes his greatest strength (at least on a political level). The latest Rasmussen head-to-head poll shows he's the only one of the three Dems who wins against all the Republicans.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_democratic_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election

Ry wrote on January 16, 2008 8:09 AM:

Namaste to you, Matt!

I've been coming to this site every day to get my horse race jones on, but I won't be anymore.

Josh, you're as responsible as the rest of the MSM for marginalizing Edwards, the true progressive in this race, the only guy not taking corporate cash -- I'm done with TPM too.

Hilarious, Josh, that you consider Obama a strong candidate while he continually assaults our collective intelligence with empty rhetorical platitudes about "change" and "bringing people together." WTF does this mean in brass-tacks terms? A total empty suit.

And Hillary? Please. Different side of a devalued two-party coin. Corporate shill.

Fact is he we have a viable progressive running, the the media is solely responsible for blacking him out. And I'm tired of giving the public a free pass too. Wake the hell up and realize that the MSM is a bizarro Field of Dreams: if you don't "go," they won't "build it."

Wowsas wrote on January 16, 2008 8:45 AM:

Colon:

Context is important here. As a freshman Senator from North Carolina, Edwards was necessarily going to have to be more conservative in his voting than Wellstone. I would argue that he was about as liberal as one can expect from a NC Senator. If you're going to take that tack, we should also be criticizing all Dems from conservative States, and we might as well give back the majority we have in the Senate.

On the other hand, we can see that both Hillary and Obama are much more conservative than their States demand. As I've said before, when you compare their voting records to those of their fellow Senators, you see that they are much more conservative than Schumer (who isn't a far lefty by any accounts) and Durbin, respectively.

Also, if we're going to throw stones about financial institutions, how about Hillary's votes on behalf of Wall Street? How about the fact that Obama came out early in support of the 05 Bankruptcy bill, and then voted against a key Democratic amendment to try to water down its harsh provisions. The 05 Bankruptcy bill was much much worse than the 01 bill, by all accounts.

If you're going to act like you know something about inside politics, then you ought to be playing fair, and recognizing that home State matters. Edwards would never have been elected in NC if he'd run on a progressive platform. But since at least 2004, he's been walking the walk on this, and I for one believe him, and find your "arguments" to be pretty misleading and inane.

Wowsas wrote on January 16, 2008 8:56 AM:

Greg Sargent,

Perhaps the reason you think Edwards is "less weighty" might have something to do with the consistent media narrative that this is a 2 horse race?

While I don't necessarily buy into the media conspiracy theory as much as some of my fellow Edwards supporters, it's pretty undeniable that the media has helped create this situation. Three common beliefs held by most of the Dem electorate: 1) Obama and/or Hillary is the most electable candidate; 2) Obama is the candidate furthest to the left; and 3) all 3 candidates' positions are pretty much the same on all issues.

On 1), the polls have consistently shown that Edwards is polling much better in head-to-head matchups than Obama and Hillary. Our nightmare matchup is against McCain, where both Hillary and Obama lose, whereas Edwards wins. This is before, of course, the VRWC launches its inevitable smear campaign against Obama (should he be the nominee) and drives down his favorability.

On 2), it's pretty clear that, at least from a domestic policy perspective, Obama has been furthest to the right of the top 3 candidates, talk of "change" notwithstanding.

On 3), this is somewhat true (depends how wonky you are I guess), but what's being completely under-the-radar is how much Edwards's team has driven this bus. Inevitably, Edwards will release a plan to do X (universal healthcare, help the mortgage crisis, provide fiscal stimulus). Hillary will then follow up a couple of days later with a plan slightly right of Edwards, and then Obama will follow up a couple of weeks later with a plan slightly right of Hillary.

In my eyes, at least, it's completely clear that these three conceptions by the public are media-driven. Or to put it another way, to call the candidate who's running the most substantive campaign, on a truly progressive platform, and polling best among the top 3 Democrats, the least "weighty" belies, I think, a fairly Establishment and conservative (in the traditional sense, not in the recent American sense) worldview.

nogo war wrote on January 16, 2008 10:46 AM:

Since 2003 the progressive section of the Democratic party have said,"you have to do more than this"
In 2007 we called, e-mailed and had "occupations" in the offices of elected officials. "You have to do more than this"
Wouldn't it be great if Harry and Nancy "changed" from what they were in 2007?
Wouldn't it be great if Harry and Nancy did "more than this".
That Edwards is the progressive he may not have been is a good thing. I would like to add that it is clear we progressives are still a minority in our Party. So why would Edwards go after the minority instead of playing it safe?

Thomas McDonald, New York, NY wrote on January 16, 2008 11:29 AM:

Clinton's Michigan numbers may mean its becoming more necessary for her, should she yet win the nomination, to add Obama to her ticket in order to win African-Americans and Independents. Whereas Obama would need Hillary less as he has won respectable support from women, etc. (besides other ways in which Hillary obviously doesn't make sense for VP). The upshot being that at this point, while Hillary remains favored overall, Obama is actually the one with a greater chance of being on the ticket altogether.

Jan wrote on January 16, 2008 11:54 AM:

I live in Tn and have lived in MS. Hillary or Obama will not get elected in the South. I have no problem with them but other Democrats here in the south are not going to vote for a woman or an African American.

Jan wrote on January 16, 2008 12:15 PM:

I should have posted many other Democrats here will not vote for them.

Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 1:41 PM:

Greg: I'm coming back here to challenge one of your comments about Edwards. I missed this in my first reading of your post:

"My greatest strength is for 54 years I've been fighting with every fiber of my being." (From babyhood?)

Now here's what Edwards actually said:

"I think my greatest strength is that for 54 years, I’ve been fighting with every fiber of my being.

In the beginning, the fight was for me. Growing up in mill towns and mill villages, I had to literally fight to survive."

So you took his comment out of context. And Josh, why didn't you catch it? (Although your recognition that Edwards wasn't getting equal time is much appreciated.)

I simply don't understand why even TPM Cafe won't give Edwards a break. Even if you believe he has absolutely no chance at winning (and I don't agree with that), with him staying in the race and thereby keeping the race going, it brings more attention to the message of the Democrats overall. What would happen if we had a clear winner right now? Coverage of the Democrats would slow in favor of the Republican race. Do we really want that?

Why don't we have any articles, either here or in TPM Cafe about Edwards' strong showing in the head-to-head polls? It's certainly an important issue - why is it being overlooked?

Again, here's the link I hope you'll be looking at: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_democratic_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election

I wish I had caught this last night. Will anyone actually see what I wrote here?

Wordie wrote on January 16, 2008 1:43 PM:

Greg: I'm coming back here to challenge one of your comments about Edwards. I missed this in my first reading of your post:

"My greatest strength is for 54 years I've been fighting with every fiber of my being." (From babyhood?)

Now here's what Edwards actually said:

"I think my greatest strength is that for 54 years, I’ve been fighting with every fiber of my being.

In the beginning, the fight was for me. Growing up in mill towns and mill villages, I had to literally fight to survive."

So you took his comment out of context. And Josh, why didn't you catch it? (Although your recognition that Edwards wasn't getting equal time is much appreciated.)

I simply don't understand why even TPM Cafe won't give Edwards a break. Even if you believe he has absolutely no chance at winning (and I don't agree with that), with him staying in the race and thereby keeping the race going, it brings more attention to the message of the Democrats overall. What would happen if we had a clear winner right now? Coverage of the Democrats would slow in favor of the Republican race. Do we really want that?

Why don't we have any articles, either here or in TPM Cafe about Edwards' strong showing in the head-to-head polls? It's certainly an important issue - why is it being overlooked?

Again, here's the link I hope you'll consider: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_democratic_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election

I wish I had caught this last night. Will anyone actually see what I wrote here?

Wordie wrote on January 16, 2008 1:48 PM:

Sorry about the formatting above (the bolded sentence should have been part of the Edwards' blockquote).

You can verify what Edwards actually said, in context, in the transcript of the debate. Here's a link : http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jan/15/debate-transcript/

Jan wrote on January 16, 2008 2:17 PM:

TPM does not like John Edwards, nor do they give him a fair analysis.

Must have ties to the MSM or should I say to the COM

Wordie wrote on January 16, 2008 5:03 PM:

Jan: While it's true that TPM, like just about everyone else, has given Edwards a lot less attention than the other two (It's been getting a bit better lately, I notice. Thanks, Josh.), I really doubt it's a result of corporate ties!

I suspect it's more likely that they've gotten swept away in all the attention given to the rock star candidates, and just didn't note that the reason Edwards wasn't seen as serious competition to C & E was because he didn't raise as much money in the very early stages of the primary race. And where did that money come from? That part you got right - it was in a large part corporate money - especially in the case of Clinton. Early fundraising isn't a very good measure anyway. Edwards got caught in a vicious circle with the early fundraising affecting media attention and the early polls, which then led to a seeming justification for less coverage of his campaign. If we were to use only the early fundraising criteria, Hillary would have won it, and everyone else should have just gone home. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/02/us/politics/02campaign.html?_r=1&bl&ex=1176004800&en=b2ca3fabefdec328&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin (I have to admit I'm not really clear on the issue of bundled donations to Obama.)

The historic nature of the first viable black and female candidates for the Presidency probably also plays a large part - and probably explains Greg's comments about the stature of the candidates. That's an important concern, just not the only thing upon which to base a decision of who to vote for - or who to cover. As others have mentioned, if we were to use that criterion alone, Condi would be a shoo-in candidate.

(My apologies also for the double post earlier. I thought I had hit the "stop" button in time, after noticing the omission of my name.)

Desider wrote on January 17, 2008 5:48 PM:

Excellent point, Liam, Bill & Hillary didn't wipe out every terrorist - there were even terrorists left after they left office.

Good thing we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq to wipe out every last terrorist alive. I feel safer now that there are no terrorists left. I hope Hillary learned her lesson.

Post a comment

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