Video: Tensions Finally Boil Over Between Hillary And Obama
Here it is: Video of tensions finally boiling over between Hillary and Obama at tonight's South Carolina debate....
Watching this, you can see that things were forced to a head by the attacks that Bill waged on Obama in the closing days of the Nevada caucuses. There's something weirdly salutary about it, as if both candidates were dying to lay into each other this aggressively but had held back, until now...
Comments (176)
Hildy wrote on January 21, 2008 9:15 PM:Video is down...
Greg wrote on January 21, 2008 9:16 PM:should be working now...
NCSteve wrote on January 21, 2008 9:31 PM:Good. Maybe they'll get it out of their system and move on. (I know, wishful thinking.)
mari wrote on January 21, 2008 9:31 PM:AHHHHH What a lying hypocrite...the Clintons make me want to vomit.
tom wrote on January 21, 2008 9:31 PM:'Whenever men and women straighten their backs up, they are going somewhere, because a man can't ride your back unless it is bent." - Martin Luther King Jr.
RS wrote on January 21, 2008 9:32 PM:Context? Evidently Senator Clinton missed the 4th grade language arts lesson on context clues:
"The Republican approach I think has played itself out. I think it's fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time over the last 10 or 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now, you've heard it all before. You look at the economic policies, when they're being debated among the presidential candidates, it's all tax cuts. Well, we've done that, we've tried it."eorse wrote on January 21, 2008 9:32 PM:
How many presidential candidates have served in State Legislatures?
In fact, it will be great for us to have a president who served in the State House, was a community organizer, and is a constitutional law scholar.
And, likewise, it will be sad for us to have a president who is a spousal beneficiary with series of experiences that are essentially false-judgements.
grover_rover wrote on January 21, 2008 9:37 PM:I have to say, Obama's comment about how he was working on the streets combating Reagan's policies while she was a corporate lawyer on the board of Wal-Mart is probably the best line from the entire campaign, bam!
God damn, the fact that Hillary can keep distorting the Reagan comments, flat out lying about what she knows (and everyone with any intelligence knows) he meant by them, it is disgusting. This is why I could never vote for her, she is despicable.
She is lucky I hate Republicans so much or I would actively campaign against her if she were the nominee. I am appalled that she is in my party, and I swear if she becomes to representative of my party, I will switch to Independent.
NCSteve wrote on January 21, 2008 9:38 PM:Well, they're all lovey-dovey now, but I swear you can actually see Hillary's blood pressure spiking into the red zone in that clip, when they put the camera on her while Obama was speaking. I was actually worried she was going to stroke out for a second there.
cattelin wrote on January 21, 2008 9:43 PM:Mmmmmm, if she wants to try to hype up the Rezko thing, does that give her competitors a green light to bring up every dirty financial deal the Clintons have been involved in? I'm okay with that, let's see...we can start with Hsu, that's pretty recent...we can hit up the secrecy around contributions to the Clinton library...don't forget Bill's presidential pardons for money...I think there were some real estate deals in there somewhere...yeah, this would be a fun game indeed.
Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 9:44 PM:She makes me want to puke. She's like a self-righteous latter day Marie Antoinette.
grover_rover wrote on January 21, 2008 9:46 PM:eorse, I agree that having a president who has been a community organizer (rather than corporate lawyer and wal-mart board member) and a constitutional law professor for ten years would be a welcome change in the White House. I think being an authority on constitutional law needs to be a prerequisite for being president after the disaster of Bush/Cheney.
Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 9:46 PM:Was Hillary, and later John, really distorting Obama's comments and record for political gain?
I think, based on John's confused questioning about the Ill. "present" votes and Hillary's otherwise psychotically relentless interrogation about matters that don't survive a cursory examination might point to a different conclusion.
Maybe Hillary and John don't know any better. It's very possible that they are being fed attack lines to use by sinister political operatives and don't have the time or good sense to find out the truth.
After all, both Hillary and John have continued to show bad judgment time and time again by their failure to ask the tough questions, do the homework, (read the NIE, for instance).
kody wrote on January 21, 2008 9:47 PM:Barack:
There are two people in American you can call BS on with impunity.
Here is a hint on their identity:
George Hillary Clinton.
More Barack more.
Step on these cockroaches.
It is okay to attack them!
We will forgive you.
Promise.
Always cute the way the Hillbots don't show up until they can be assured they are moving the right talking points and otherwise staying on message.
Did she really compare Bill's campaigning on her behalf to what Michelle does for Obama?? Last time I checked Michelle hasn't been making headlines for weeks straight for viciously lashing out at Hillary and lying about her comments. Last time I checked Michelle also doesn't have the same status as an ex-President.
Hahaha, wow. That's rich.
Kefa wrote on January 21, 2008 9:51 PM:He can't take it.....she shut him right up.
Keith wrote on January 21, 2008 9:52 PM:Is it me or is this Barack's best debate ever? I know I'm biased, but it seems like he's on fire tonight.
Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 9:52 PM:With these psychotic attacks, I think Hillary is flushing away a lot of the empathy folks naturally feel for her for being a "victim" of the right-wing all these years.
I don't know how you can hold yourself up as "poor little me" while being so starkly nasty.
Keith, because he was constantly being attacked by his opponents, the focus stayed on him. Because he shows such grace, style and thoughtfulness, he kind of has a teflon thing going for him.
I thought he was the best in the last debate. I thought he was the best tonight, even more so. He clearly has the competitor's natural ability to keep bettering himself.
Kefa, if you actually watched the video, you'd see that the moderators are the ones calling the shots, not Hillary. Ohh, but of course you Hillbots always see things through Hillary's patented Rose-Colored HillGlasses(TM), where everything that Hillary says and does is divine and truthful, while everything that her opponents say or do is ruthless hateful GOP attacks. Maybe part of that vast "right wing conspiracy" from the 90s. Yes, Hillary is just a victim...and Obama and Edwards are always the boogeyman.
Anonymous, you spoke too soon, I believe our first preprogrammed little Hillbot has appeared. Good luck trying to reason with it, facts and reality don't work too well.
Sasha wrote on January 21, 2008 10:03 PM:I agree, I think Hillary's damaging her campaign here.
Barack did speak poorly about Reagan. What he said was fairly pro-Reagan, by Democratic standards, etc etc. It was great fodder for the Clinton campaign.
But they misused it. They ran way too far with turning it into something more than it was, rather than just focusing on what Obama actually said, and the problems with that. And then not only does it get ugly but it makes it easy to get caught red handed, and she got caught.
Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 10:06 PM:Good luck trying to reason with it, facts and reality don't work too well.
They aren't trying to argue, they are just trying to create and sustain a narrative. You see the same sort of thing on RedState or LGF.
Folks on TPM EC generally seem to do a pretty good job pushing back on the narrative but I do notice between 8 and 5 M-F, it's hard to compete with the Hillbot narrative weavers. Probably as simple as no one wanting to work the night shift.
"The facts are that he has said in the last week that he really... liked... the ideas of the Republicans over the last ten to fifteen years."
Wow. That's actually a flatly despicable misrepresentation of what Obama said.
Barack just totally flipped out. Awesome.
In another 8 years, I'll definitely vote for him; but if he can't stand up to what the Clintons are doing to him in just the primary; how on earth would he deal with the Republicans? If you think the Clintons are bad, at some point you have to consider that right-wing tactics are just much, much worse. I mean, for God's sake, one of their major debates focused entirely around the question of whether Mexicans should be treated like people.
I hate the fact that Hillary and Bill have to fight dirty to win this thing; but quite honestly, I think the only way to win the presidency against McCain/Romney/whoever at this point IS to go below the belt. The politics of hope is wonderful, and maybe one day it'll be what DOES win elections, but at this point, well, it's not really going to work.
Which, you know, totally sucks.
grover_rover wrote on January 21, 2008 10:17 PM:Sasha, it is even more ridiculous because Hillary herself is on record that both Bush Sr. and Reagan are on her list of favorite presidents! It is even on an endorsement on her website!! Not only is she a liar with her attacks against Obama, but she is also a giant hypocrite!
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674
"But no president can do it alone. She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We’re confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks. As expected, Bill Clinton was also included on the aforementioned list."
Yeaahhhhhh...excuse me Hillary? And you attack Obama for something he didn't even say? Shameless.
frankly0 wrote on January 21, 2008 10:22 PM:Well, I'm sure that this comment isn't going to be popular with anybody, but I gotta tell you, I like it when I see these politicians mix it up like this. You got some real political theater there.
That was a nice back and forth. They both gave and they both got.
Bravo Obama, and bravo Hillary.
Ted Atkinson wrote on January 21, 2008 10:24 PM:Wow.
I thought the Barack "while you were on the board of Wal*Mart" line seemed to visibly surprise Hillary.
But I have to say that her Rezko statement absolutely floored me as a cheap and baseless shot. Pile onto that the complete distortion of Obama's quotes about Reagan, and I found myself really put off by her.
If she wins the nomination, she is making it very tough for me to feel good about voting for her.
stlounick wrote on January 21, 2008 10:27 PM:I'm glad they have engaged on these issues. Hillary certainly comes on like she's been trained by Rove--I suppose she has been. It really boils down to whether or not the voters think Obama has this right--that we're tired of the spin and want problems solved.
That's the real crux of the primary, isn't it? Are Americans tired of the crap or not?
yeah wrote on January 21, 2008 10:29 PM:"If she wins the nomination, she is making it very tough for me to feel good about voting for her."
Agreed. It's becoming increasingly clear to me that she, her campaign in general, and some of her supporters have decided to assume that, if she wins the Democratic nomination, people will hold their nose and vote for her, so therefore winning the nomination is the one and only thing that matters.
As of three weeks ago, I was completely convinced I would vote for any Democratic nominee, and there was no "holding my nose" about it, for any of the candidates.
Now, I definitely would have to hold my nose if she became the nominee, and I'm becoming less convinced that I actually will.
Dawn wrote on January 21, 2008 10:29 PM:Yeah, I like to see them mix it up a little face to face instead of through surrogates and media statements. I give Obama credit for doing in the debate what he did all day in the media.
grover rover, that was debunked days ago. The editor of the paper said that she was talking about portraits that should hang in the White House, not her favorite presidents. Nice try though.
grover_rover wrote on January 21, 2008 10:29 PM:Annie R, what do you mean "if he can't stand up to what the Clintons are doing to him"? I think he is standing up to it. I think he has shown amazing strength and potential throughout this entire campaign. Think about it, in order to get where he is now, he had to fight the greatest uphill battle against the "inevitable" Hillary Clinton, the party establishment, conventional wisdom, the Clinton political machine, and now daily attacks from the only recent Democratic president. The fact that he is doing as well as he is, against all of that, shows how much strength and support he brings to the game. It is the proverbial David v Goliath here, and he is giving her a run for her money. I think he will do awesome against the Republicans, and their inability to even respond to the possibility of going up against Obama just shows that they are at a loss for how to go after him. The Clintons on the other hand, they have been gearing up for this battle since the 90s, and they are obviously excited for it. Hillary came into this election with a nearly 50% unfavorable rating, which shows that she hasn't learned to beat the GOP machine, she got her ASS KICKED by it. Her unfavorable rating had risen to 50% (50% of Americans will not vote for her no matter what) the last time I saw the numbers, and if she comes up against McCain, the polls (and common sense) show that she will get completely destroyed in the general election. I know the Clintons are pros at dirty campaigning and negative attacks and all that, god knows this primary shows that they are willing to say and do anything to win, but many people like McCain, and we can't win with a divisive candidate, we NEED Obama to be our nominee, he is our best and possibly only chance. Edwards might have a good chance too, but obviously that isn't happening. What IS clear, from virtually EVERY indication, is that McCain will destroy Hillary if we nominate her, and our contested congressional seats will go down with her when the Republicans come to the polls in record numbers out of their hate for Hillary.
Anyway, my point is I don't buy into this conventional wisdom that Obama is weak, because he has come a LONG ways, and is fighting back. Also, Hillary is the electoral equivalent of Typhoid Mary, if we nominate her she will be the kiss of death for our party's presidential chances, and most likely our congressional power. All the polls, anecdotal evidence and common sense show this is our fate if we nominate her. The GOP already used her face in the VA-01 special election to help defeat the Democrat running...they will exploit hatred for Hillary, and butcher us.
Mike timmons wrote on January 21, 2008 10:30 PM:Totally agree, Ted
Obama nailed her with the Wal Mart comment. Hillary lost this debate. When the debate is hacked into sound bites, Hillary will look horrible. She got booed, for heavens sake! She got nailed on Wal-Mart. On Reagan, she looked like a kid caught stealing a candy bar.
I think Edwards looked the most presidential, and this debate will blow some oxygen into his campaign.
Matthew wrote on January 21, 2008 10:32 PM:I definitely enjoyed tonight's debate. I do think Clinton took this one. She was direct and emotional. Obama lost in my opinion because he got angry, lacked clear answers on a lot of questions--his present votes, for example. He lacks clear answers to far too many questions. And he really lost it with health care, getting both Clinton and Edwards all over him about it. He was saved by topic change. I wish Edwards would take a lesson from Clinton on answers, plus drop the mill-worker father references and his hang-up over campaign funding sources. I'm sorry but there really is little difference between funds from trial lawyers, lobbyists, companies, etc. At the end of the day it is a lot of money from people seeking influence for their respective causes.
BTW, Ted, why is comment on Wal-Mart okay but Rezko not?
eric wrote on January 21, 2008 10:33 PM:Annie,
I'm sorry if you and the rest of the I'll-vote-for-Hillary-because-she-can-obviously-play-dirty-like-the-Republicans-voters are too cynical to realize that voting for her is essentially voting Republican.
I for one will not vote for her, and I'm getting the sense that many Democrats won't either, which essentially hands the Republicans a victory next November, since there is no viable 3rd party in this country.
What she's doing now is destroying the Democratic party for the sake of her own ego, and ensuring another 4 years of psychotic Republican governments. She deserves to lose.
Daniel wrote on January 21, 2008 10:33 PM:while I enjoyed this clip as much as anyone, on a pure political junkie level - we should all remember that more important things are happening in the world - this is one of them http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01hqVzViFTw
Dagome wrote on January 21, 2008 10:34 PM:frankly0! I haven't watched the clip yet, but I don't think it can be more surprising than hearing you say something positive about Obama! (Just teasing, I'm sure I've read only a small fraction of your posts.)
cheers,
Dagome
Annie,
I'm sorry if you and the rest of the I'll-vote-for-Hillary-because-she-can-obviously-play-dirty-like-the-Republicans-voters are too cynical to realize that voting for her is essentially voting Republican.
I for one will not vote for her, and I'm getting the sense that many Democrats won't either, which essentially hands the Republicans a victory next November, since there is no viable 3rd party in this country.
What she's doing now is destroying the Democratic party for the sake of her own ego, and ensuring another 4 years of psychotic Republican governments. She deserves to lose.
grover_rover wrote on January 21, 2008 10:34 PM:Dawn, haha, that is some fancy footwork there. I know when I'm talking about who my favorite presidents are, in the context of bringing Republicans and Democrats together in my administration, I'm talking about decorations. That makes a hell of a lot of sense. Was she just listing all of the presidents she knew or what? I guess Reagan was considered handsome, but FDR? He wasn't really a looker. But I guess if the quote was all about who's faces she would hang on the wall, then I guess it makes sense that she would want to look at Bush Sr. and Reagan and call them her "favorite presidents"
Excuse me? That is the most ridiculous crap I have ever heard. I love that you Hillbots can believe a contrived BS story like that, but you are easily convinced that Obama's comments about the historical political significance of Reagan were him praising Reagan's policies. GIVE ME A BREAK.
Hillbot..does..not..compute...err...err....
schmed wrote on January 21, 2008 10:35 PM:The uniformly pro-Obama tenor of these comments takes this Edwards supporter aback. Hillary is obviously playing to the big feb. 5th states, and she did a good job of making those of us committed to neither her nor Obama wonder whether he is ready for prime time. Certainly his ability to be as petty as her doesn't do either of them good. The Walmart jab came before the Rezko jab, folks. And Hillary's poinjt that his comments about Republican ideas "in context" seemed an endorsement calls him out on his own version of triangulation, which is only preferable stylistically to the Clintons'.
sue wrote on January 21, 2008 10:36 PM:OMG...I was jumping up and down during this debate! Obama was on fire!
He has come out of his shell. I just hope he's done it soon enough.
sashaqz wrote on January 21, 2008 10:36 PM:The best thing for the Democrats is to nominate Hillary, watch her get whipped,dump the Clinton Reptile Farm out of the Democratic party and get on with building a real coalition. Plus, we get to watch the Republicans try and fail to deal with their recession plus Iraq. Four miserable years, but better a vaccination now, and 20 years of power later than four agonizing years of lies, triangulation, sex scandals and the certainty of 12 more Republican years afterwards.
Jake in Milwaukee wrote on January 21, 2008 10:37 PM:Hillary was really, really nasty tonight. REALLY nasty. I couldn't help but wonder what the hell she was talking about with the Rezko thing. Didn't Obama buy a small piece of land from him somewhere in his neighborhood? If that's all she's got on that, then this was REALLY, really petty, and it's beneath her. What about Hsu? And do we really want to go back to Whitewater?
She really could have made all the points about experience, her health care plan, and Obama's independents-grabbing comments (right or wrong) without being so rotten about it. I'm with Josh on this-- made me cringe.
Mike timmons wrote on January 21, 2008 10:38 PM:The reason the Rezko comment looked cheap is because it looked like a tacked on attack, whereas Obama's comment looked polished and professional. Nobody knows Rezko, everyone knows Walmart. It was a dumb attack that was clumsily thrown. It is a valid attack, but the way she tacked it on made it look like a cheap shot to people who have no reference to Rezko.
ChrisO wrote on January 21, 2008 10:38 PM:grover_rover, perhaps you could keep up on the news so your contributions here would be a little more valuable. You might note that the press release on her website is about getting the endorsement of a newspaper chain in NH. The endorsement itself contains the information about what she said about Reagan. The paper characterized her remarks, which certainly leaves room for error. And she can hardly be expected to not promote the endorsement, simply because it contains an error of fact.
The fact is, the publisher of the newspaper chain has released a stetement saying "we screwed up," and admitting that they misstated what Hillary said. This is the danger in taking someone's characterization of a statement as being akin to an actual quote.
Bloop wrote on January 21, 2008 10:38 PM:"And Hillary's poinjt that his comments about Republican ideas "in context" seemed an endorsement calls him out on his own version of triangulation,"
That was not Obama triangulating. That was a flat misrepresentation of what Obama said.
"He said that he really ... liked ... the ideas of the Republicans".
That's a bald-faced lie.
Tom the Barbarian wrote on January 21, 2008 10:40 PM:"God damn, the fact that Hillary can keep distorting the Reagan comments, flat out lying about what she knows (and everyone with any intelligence knows) he meant by them, it is disgusting."
Poker players look for "tells" that give clues that another player is bluffing. Many people also have "tells" that indicate when they are lying. Hillary and Bill have the same "tell" when they are lying about something. You can always know they are lying whenever their mouths are moving.
wglad wrote on January 21, 2008 10:40 PM:Wow. Looks like about 10 votes here Mrs. Clinton won't get. If she reads this blog, she'll probably withdraw from the race. If you say the Republicans have been the party of ideas, and you don't say they were bad ideas, you have some explaining to do. If you say Reagan transformed America, and you don't say the transformation was a disaster, you have some explaining to do. Those aren't hard lines to tag on to a pitch knocking the Nineties. As that little interview stands, McCain will chew him up for running on Reagan's record. But I guess you can't go to the campaign with the Obama you'd like to have. You have to go to the campaign with the Obama you've got. Or words to that effect. Obama's fatal flaw is that he is an internationalist. That plays wonderfully well here, but the post-9/11 binge of nationalist fervor has not run its course yet. If Obama gets the nomination, we'll be hearing Barbara Ann at the inaugural.
Mel wrote on January 21, 2008 10:41 PM:I respectfully disagree with most of the comments above. To me, it is disgraceful that Obama isn't for universal health care and that he continues to deny having said complimentary things about Reagan. (See Paul Krugman's blog and op-ed for clarification.) Edwards was very much on point, and came to Clinton's defense a number of times. I cannot understand the infatuation with Obama.
Tom wrote on January 21, 2008 10:44 PM:This is awful. Where is the unity that ought to be the hallmark of Democratic politics? Let's go after the Republicans and stop tearing eachother to pieces. This backbiting is the GOP's dream come true.
With scmed wrote on January 21, 2008 10:44 PM:I'm with scmed... Hillary didn't make me vote for her. I know she's full of shit. But if I didn't have background information on Rezko, Illinois, etc, if I was not politically attuned, what I would have seen was Hillary overpowering a vastly inexperienced and underprepared Obama.
I'm voting for Obama, but I'm not sanguine. I am, however, now nervous that Obama won't really be able to fight back effectively against GOP villainy. He really needs to work on thinking on his feet.
Now, Dubya couldn't think on his feet either, but Democrats are held to a much higher standard by the talking heads. And Dubya had to steal the election (twice).
The fact is that Hillary may win the nomination, but there's no reason to believe she can win the presidential campaign. Plenty of Dems now think of her as having the appeal of scarlet fever and syphilis combined, and independents and moderate republicans despise her and her disgusting old lecher of a husband. That's a recipe for catastrophe for the good ship Clinton, though good longterm news for real Democrats.
Bloop wrote on January 21, 2008 10:44 PM:"If you say the Republicans have been the party of ideas, and you don't say they were bad ideas, you have some explaining to do."
Has he not explained it?
Do you honestly believe that Obama thinks the Republicans' ideas were good ideas?
Do you honestly believe that Clinton honestly believes that Obama thinks the Republicans' ideas were good ideas?
Really?
Erik wrote on January 21, 2008 10:45 PM:What an incredible performance by Obama. He was fierce in defending himself when needed, measured in explaining important policy distinctions, and transformative in trying to move past race while still addressing racism. I was really so impressed.
I think he finally exposed the Clinton's campaign distortions for people to see. It was hilarious when hillary brought up a present vote for a bill that he actually sponsored and led through the legislature. The Reagan thing. I mean, he really did well in exposing her spins.
Susan wrote on January 21, 2008 10:45 PM:Krugman, like Clinton, didn't read Obama's entire spiel on Reagan.
I thought Obama did fine this evening. Hillary was at once impressive (as ever, on brass tacks) and dishonest (on what O has said and done). Edwards benefitted from being left out of the tussle.
Dawn wrote on January 21, 2008 10:45 PM:Sorry for taking time out to actually listen to the debate, Anonymous @ 9:28
As I said, I thought Obama did a nice job all day setting up for this, and then coming out and backing it up in person face to face. I don't think Hillary came off very well. The Rezko statement was bad, both on style and substance. You can't throw stuff out there that no one knows about, and then give the other guy a chance to give an innocent explanation. Obama minimized his involvement with the guy in a misleading answer that she had the good sense to let drop for now.
Lots of good back and forth on substance, and no screamingly stupid questions, with the possible exception of the very last. I think they all performed true to their already established images. I think we might be beyond the point where a lot of minds get changed.
Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 10:46 PM:If anyone thinks Barack Obama admires the policies of the Reagan administration, or even stated that to the editors in Reno, they need to learn to comprehend english.
Notice how Edwards has stayed away from that loser of an attack. BTW, why keep it alive, when the Clinton's have said better of the Gipper? Hillary was a GOLDWATER GIRL, SHE SHOULD DROP IT!
Another reason I do not trust Hillary's judgement.
blackstar wrote on January 21, 2008 10:46 PM:for those of you saying you enjoy when politicians "mix it up" like in tonight's debate, you need to wake up and grow up.
i would much rather have civil, productive discussions of policy and vision in which candidates outline their positions and approach while rigorously examining the same of their opponents.
rather than...
be forced to listen to candidates talking about who pushed what ad hominem or false attack on whom, and spending most of the debate distorting their opponents records or trying to clarify the facts about their own.
this kind of bullshit politics so loved by Fox, MSNBC, and now CNN is part of the problem, not just an amusing way to spend an evening a la America's Next Top Mud Wrestler.
Gabriel wrote on January 21, 2008 10:46 PM:Annie R-
On the contrary, I think Sen. Obama -- though he definitely gave up a few points on the health care discussion -- overall took Sen. Clinton to task, and finally made the most important point I've been waiting for him to make this whole primary season:
The Democrats aren't a majority in this country, and CANNOT win this election with just their core votes -- much less their core vote, minus the African-American members of the party.
We can nominate somebody with the best chance to win in November, or the worst chance to win. Why on Earth would nominating the candidate with the highest dislike in rated polls amongst Americans make sense for the Democratic Party? Why would nominating the candidate who is projected to have the SMALLEST EDGE against John McCain make sense?
If we Democrats truly want to win the White House this November, we need to rally behind the candidate that can win votes beyond our own party lines -- that can reach out to Independent, and yes, Republican voters.
We've been through 2000 and 2004 already. A Hillary Clinton nomination would bring us a perfect trifecta of ignoring the wants and needs of America as a whole, and throwing away a chance to win. Let's not make that mistake - let's rally behind Obama!
Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 10:48 PM:ChrisO, there are more quotes coming out that show the Clinton's lavishing praise on Reagan.
Each one is going to make you folks look worse and worse.
Is this REALLY the fight Clinton supporters want to have for the Presidency? You want us to believe your interpretation of Obama's remarks, despite our own common sense and Obama's protestations to the contrary?
While folks keep posting more and more fluffing of Reagan by the Clintons?
If this is the best the Clinton campaign can do, I'm feeling a lot better about Obama's chances.
foreigner wrote on January 21, 2008 10:48 PM:After everyone was talking for the past week about getting Bill to keep quiet and Obama coming out and saying that he was going to fight back, it was quite obvious he brought up this at the very beginning and after what he said, things went downhille from there in my estimation. If any of them were thinking of why they were there or what day it was, then of all them I would have thought Obama would have stayed away from starting that fight. I blame Blitzer for letting it deteriorate to both slinging back and forth at each other but I would have thought that tonight should have been spent on black issues and make that the theme.
To me, Edwards came off the best on the stage, Hillary and Obama next and Blitzer the disgrace of the evening. He might as well not have even been there.
A few points on health care? Give us a break! Obama also thinks Social Security is in danger. How can anyone be for voluntary health insurance?
M. Simon wrote on January 21, 2008 10:51 PM:This is exactly what you get when you have a party based on Gramscian identity politics.
Government gathers the spoils and the identity groups fight over them. With the cry "I'm more victim". The only people really making out are the commissars.
BTW identity politics was one of Stalin's chief tricks of the trade.
Choose your Stalin wisely.
Dawn wrote on January 21, 2008 10:51 PM:I did not make that up grover_rover. You must have been watching Tim Russert yesterday, because he was equally uninformed -
David Cutler, the co-owner of Salmon Press Newspapers, released the following statement:
The question posed was originally what portraits would you hang in the White House if you were President and as the dialogue progressed, who are the presidents you admire most?
She [Sen. Clinton] listed several presidents that she admired and mentioned she liked Reagan’s communication skills. She did not say Reagan was her favorite President. She didn’t say anything close to that.
Bonus Prediction:
The Hillbots will make a grand show of congratulating both sides on being equally nasty, the point being to minimize the fact that Hillary launched all of the nasty attacks and Obama merely defended himself.
erik wrote on January 21, 2008 10:52 PM:blackstar,
i agree with what you write, which is why i felt obama had to take clinton on for running a politics of attacks and distortions. i thought he did that well.
Michael A wrote on January 21, 2008 10:53 PM:I can't stand the clinton lies. Pathetic. Also, no more freaking debates. I am soooooo tired of them. Its the same thing over and over again.
clintonsjohnson wrote on January 21, 2008 10:53 PM:So, that's Wolf's shot at the primaries gone then? Agreed?
kcncdkn wrote on January 21, 2008 10:57 PM:I thought Obama and Edwards did a nice job, but who was the strange creature onstage with them? Was it Rudy Giuliani? It really did look like the result of a drag act, and sounded just like a Republican.
Mike timmons wrote on January 21, 2008 10:58 PM:It is so Clintonian that someone who has spent 1/3rd of their life as a Republican should attack someone for saying something good about a Republican.
Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 10:58 PM:Obama ripped off the testicles of Hillary and held them above his head and said she was a lawyer for walmart, and then hillary ripped off the testicles of Obama and held them above her head and said he was a lawyer of slum=lords, and then edwards held up both their testicles above his head as a lawyer and proclaimed that they should not have ripped off one another's resricles in public and displayed them for all to see.
LOL!!!
I think she looked mean.
Bloop wrote on January 21, 2008 10:59 PM:
"It really did look like the result of a drag act"
Oh good lord.
Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 10:59 PM:I did not make that up grover_rover. You must have been watching Tim Russert yesterday, because he was equally uninformed -David Cutler, the co-owner of Salmon Press Newspapers, released the following statement:
The question posed was originally what portraits would you hang in the White House if you were President and as the dialogue progressed, who are the presidents you admire most?
She [Sen. Clinton] listed several presidents that she admired and mentioned she liked Reagan’s communication skills. She did not say Reagan was her favorite President. She didn’t say anything close to that.
It's a shame Hillary Clinton had to be so nuanced, huh? Why do you think the Clintons keep going on and on about how great Reagan is? Do ya think it's the President's Club mentality: the better they make him look, the better they look? Or do you think it's the DLC, "era of Big Government is over" mindset that caused the Clintons to codify Reagan's philosophy (welfare reform/DOMA)? Or do you think it's just grudging acknowledgement of his popularity, like you keep accusing Obama of?
Celt06062 wrote on January 21, 2008 11:00 PM:I was wavering until I saw this... now I'm backing Edwards.
Mike timmons wrote on January 21, 2008 11:00 PM:It is so Clintonian that someone who has spent 1/3rd of their life as a Republican should attack someone for saying something good about a Republican.
Jay wrote on January 21, 2008 11:00 PM:What, no Edwards on the video clip again? Can't this site please acknowledge him somewhere, somehow? Anyone? Anyone?
flix wrote on January 21, 2008 11:01 PM:Wow -- these two are jokers...so foolish.
One of these two is going to be our next president. God help us.
Victoria wrote on January 21, 2008 11:04 PM:we can talk about the cheap shots by both of them. But Obama voted against capping our credit card rate at 30% because he did not like the rate. Well John Edwards called him on it. If you did not vote to cap it than there is no cap at all. Meaning it could go higher!
Health care I think Edward and Hillary took him to school on. He is just too green to be president.
I believe that candidates are allotted video time proportional to either: a) their showing in the Nevada caucuses, b) how many times they mention the tedious phrase "from day one", c) the fact that they have genuine political experience other than by spousal default. I do believe the video reveals a glimpse of Edwards' finely coiffured locks however.
Jack Frost wrote on January 21, 2008 11:09 PM:You people are very very biased against the Clintons.
Can anyone state clearly what Hillary Clinton has lied about?
Hillary was clear in this debate, she commanded the issues, she didn't show weakness...while Obama stammered, didn't explain his "present" votes- Responded poorly to advocating for a "slum-lord", and as usual was vague.
You people can be in denial all you want, but he isn't ready to president of the United States
wglad wrote on January 21, 2008 11:16 PM:Yeah, Bloop. I think he's explained it and explained it. Point is, if you have to explain it, it's too late. He was obviously trying to stick it to Bill Clinton, and, in the process, stuck it to the poor and the middle class. And then there was the October surprise and Iran/Contra. And Granada. And Star Wars. What the hell. Maybe Obama was out of the country or busy during the 80s or at Harvard or someplace and didn't really know what was going on. This is about the Supreme Court, Iraq, a confrontation with Iran, universal health care and keeping bombs out of our ports. This ain't no foolin around. I don't know who the next President is going to be, but I'm pretty sure he or she is going to be a nationalist. Mr. Obama has a lot of explaining ahead of him if he's going to convince America that he fits that bill. And would his base really want him to? You want an internationalist don't you? Even if he can't be President?
GZ wrote on January 21, 2008 11:16 PM:Taking a swipe at Walmart won't win Obama any votes in less affluent areas like South Carolina. Low-income voters care much more about the instant gratification of Walmart's low prices than some convoluted culpability for outsourcing.
Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 11:16 PM:Jack Frost wrote on January 21, 2008 11:09 PM:
Biased against the Clintons?
I mean come on she practically tried to lynch him with lies and he finally points out that she was a lawyer for the Chicom job destroying low wage, no health insurance company Walmart, and she goes red-faced ballistic!
Jack Frost's brain must have froze!
Did you see the same debate we did?
fightnight wrote on January 21, 2008 11:16 PM:Obama seemed to hold his own against Hillary but he seemed to be a bit thrown off his game when Edwards and Clinton both slung stuff in his direction. He needs to get tougher and he needs to remember that joe america does not understand politics the way he does before he speaks about things like Reagan being a transistional candidate. He was right about it but Joe America is clueless about such things and they can be misled by false claims.
Hillary just looks a like sleazy career politician who will say or do anything to win an election. Winning is good but if you will sell your soul to get it what does that say about you as a person and as a candidate?
Edward's Dad worked in a mill and it's personal.
sashaqz wrote on January 21, 2008 11:17 PM:JackFrost, I have only one lifetime, and you want me to catalog all of Hillary's lies? Do I have to go through all 35 years of carpetbagging (aka experience), or will the last 8 inglorious years as absentee senator for NYC be sufficient? Can't I take the easier route, and catalog the three occasions when, perhaps accidentally, she is know to have told the truth?
Adamchaz wrote on January 21, 2008 11:19 PM:I'm an Obama supporter but it is clear to see that Clinton is a viscous debater. Edwards is also a very strong debater. Obama needs to attack harder and more often. In the debates he comes off way to nice.
brad wrote on January 21, 2008 11:20 PM:Just a question for those who are supporting Clinton:
I'll take Hillary's Reagan comments, but I could think of a thousand other examples:
Does the lying bother you? If not, why?
Do you think all politicians lie so its all relative?
Do you not think she is lying?
Do you think Republicans lie more so its OK?
Do you think you have to lie to compete against Republicans in the general?
This might sound like snark, but I don't mean it that way. I'm genuinely curious. And I don't mean it to be holier than thou, as I defended them for years myself. But for some reason they just seem to be so blatantly full of BS now that its hard to take them seriously.
So that's my question.
Hillary is campaigning disgracefully, without humanity. This debate makes me want to work for Obama. I think he continues to stand up to Hillary, Bill, and Edwards well enough...in fact, much better than Hillary did when attacked from both sides in the NH debates (when she loses her cool, it's an unwatchable train wreck. When Barack is a bit rattled, he just seems to react like a normal person--debating skills don't seem to matter once one is President--character then is a much bigger issue)).
One thing for sure--Obama would be the first President with genuine humanity since Jimmy Carter, except I think Barack is shrewder, more capable, more intelligent, and more inspired.
Jack Frost wrote on January 21, 2008 11:23 PM:why don't you guys start by "catalogue-ing" the ones she allegedly told about Barack Obama??
I saw the same debate you guys did, however I am not against Hillary Clinton. I can say fairly that most of you are whether Hillary did well or not you would look for fault. That's fine. But I can see there is a clear bias here against Hillary.
Nobody has been able to defend Obama on his 137 "present" votes, his advocating for a slum lord (ONLY AFTER OBAMA CALLED HILLARY A WALMART LAWYER), his stammering, his inability to quote Hillary correctly - she never ( nor did Bill) claim that he did not oppose the war - OBAMA LIED. you people are totally biased and will believe whatever Obama says as gospel.
JackFrost, even limiting your search to "Hillary Clinton lies", Google returns 567,000 results. Feel free to root through her garbage heap to your heart's content.
af wrote on January 21, 2008 11:30 PM:Obama may be able to win the black vote in a contest with Clinton, but that doesn't say that she wouldn't win it in a contest with any of the Rs.
adam wrote on January 21, 2008 11:31 PM:Edwards did a really good job in the debate. He would get killed in a general election, once people find about some of his policies towards the rich. He would make a great advisor on domestic issues. His passion on the economic issues of the middle class is amazing. However he is running to be president of the rich, and upper middle class and not just the poor.
Speaking of the economy, Hilary answer to the subprime crisis is illegal and somebody needs to call her on it. You can’t freeze interest rates for 7 years. You can’t stop foreclosure for 90 days. All that will do is keep home prices artificially high, and keep people from getting bank loans to buy homes in the future. Hilary for all her experience needs to come up with a better plan.
Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 11:31 PM:Jack Frost wrote on January 21, 2008 11:23 PM:
Her lips were moving she was lying!
Obama won, the Walmart quote took the night, it is the 'moment' of the debate, the "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy" moment!
Obama ripped her testicles off and swung them around his head and did a rocky balboa dance, that is the bubba moment of the debate.
wglad wrote on January 21, 2008 11:32 PM:Good questions, Brad. I'm down with it. I don't think she's lying. I think she's really quite restrained. She could have gone much further with Obama's connection to the indicted "slum lord." That was just a warning shot. And he did say the Republicans were the party of ideas, without saying the ideas were bad for the country. And he did vote present. (I actually heard him say he voted present on anti-abortion legislation because planned parenthood wanted him to have political cover.) And he is running ads in Florida. (Although he can explain that.) One problem I have with Obama is he reminds me of Kerry. He always has a good explanation.
David Higuera wrote on January 21, 2008 11:32 PM:As someone who worked for the Democratic Party for three of the past four years, as a strict partisan, I can say with 100% certainty I am READY and EAGER to get past the partisanship in Washington. I'm sick of it, and I'm sick of "victory" being stopping the other side from getting anything done (both sides), as opposed to passing meaningful bi-partisan legislation for the benefit of the American People.
America needs Barack Obama. Not only can he win; he will be able to truly lead, bring Dems and R's together to accomplish big things. THAT IS WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA ON FEB 5TH.
And BTW, so is practically everyone else I know in the Democratic Party in the "red" state of Arizona/
It's the Surname, Stupid! wrote on January 21, 2008 11:33 PM:GZ wrote on January 21, 2008 11:16 PM:
Taking a swipe at Walmart won't win Obama any votes in less affluent areas like South Carolina. Low-income voters care much more about the instant gratification of Walmart's low prices than some convoluted culpability for outsourcing.
Then they should watch this:
http://www.jibjab.com/originals/big_box_mart
Jack Frost. The 137 present votes are sometimes use as a political strategy in the state of IL. I personally don't believe that voting present should be allowed, but it is allowed In IL and is used as a political strategy by both the democrats and republicans. The most common reason to use it is if you have an issue that you agree with but the legislation is badly written.
wglad wrote on January 21, 2008 11:37 PM:David is going to carry Arizona for Obama if McCain is the Republican nominee. I'm going to carry my laughing body off to bed. ROFL.
Jorge wrote on January 21, 2008 11:38 PM:I thought that Obama finally hit on the right note about differentiating himself from Hillary on national security issues.
The line he needs to use is that Democrats can't and shouldn't try to out Republican the Republicans. We need to offer an alternative foreign and defense policy.
Hillary has been one of the most hawkish Democrats over the past 7 years. While her anti-Bush rhetoric is high, she voted for the Iraq-war and she voted for Kyl-Lieberman just last year.
adam,
yes, I understand what the purpose is of voting "present" is, and being absent in the US Senate is the same thing- the fact of the matter is Edwards and Hillary take responsibility for their votes ( sometimes wrong votes) while Obama alleged "pure" and savior-like conviction is not matched with his record- he played it SAFE by voting that way and can explain it all he wants with technicalities but at the end of the day its playing it safe just like Sen. Edwards said, AND he stood there and lied about the Clintons saying he didnt oppose the Iraq war- they criticized his transformation of his position
Mel wrote on January 21, 2008 11:45 PM:Obama is not for universal health care. He is not committing to getting the troops out of Iraq.
These are salient points that are particularly troubling.
Plus, his committed Christian comment was bit too much for me.
David Higuera wrote on January 21, 2008 11:45 PM:wglad - I'm glad you got a good laugh, but if McCain wins the R nomination, he wins AZ and perhaps a handful of other states by small margins, while Obama wins the vast majority of states and electoral college votes all across the country, and gets sworn into office with a true mandate for change.
Meanwhile, if McCain is the R's guy, we get to focus on legislative races here in AZ; take back our own House.
Win-win.
Good night. Sleep tight.
ChrisNBama wrote on January 21, 2008 11:46 PM:Victoria wrote on January 21, 2008 11:04 PM:
"we can talk about the cheap shots by both of them. But Obama voted against capping our credit card rate at 30% because he did not like the rate. Well John Edwards called him on it. If you did not vote to cap it than there is no cap at all. Meaning it could go higher!
Health care I think Edward and Hillary took him to school on. He is just too green to be president."
True, Obama voted badly on the Bankruptcy bill. But as I recall, on a matter of the utmost importance, both Hillary and Edwards voted to authorize this disastrous war. I think there are nearly 4000 American soldiers that would have gladly payed higher interest rates for the opportunity to live. Sorry if this sounds crass, but I have to say this in the starkest terms. Hillary's horrible lapse of judgment, and the fact that she didn't even READ the NIE prior to the vote, demonstrate that she isn't qualified to be President of the United States.
Obama simply has a different approach to health care than Edwards and Clinton. This is a valid point of disagreement. I personally think that Obama's health care plan is a winner in terms of a general election, but a loser among the democratic base that wants mandatory coverage.
Amber wrote on January 21, 2008 11:48 PM:Josh Marshall, bless him, expressed his boyhood political crush on Bill Clinton last week, and that clearly blurs any distinction of unbiased reporting. It has been showing subtly for a long time.
If anything, I saw the debate completely differently from the excellent folks at TPM. Edwards was outstanding and Obama did a lot to advance himself in the public eye. And if anything, he showed that he was a fighter and bare-knuckled enough to go toe-to-toe with Clinton/Rove politics.
Obama really put Clinton in her place and did an clever job of dispel the Muslim Bob Kerry/Clinton Camp myth and make her appear to be the corporate Democrat. She lost it and he helped bring out the ugliness that the folks in Iowa dislike about her and that a few tears helped the New Hampshire voters forget.
Just like the MSM gets stuck in a vacuum, I think the blogosphere has the same tendencies.
Jami wrote on January 21, 2008 11:49 PM:Sen. Obama, the consummate professional, finally said enough is enough and called Sillary Clinton on her crap! Honestly, it's really sad that she thinks so little of the electorate that she can tell such bold lies! I used to believe in the Clintons once upon a time. But you know, fool me once...
adam wrote on January 21, 2008 11:49 PM:I don't feel it is playing it safe when you vote present on the urging of the Democratic Party or allies of the Democratic Party. I don't know if that was the case for all of his votes, but I know some of his present votes were at the urging of the Democratic party.
I have no comment on the Iraq funding vote. All Democrats let me down by voting to fund that war. Obama was not in the senate at the time to vote on the authorization of war however, but Edwards and Hilary were.
thegreatslumlord wrote on January 21, 2008 11:52 PM:Oh Barack. You caught my attention with your hope, but you lost my vote with your double standards. You accuse Clinton of deliberately distorting your positions, but then deliberately distort what was questioned with the fairy tale comment. (Wasn't it your campaign who put together a little memo lumping that comment in with other supposedly 'racist' remarks in the first place? So if racism doesn't work for you, how about misrepresenting them another way.) I know. It's just politics. As usual.
And saying the Republican party was the party of ideas for the last 10 or 15 years implies that the Democrats were bankrupt of ideas. Well, what was it that Hillary was fighting for in 93? Oh yeah. Universal health care. Which you claim you're for, but won't put forth a plan that guarantees it...
It's ok though. I'm sure you've solved everything. If you go up against a Republican in November, I'm sure they'll only quote you in full and in context and you'll only return the favor. All the fights that Democrats have been fighting for years will suddenly be won because you hoped for it.
brad wrote on January 21, 2008 11:54 PM:wglad,
Thanks for a thoughtful reply. I'll try to respond in kind.
As someone who watched the entire interview with the Reno newspaper, I personally would not be able to characterize his words the way she did tonight with a straight face. Its late and I don't feel like writing an essay, but the entire DLC/centrist movement of the early '90s was a response to the problems Obama brought up in that interview, and I think that is what he was referring to. Both Hillary and Bill know that history better than anybody, and if she actually believes the account she tried to sell tonight, she should be automatically disbarred from the race for an inability to remember history. I know that wasn't the problem she was having.
Regarding the present votes: ~160 out of over 4,000 votes cast, and they are a standard and accepted part of Illinois politics. I know it sounds like a legitimate issue, but I also know enough about the Illinois legislature to understand it. Believe me, Obama was a shining star in Illinois politics on the order of Paul Simon. Granted, Illinois politics are nothing to aspire to, but he did an excellent job of rising above. I lived in Chicago in the '90s and '00s and I know the political environment. The statement about Planned Parenthood advising the present vote is true, and he had a 100% rating by Planned Parenthood Illinois (look it up).
As for the Tony Rezko issue, I've read every article the Sun Times and the Tribune have written. The most egregious thing that has been exposed so far is the purchase of part of his lot from Rezko. I admit that was a dumb move and it doesn't look good. But there has been a federal investigation into Rezko and it hasn't laid a glove on Obama. Again, if he was in Illinois politics for 12+ years and this is the worst transgression they can find, I honestly think it speaks pretty well of him. There certainly is no pattern of corruption, impropriety, dishonesty, bad faith, or even jaywalking. My opinion, but I haven't heard anyone be able to connect the dots otherwise.
Running ads in FLA. Don't know much about this one so I can't comment.
Just as a small comparison, someone on cable the other day brought up in passing the fact that one of HRC's brothers was paid cash by someone who received a pardon from President Clinton. I had completely forgotten about that. Consider that for a moment: There is so much water under the bridge for the Clintons that it is possible to forget about a bribe (successful or not) for a pardon. That might be a good thing in that she is so innoculated against slime for the general, but all the same she's not someone I'm going to be volunteering for or possibly even voting for.
Thanks.
erosolir wrote on January 22, 2008 12:03 AM:Let me see if I understand Hillary lies and is nasty, Obama speaks well and is a nice guy, John is good on the issues but carries on too much about being the son of mill worker. So much for a discussion of the issues.
I will support and work for whoever comes out as our candidate but right now I'm not voting for anyone who thinks a single payer health care system is not needed and that the way to get health care for everyone is lower the cost. The only way you lower the cost is to have a single pay system to eliminate the administrative inefficiencies. Like it or not Hillary was right when she said that it you don't start out with universal health care you already lost. By the way I'm not voting for her either cause I'm sold on the son of a mill worker, I just can't hear enough!
i dont understand why people keep running with this present vote crap. He voted present 130 something times and voted yay/nay over 4000 times.
brad wrote on January 22, 2008 12:08 AM:erosolir,
Hillary is not proposing a single payer system. Nor is Edwards, nor is Obama. All three proposals rely on lower costs to drive adoption. The only major difference is that Obama does not enforce a mandate to purchase insurance. But you knew that, right?
example wrote on January 22, 2008 12:15 AM:Let me defend Obama's healthcare plan a little.
As democrats, we're all opposed to a flat tax, no? Well, that's essentially what Health Insurance mandates actually, a flat tax except private companies get to take their cut and then provide us with bullshit "health insurance" that fucks everyone over (see sicko).
What we need is a single payer system, paid for out of general government revenue combined with a tax increase on the top 1%.
All three of their plans are bullshit, but Obama's is the least obnoxious.
inMIch wrote on January 22, 2008 12:15 AM:I've been watching to see who transforms themselves into a president over the course of the campaign here, and I have my own opinion, BUT...
The Obama Reagan/GOP comments are easily, EASILY understood if you watch the video. If you are old enough, you can see with your own two eyes what transformations Reagan achieved because these crazy neocons have an airport named after him, and want him ON MONEY. That does NOT mean that you like the transformations. It means you can SEE them. Bill Clinton gets no such love (eg. transformational) from even people who voted for him (like me), root, and support HRC! How many municipal Bill Clinton buildings are there in the US? I hated Reagan's racist-a** policies (remember when he went to Compton? HA!), but if you study politics of the US in the 20th century, you see his affect on policy today. NO PERSON ON THIS BOARD APPROVES OF THEM, except for the trolls. I assume. Obama was pointing out the obvious, and not giving aid and support.
I thought we were supposed to be well informed here...guess not.
*************
IMHO, the GOP GOTV machine works best v. Hillary, because they've been waiting and saving $/attacks/vitriol for her, AND there's more than a few Dems who WILL NOT vote for her, regardless. I don't think that way, just what I see and hear. The GOP GOTV will ramp up against B.Obama, too, but rednecks won't vote for him anyway. I think it works the least against J.Ed, but his plan seems to stay alive to be King/Queen maker @ this point.
Regardless, we are ALL going to have to do some lifting if the Constitution is to be revived/restored/rewritten for future times. We can't leave it to any pol. ESPECIALLY this weak, spineless, sodomized Dem Congress ~ whew.
Tennessee wrote on January 22, 2008 12:19 AM:I guess i don't get all this admiration of Hillary. She will have a difficult time when it gets to the general election and she has lost mostly if not all of the black vote.
brewmn wrote on January 22, 2008 12:31 AM:"She could have gone much further with Obama's connection to the indicted "slum lord." That was just a warning shot."
Bring it on. Obama may have too much class, but I would hope he brings up Whitewater, cattle futures, the Lincoln Bedroom and Norman Hsu.
At this point, the Clintons have shown they will not stop at anything, and will not hesitate to lie and distort the statements, even of a fellow Democrat. Obama should start returning the favor in spades, and remind everyone why they were glad to see the Clintons leave the White House.
Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 12:32 AM:Well we can nominate a real democrat, we can nominate an inspirational leader or we can nominate a Wallmart lawyer. Unfortunately, the real democrat has already lost, so it's between an inspirational leader and say-it-with-a-straight-face-Hillary.
Mel wrote on January 22, 2008 12:33 AM:I agree that a single-payer system is absolutely the best way to go. Having said that, and facing the reality of the plans, I still maintain that Obama's is the most flawed, and that his "philosophy" of not "forcing" anyone to have insurance is absurd.
And, the following is not open to revisionist interpretation:
I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.
Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 12:34 AM:'Bama u better watch your back... She's a mean one.
Paulu wrote on January 22, 2008 12:39 AM:"This is awful. Where is the unity that ought to be the hallmark of Democratic politics?"
As a friend noted to me, this election was supposed to be about kicking the Rethugs out of the White House and getting any Democrat into the Presidency, PERIOD. Instead it has turned into getting Obama into the White House. If you check out enough political blogs one common thing you'll notice is that WAY more Obama supporters say they will never vote for Hillary in the general election, than Hillary supporters who say that of Obama. The attitude of Obama's supporters (many not all) is that they want their way, they want it NOW, and if they don't get their way, they'll storm off in a huff (ie, not vote in the general election). How petulant! Sure, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards supporters would like to see their candidate win the nomination too, but for the most part they want to see a Dem win the White House, whoever he or she is.
example wrote on January 22, 2008 12:50 AM:I'm an Obama supporter but I'd vote for (and work for) Edwards in the general in a heartbeat.
Hillary can screw herself. Excising this poison from our party is more important then fixing the country, frankly. At least if McCain or Romney win I won't feel like it's my fault, but if Hillary wins I really will feel like I have no share of our government, or our party.
sj wrote on January 22, 2008 12:51 AM:sashaqz wrote on January 21, 2008 11:26 PM:
JackFrost, even limiting your search to "Hillary Clinton lies", Google returns 567,000 results
That's rich. "Proving" the Clinton lies by a google count. That's typical of the Obama crowd and why every time I read blog comments I get pushed towards the Clinton camp. Seriously.
harpers wrote on January 22, 2008 12:55 AM:Two clowns -- one vote. John Edwards may be an after-thought, but Clinton and Obama are tripping over their clown feet trying to mimic his fake populism.
Something for you, and something for you, and something for you, and something for you. And god damned that Ronald Reagan...he fooled some of your ignoramuses into voting against your own economic interests...twice!
savvy wrote on January 22, 2008 1:04 AM:I just want to comment on the bankruptcy bill.
Hillary is distorting that vote and Edwards did not know what the heck he was talking about. First off, both Hillary and Edwards voted for the bankruptcy act.
'
Secondly the bill was written as a double edged sword. If you voted for the bill you voted that consumers could NOT declare personal bankruptcy while businesses still could AND you voted to limit the interest to 30%.
So in order to cap the interest you had to eliminate the consumer's rights to declare bankruptcy. Obama did not think that was a good deal, given how the number one cause of bankruptcy in America are healtbcare costs.
Hillary however did vote to end consumers rights to declare bankruptcy.
I thought Obama and Edwards looked most Presidential tonight.
I shudder to think how Hillary is going to treat foreign heads of states when they oppose US policies is she going to become vicious, mean and petty as she did during the debate tonight?
If so, that is not the type of President we need. We need someone who has the statesmanship stature and who can use diplomacy.
Hillary has no tact, she is crude rude and socially unacceptable, as our President this could result in global wars which Hillary would engage with gleee as she likes being confrontational and getting down in the mud.
American needs leadership not petty squabbling by a woman who knows the details but thinks that having power means you have to clobber folks with it.
Obama consistently strives to reach common ground and focus on what is important to achieving what is in the best interest of the nation.
Hillary proved she is liar tonight just like Bill...and the real gut wrenching part is she lies with conviction just like she cast that vote to take this country to war with conviction.
She lacks good judgment.
Hillary is a compulsive liar. Sickening.
Jane wrote on January 22, 2008 1:40 AM:"At least if McCain or Romney win I won't feel like it's my fault"
So you have no problem with being stuck in Iraq for another 100 years? Because that's what McCain said his plans are. Seriously, google it.
Lisa wrote on January 22, 2008 1:45 AM:Hilary turns my stomach. I'm sick to death of her lying and distortion and mudslinging, and that of her husband. Every time I hear her speak, I am reinvigorated to do something to help Obama win.
G Davis wrote on January 22, 2008 1:49 AM:I would suggest any Dem here go visit some conservative sites to see what they have to say about the Dem primary...see what gets them motivated, excited about voting.
It might be instructive if you're basing your vote on electability. They are fired up for one candidate only from the Dem side...
I guess you, Mr Obama may be unaware of the crap Bill and Hillary Clinton took from the vast RIGHT WING conspiracy cabal. However, we never thought we would have to hear insults about them form any one of the Democratic contenders. I can see that you need to answer any comment, but to call someone who has suffered so at the hands of the Republicans a liar is just foolish of your campaign. I guess if you live by the attack, you have it coming to have to put up with the same sort of crap in return. I had hoped that our candidates could rise above that sort of thing. If your campaign disagrees with a statement, refuting that is fine. But playground type of name calling language does not suit a would be President. For instance, your stand on Florida advertising seems disingenuous to me. I have no idea who said that what you did was fine, but it is not fine if you get to advertise in Florida against the rules and you did not get permission from the National Committee who made the rule. And if they did give you permission, then the other campaigns shoud have been told to go ahead and advertise. Otherwise your explanation is an excuse and not a reason. It seems to me that in all fairness, you should see that clearly. One wonders then as President if you will feel like our present President and ignore all the rules. Then there is the matter of your statements about your “present” votes. Are you trying to tell me you thought it was OK for you to vote present on a bill regarding youth offenders being tried as adults, that you could not muster a NO vote even though you were representing a safe district? (“Safe district” according to my nieces Illinois check on that detail) I understand about the Right to Life issues. This was not one of them. Your “Present” vote on this issue seems very gutless to me.
Duane wrote on January 22, 2008 2:13 AM:So you have no problem with being stuck in Iraq for another 100 years? Because that's what McCain said his plans are. Seriously, google it.
So you agree that voting for the Iraq war is a bad thing?
Unless Hillary Clinton voted for it, supported it, and won't give us a timetable for withdrawal, then it's no big deal?
What exactly is the difference between McCain's Iraq war position and Hillary's? 10 years? 20? (Check the votes, they are all the same.)
facta non verba wrote on January 22, 2008 2:19 AM:I saw and heard two Democrats on the stage and one wannabe Republican. The universal health care debate was telling and clearly broke Obama. He was defensive and looked lost. Nonetheless he will probably win South Carolina but then he is done. Once we start voting in closed primaries, it will be clear that the party faithful who have soured on Obama over the past two months will clearly reject Obama's politics of compromise which we equate with the politics of surrender. He is an appeaser, a pandered and an empty suit.
Kaboom wrote on January 22, 2008 2:24 AM:BTW, my preconceived notions about Hillary Clinton not having the temperment to be President were validated this evening. I'm not sure how you make a case for someone that shows that degree of hatefulness to a fellow Democrat, all the while clearly lying about his record or something he said.
I mean, if you accept she didn't know any better that's almost a worse scenario for her. When he corrected her, she should have responded, "I'm sorry, I misunderstood." But to tell Obama what he himself said using words Obama didn't utter and to continue the line of attack despite being corrected and to get progressively nastier instead of just owning up she was wrong...
I'm sorry, no thanks. Eight years of that is enough for me.
If she gets the nomination, I pray it really is Bill Clinton's third term. We're one button away from a nuclear war if Hillary Clinton decides someone is lying about not having a nuclear weapons program and that someone has the audacity to publicly correct her wrongheaded opinion.
KevinH wrote on January 22, 2008 2:32 AM:I love the way all the Obama complain whenever their candidate is attacked 'unfairly'. They usually end up saying something along the lines of the'll be no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans if Hillary is nominated.
That's exactly the kind of thinking many useful idiots used in 2000 when they voted for Nader.
If you must stand on principle maybe you should try something a little less down and dirty like politics
Our nation is hypnotized by the big brother “game” aspect of this democratic race. The critical question at this juncture is; how we stop being merely a spectator and believing that this TV show will soon be over, America will survive and superman at the end will restore our greatness.
Shame on serious journalists, senior democrats and Democratic Party to continue to play a meager spectator/commentator role from the slide-lines. Shame on Al Gore, riding his high horse collecting global trophies, high posts on venture boards and playing the green ambassador role…..For letting Mr. and Mrs. Clinton undermine thru lies and deceit, the decent, visionary and authentic leadership of Obama.
This is the time for all of us to play our roles, speak out and refuse to simply watch the game. We must participate!
Al Gore, you simply can’t let Clintons destroy the truth and win a back-door presidency.
Al Gore, ENDORCE OBAMA now!
Listen all this talk about it makes it very tough for me to vote for her because I am put off by her, is nonsense. IF she wins the nomination, then it is your duty to vote for her. Would you rather have another 8 years of Bushit with the Republicans?
The fact is both of these guys are now damaged goods and I will vote for either one of them in an election that means so much, but as I see it now, we have only one candidate that isn't damaged. Edwards.
Just remember, Gore is the same as Bush. The only real choice is Nader/Bradley.
foxx wrote on January 22, 2008 3:52 AM:I see a sexist double standard in most of these comments. Hillary was no more negative or attacking than Obama. But people perceive a woman's assertiveness as violent.
Wil Burns wrote on January 22, 2008 4:10 AM:Justice Is Comin Mon Jan-21-08 11:44 PM
I absolutely can't stand Obama.
The more I see him, the more I know this is a disaster in a disguise. I said it before and I'll say it again. I wouldn't trust him from my front door to my mailbox. Wouldn't buy a used car from him.
Everything from his facial expressions to body language, with his ever present rheumatoid arthritis curled finger to his attempts to sound like a fire breathing Baptist preacher Jimmy Swaggert at his campaign stops, do more every time to turn my stomach.
He cannot accept any responsibility for anything he did politically or otherwise that makes him look the least wrong without trying to vanilla coat it with layers and layers of circular bullshit. 151 votes of present was because he thought the bill needed more work? I believe that calls for a NO vote Barack, not a "present." That even blew John Edwards mind.
The wagons of ammunition are being loaded by the slugs who have the Oval Office now even as I type, in the the hopes that nothing derails his nomination as our Democratic Party choice. They are counting on the sheep with rose colored glasses in all the primaries to give them that gift.
People this is no modern day Martin Luther King reincarnate. This is an arrogant, egotistical, slippery, up-to-his neck in naivete of international affairs, self adoring Junior Senator that will get steam rolled by the corporate elite and their minions within six weeks of him taking oath of office. They will explain to this president trainee how Washington works and will continue to work. And he will serve the masters.
If I have to vote for Obama in November because he is the Democrat on our ticket, I'll have no choice but to do it. But then I'll have to go home and waterboard myself.
Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 4:20 AM:The amount of WRONG information on ALL sides irkes me - here's some recent examples...
1) Hillary left Wallmart board position over disagreements with the company
2) Obama has given all Rez funds to charity, and its his firm, not him that represented him (conversely, you can't implicate Hill in Bill donor stuff)
3) John gets money from trial lawyers - everyones in someones pocket
4) Hillary didn't put down MLK, Jr
5) Obama does not endorse Republican ideas from the last 10-15 ideas
6) Obama did authorize war funding - he can't play the "I'm the only one against the war card"
7) Hillary is NOT Bill and did not authorize legal dispute in Nevada
8) Nevada dispute was about whether delegates based on turnout or population
9) No candidate has come up with an alternative for nuclear waste disposal in Nevada...
Barack Obama finally took Hillary Clinton on. He finally defended himself against her and her husband's Republican-style slime machine: the lies, the meanness, the dirty and shameless campaign she and her husband and all their mouthpieces and operatives and surrogates have been waging against him. Finally, Barack stood up for himself. Good for him. Go Barack, go.
audacity of hype wrote on January 22, 2008 4:55 AM:The best part of Obama's Walmart comment is that his wife was on the board of one of WalMart's main food suppliers for two years.
Michelle Obama after Senator Obama stated he would not shop at WalMart but before she resigned from the TreeHouse Foods board: "Barack is gonna say what needs to be said, and it's not going to, you know, necessarily matter ... what I'm doing if it's not the right thing."
Apparently Mrs. Obama felt she was not doing the right thing at Treehouse but wanted that extra 50K a year. But then again maybe not since the official SEC filing states "her resignation is the result of increased demands on her time and is not due to any disagreement with the company on any matter."
Concerned T. wrote on January 22, 2008 5:35 AM:I am a long time Democrat, really and sincerely, and have always voted Democratic, really. After tonights debate I will not vote for HRC even in the general election if she is nominated. This proves she should not be nominated because I am really really really a Democrat and just made this decision today. Really. Sincerely your, Concerned Troll
Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 5:44 AM:I heard it with my own hears and saw it with my own eyes.
Mrs. Bill Clinton got all self-righteous and had the audacity to challenge Obama's integrity. What in the world was she thinking? Does she really believe she can win a duel with anyone in polictics on the issue of integrity?
Bill and Hillary are two dishonest people who sold their souls to coporate special interest, who personal and campaign finances are unethical if not illegal, and whose personal lives have many secrets.
Mrs. Bill Clinton cannot win an election that is based on the truth, ideas, policy positions and substance. She plays dirty and will win only if she can drag this campaign deeper in the mud.
Democrats who love their nation and their party must stand up to the Clinton machine and challenge its distrutive, win at any cost, Rove-Bush battle plan.
If Hillary wins American loses.
Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 6:07 AM:Paula above chastizes Obama supporters, say ..."WAY more Obama supporters say they will never vote for Hillary in the general election, than Hillary supporters who say that of Obama. "
Bingo Paula. This is because Obama is the stronger candidate with greater appeal. Many Americans have looked at Mrs. Bill Clinton and know that under no circumstancw would they vote for her to lead the nation and the world.
I would not say that about any of the other Democratic candidates. Hillary supporters must some day soon face the fact that she is the most divisive person in American politics, despised by nearly half the nation, because she is dishonest, mean and unqualified. Nominating Hillary will do irreversable damage to the Democratic party, the democratic process and the Nation.
We don't need Karl Rove politcs, the Clintons or the Bushes.
puzzled wrote on January 22, 2008 6:21 AM:Perhaps in all fairness, the next debate should be with the real candidates: Bill Clinton, Obama and Edwars.
Hillary's only real qualifications are as Mrs. Bill Clinton anyway. If she cannot contain Bill and is unwilling to be accountable for the dishonest attacks he is making on Obama, Hillary should let Bill do her debating too.
If Bill was eligble to be running for president under the Constitution, he would be. He is not. Hilary as the next best thing doesn'r work.
latts wrote on January 22, 2008 6:22 AM:the following is not open to revisionist interpretation
It's not "revisionist interpretation;" it's reading comprehension above the eighth-grade level.
And to think I used to believe that Democrats were brighter than Republicans overall...
Concerned T. wrote on January 22, 2008 6:24 AM:Anonymous is just like me....A real, true, honest to God democrat, forever! We will NEVER EVER vote for HRC and it would hurt the Democrats' party (I mean our party) if she is nominated. I was going to vote for her until today just like anonymous and just made up my mind today that she is evil and ugly. Sincerely your, Concerned Troll
paul wrote on January 22, 2008 6:44 AM:Is it just me or does it seem that the Clinton campaign has assigned a few bloggers to post on this site. There's way more anti-Obama stuff than recently - and it's all this dishonest crap like "You used to have me when you spoke about hope" coming from "theslumlord".
Concerned T. wrote on January 22, 2008 6:52 AM:Paul is absolutly right. The Obama supporters here are real true honest to god democrats who all recently decided that they could never vote for the evil HRC. All the Billary supporters are assigned by the Clinton campaign staff and I can prove this because, in spite of all the polls to the contrary, no one could ever support her. Sincerely yours, a true Democrate, Concerned Troll
Concerned T. wrote on January 22, 2008 7:06 AM:I mean really who would like to be seen sipping an insouciant Claret with at the wine bar downtown? It would be sooooooo embarassing to be sitting with Billary. I doubt she even has an ipod!!!!! If you're voting for HER you're probably poor, ugly and didn't get a good job out of college, if you even went! Get real Hillary supporters, vote for the cool candidate. Sincerely yours, A Concerned Troll
We Choose To Go To The Moon wrote on January 22, 2008 7:17 AM:Comment from a Norwegian (male) observer: I just watched the debate (on video).
Conclusion: It's obvious that the vast majority of the reactionary posters in this thread are true representatives of a nation that not only lags the developed world in such things as newborn death rates, but also in mature and progressive reactions to a woman running for the highest office. In Norway, for example, when Gro Harlem Brundtland became prime minister in 1981, she had to endure some of the same sexist scrutnisation which Hillary is currently facing (i.e. the woman is a "witch or a bitch", and has a "bad temper" and tends to sound "shrewish" when "agitated"). Any reasonably objective individual would have a hard time yesterday concluding that Hillary was any "worse" than Obama in the tit for tat squabble. You know, in Europe, we are now used to seeing women politicians debating political issues, and take some liberties with the "truth"; which is exactly how male politicians have been operating since the politics of ancient Greece. In 20 or 30 years, one can at least hope that the US may have developed in a similar way to how the rest of developed world has evolved.
I sometimes think that we are too much impressed by the clamor of daily events. The newspaper headlines and television screens give us a short view. They so flood us with the stop-press details of daily stories that we lose sight of one of the great movements in history. Yet it is the profound tendencies of history and not the passing excitements that will shape our future.
JFK, Berkeley, March 23, 1962
Spotty Dog wrote on January 22, 2008 7:39 AM:Ye Gads!
I loved the Clintons, but their brand of "hard ball" politics inside our own party is Rovian BS (Bush vs McCain in SC 2000 redux), and it is wearing on me. I never liked the DLC but I liked the Big Dog, but, alas, now he's beginning to lose me too.
To all those who say "gee whiz, Obama didn't explicitly say that he didn't like the Republican ideas"...really, you actually believe a man running for the Democratic nomination for President against a Republican opponent in the general has to explicitly say the words that he doesn't agree with the Republican (and DLC) policies of the past? Are you kidding me? He's vie-ing to run against the Republicans in Nov! What planet are you people smoking (but not inhaling) on?
Walmart: Okay, now you construe Obama's comments on Hillary's Walmart corporate board membership as an attack on poor people? Duh! Attack-on-wealthy- corporate-lawyers-who-suck-from-the-trough-of-a-corporation-that-exploits-its poor-workers-and-appoints-her-to-their-board-to-curry-favor with-her-politically-powerful-husband. 35 years of experience comes with some pretty nice perk-os. One of the debaters was a poorly paid community organizer while one was a rich corporate lawyer.
Rezko: Obama was a junior lawyer with a law firm that included a former member of the administration of our late great Mayor Harold Washinton (Judson Miner). Contrary to the cheap Hillary comeback prevarication Obama didn't "represent" slumlord Tony Rezko. And at the time, Rezko Corp was in partnership with other notable civic non-profits like gee, I dunno, the "nefarious slum lords" of the Urban League. Tony Rezko is a slime but the "guilt by association" tactic seems odd coming from Hillary Clinton whose brothers took cash money for brokering pardons. Didn't the ex-wife of a certain convicted felon pardoned inexplicably by Bill Clinton donate big bucks to Hillary? Hmmm.
The Clinton supporters want to try to "equalize" the slime on Obama but, the truth just doesn't bear this out. And John, John, my dear Johnny Reid Edwards, get your facts straight on credit card caps! I love you man but you and Hillary voted for the most antediluvian poor-people crushing bankruptcy legislation and to now try to split hairs on caps, sad. Again this just proves that on the BIG issues, Obama has the best track record for good judgement. I'd still vote for you O JRE if you make it to the big top because Elizabeth is too damned smart and feisty not to be a great first lady. Obama is my first choice but Johnny Reid ain't bad.
Listen, the Repubs don't know how to run against Obama, this makes them nervous. They are testing the "inexperience in times of terrorism" line but the big issue in 2008 will be the economy (notice Guili9/11 tanked), not foreign affairs experience (btw the last Pres with major for. ex. before he was Pres was GHWBush, former head of the CIA and UN guy)The Repubs have a "Hillary" strategy that they are pretty confident about. But, my prediction is that this contest will come down to: Obama vs Romney. Obama would do well to choose Edwards (but he won't agree). Romney will want to flank up by choosing an evangelical/protoconservo from the South (he would do well to pick Thompson as his VP but Thompson hates him. But frankly a perfect job for a lazy guy like Fred. Hey, he could kick back, act VIP-ish, enjoy the perks...'cause, gosh, acting are hard.)
"I loved the Clintons" - Spotty Dog
I sometimes write under the name Spotty Dog and I am extremely CONCERNED for my dear democrats party, really, if HRC gets the nom. As much as I love her, she is an evil, unelectable, shrewish, cackling, rhymes with witch. Sincerely yours, A Concerned Troll
td wrote on January 22, 2008 7:59 AM:To Spotty Dog
The republicans do know how to run against Obama
and Rezko will be a large part of their attacks. They have brought up Clintons history so often it's getting old and boring, that was all investigated to death and people know it.
The republicans will attack Obama on Rezko, they will liken his dealing with him to Whitewater, they will bring up the letters Obama wrote while a Legislature for government funds for Rezko, they will bring up his 17 plus years relationship the two have, they will bring up Rezkos campaign donations to Obama, they will bring up Rezko's indictment. Heck,they will call Patrick Fitzgerald, who they despised during Scooter's trial, as a fair and tough prosecutor.
They will also bring up Norman Hsu, who donated money to Obama as well as the Clintons, and we saw what a field day the republicans had with that.
Don't think for a minute that Republicans don't know how to run against anyone, they could make Mother Theresa look like the devil incarnate. If it behooved them, if it was to their political advantage they would trash God.
Spotty Dog wrote on January 22, 2008 8:06 AM:Ah, Concerned T., how sad. Don't like the message, distort the message, and attack the messenger.
But please, as Barack invited Hillary, look at my record. Read my posts here and at McClatchy (and see my winning political cartoon caption). I have never attacked Hillary using the sexist epithets you propose. Unelectable, yes, for sexist reasons, never.
And yes, I have loved the Big Dog, but I'm not the only one distressed by his actions toward Obama, ask Ted Kennedy. But, then, you'd probably figure out a way to consider him a troll, too.
An Ou wrote on January 22, 2008 8:14 AM:
What Obama should have said was "You lie as well as your husband does. Do we really want 4 years of that again?"
Concerned T. wrote on January 22, 2008 8:15 AM:"Ah Concerned T. How sad." - Spotty Dog
I see Spotty Dog. You're concerned for me and saddened I feel this way. I appreciate your concern, troll. After all you are a legend from your winning political cartoon caption, at least in your own mind. Sincerely yours, A Concerned Troll
Spotty Dog wrote on January 22, 2008 8:19 AM:To td
Rezko? Rezko? That's the best they got? You make my case, Repubs are still itching to re-fight Whitewater, Rose Law firm, Norman Hsu with Hillary. Hillary is a more polarizing figure than Obama. Her negatives are very high. You guys seem to want to win by ekeing out a victory on a small margin and keeping our party a minority party (the Repubs are also a minority party). I do think we can dream and win bigger. I grew up at a time when "Conservative" was a dirty word and "liberal" was too moderate a word to line up behind.
I know the Repubs are gelatinous slime and not only would but have trashed God to their advantage (GWB thinks God told him to invade Iraq) but if you watched their debates pre-Iowa, they were all happy to trash Hillary and mentioned "Clinton" more times than Bush. Post Iowa, they've been less confident in attacking Obama because he appeals to some of their own Repub voters. See the miracle of Mitty Haskell becoming the candidate of "Change We Can Believe In."
jeff wrote on January 22, 2008 8:22 AM:I have not voted for a Republican for any office since 1976, (and that was a mistake). If my choice this year is between McCain and Clinton I will be pulling the lever for a Republican for the first time in 32 years. It makes me very sad, but the Clintons have pushed too far for my taste.
Spotty Dog wrote on January 22, 2008 8:25 AM:Concerned T.
Typical, spew without the benefit of facts. Really, go to McClatchy and search cuz I know you din't.
Research, fact-check, read, learn, oh, yeah, sorry, not something you know how to do, not even a very good Troll. Try again, sad little friend.
Concerned T. wrote on January 22, 2008 8:34 AM:My dear deeply concerned and saddened Spotty Dog.
Why would I go search for more concern trolling on McClatchy. I've got your number right here. You're a concern troll pure and simple. Someone who's out to defeat Hillary under a mask of concern for the Democratic party. You're the dictionary definition of a concern troll. Your Sad Little friend, A concern troll trainee
I watched the same debate that you did, I think that the lets have a truce, and then reaching down into the muck and throwing it again has worn thin.
I think that the Clintons have played the race card once to many times, and guess what?
Bill Clinton is not an African American.
Let me say that again, you might have to choose to consider the facts, but the race card was played to the extent where:
It was said that Bill Clinton was African American.
I think that Hillary went to far, looked angry when rebutal was given, and that Obama won.
That conclusion I feel cannot be escaped.
Pepp wrote on January 22, 2008 8:47 AM:
Whoooa knock out, it was about time that Senator Clinton stood her ground against this Senator Obama nasty vicious cable media game I lost because my opponent is a divisive B, the divisive B is dead, the dead racist divisive B, the dead racist divisive Bs husband is mean. New Script the Senator Obama has a friend, neighbor and supporter under federal indictment in which the Senator appears for his roll as Slum King with federal money not a victimless crime, who was his main supporter in his first election, and raised significant monies for his Senate run and who happen to have his wife co buy Obamas house where she paid full price and he got a 300,000 discount, then the Senator buys a small amount of the lot she had purchased and paid 3 times its assessed value. Also as a politician who did not show up to do the Peoples and vote yeah nay work because it was not politically convenient and no one believes that well its just Il the Senator was alone in voting Present many time more than half. Its over she my girl, there is no doubt in my mind, no matter how much Righties spend on Freedom Watch she will clean their clock and America will stand behind her. And wow a real Commander in Chief who has honor and is brave. And Senator Obama looked like a bumbling light weight on attack.
Someone who's out to defeat Hillary under a mask of concern for the Democratic party.At this point, I consider Hillary Clinton an awful representative of the Democratic party and ideals. I'm done, and wash my hands of her if she's the nominee.
As far as I'm concerned, the hubris and brinksmanship that she's displayed during this campaign rival anything that I've seen from the Bush administration. It's clear that she's willing to attempt to dispatch her rivals by any possible means, regardless of how destructive to the party as a whole, in the hopes that she can win back voters like me that are completely disgusted by her Rovian tactics by tossing out red-meat issues like healthcare and the Supreme Court during the general.
I'm not willing to reward tactics that I despise just because the person preforming them supposedly is playing for my side. I won't reward someone who believes that they are so right (and the only one that understands why) that they're willing to compromise any ethic to get elected. I won't reward raw naked greed and ambition that overrides reason. This is Bush territory that we're treading into. If Hillary is the nominee, I'll sit this one out, and come back to fight again in 4 years when, hopefully the Democratic party has learned a much needed lesson and backs someone we can truly believe in and get behind.
vp wrote on January 22, 2008 9:01 AM:I’d entertained thoughts of voting for Clinton or Obama next November. Tonight’s debate — the “I’m More Dangerously Populist Than Thou” debate — ended all chances of that happening.
That’s not to say that the Republican nominee has my vote. Far from it. But I’ll chew off my own forehead before I vote for either of those left wing knuckleheads, much less special guest John Edwards.
If tonight’s debate was any small indicator of how the Democratic nominee will run in the general election, then I’d say the Republican nominee has some small chance of winning. And that’s no small feat, given that tonight Clinton and Obama were only fighting over South Carolina.
Marianne P wrote on January 22, 2008 9:06 AM:She is so damn unlikable (as much as I try to). I will hold my nose and vote for inexperience. Barack just convinced me (and Hillary lost me). Enough with the CLintons. It is time to move on. Why would ANYONE want her to be President?
califone wrote on January 22, 2008 9:14 AM:Obama won the debate hands down. I don't care what the pundits say. I find it ironic that they bemoaned how passive Obama was during the previous debates, and now that he finally flashed some teeth, everyone is calling him a loser, claiming it hurt him. BS.
If anything, it finally showed that Hillary Clinton will say and do anything to retain power. I will not vote for her, even if it means I will die without having a universal health care passed in this country.
Not voting for her is a matter of principle for me now, and I am not alone. Many people my age are disgusted with the baby boomers and how they keep wanting to relive the Reagan or Clinton era. Get over it. Move into your retirement homes already, so we can finally make this country great again.
Mary wrote on January 22, 2008 9:19 AM:From Huffpo:
The headmaster of a school "lamented how 'responsibility to others and for oneself has been all but forgotten in certain circles.' Mr. Shanahan alluded to various public figures who have been exposed for scandalous activities, noting that in spite of their lack of ethics and sense of responsibility they were all found to be 'not guilty.' At that Commencement Mr. Shanahan posed a very important and pressing question: 'How can so many moral, ethical and legal laws be broken and still no one is guilty, no one assumes public responsibility for having chosen to do wrong?'"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-kaplan/karl-rove-will-be-your-gr_b_82488.html
He of course was talking about Rove and the Bush administration. Now I ask you, do we really want Bill and Hillary who are showing these same tendencies (do anything, including lying) - to have unlimited executive power?
td wrote on January 22, 2008 9:20 AM:to spotty dog
Rezko is enough for them, look what they did to Gore, all they had on him was he exaggerated and they said he was too stiff, look what they did to Kerry, all they had was the swift boat vets lies and his Iraq vote they twisted and made fun of. Look what they did to Dukakis all they had was a photo of him in a tank & helemt and Willie Horton. Look what they did to Max Cleland, Harold Ford, McGovern the list is endless. They will, they can and they have run entire campaigns attacking on one issue, one imperfection, one lie, the media picks up and runs with it.
ChrisO wrote on January 22, 2008 9:20 AM:Maybe if the Obama supporters keep yelling HILLARY LIED often enough it will actually become true. Please check out Obama's comments about Reagan in his book, where he gives Reagan credit for ending the Cold War. I realize Obama is just one step short of sainthood, but for many voters it's not enough to say "we all know he would never mean that." Sorry to disappoint, but I don't buy the notion that Obama gets the benefit of the doubt on everything, while we're supposed to start with the assumption that everything Hillary says is a lie until she proves otherwise.
Edwards made a very good point, that Obama feels free to pick and choose votes that Clinton and Edwards made, but calling him to account for voting "present" is somehow a horrible smear. And I don't buy the explanation that voting present just means that you like the idea behind a bill, but don't like the way the bill is written. In other words, you don't want the bill to pass, but you don't want to have a record of having voted against it. How is that not the same kind of political maneuvering that Obama's supporters accuse the other candidates of? The fact is, Obama has missed three times as many votes as any other Senator, because he's been campaigning. 98 Senators voted on Kyl-Lieberman, but somehow Obama managed to once again avoid going on the record, because he was the only one in the Senate who didn't know the vote was scheduled. I guess he would have preferred being able to vote present. And BTW, CNN reports that every Senator was told about the vote the night before.
I'm still waiting for someone to show me where Obama forcefully opposed Kyl-Lieberman before the vote. The fact is, he was a co-sponsor of S.970, which states "The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization." This is exactly his criticism of Kyl-Lieberman. Please tell me how he is being honest in this regard?
Obama has been getting tons of mileage out of the fact that he opposed the war from the beginning. But as we've seen already, it's a lot easier for him to oppose something when he doesn't actually have to go on record. Once he actually started voting, what did he do to oppose the war? And the fact that he took his anti-war speech down from his web site the following year, when the war was still very popular, speaks volumes. If the war had been wrapped up as a resounding victory, I'm willing to bet we would have never seen that speech again. Obama supporters have got to understand that you can't keep giving him a pass on everything. He said in 2004 that he didn't know how he would have voted if he'd been in the Senate (he might have added, or if he would have voted), and his supporters once again want to excuse him by saying he was only being loyal to his party's nominees. In other words, he didn't mean it, but he said it anyway. Except Barack did it, so there's no way it could have been politically expedient. He was just being a nice guy. It's not at all possible that he didn't want to jeoipardize his his opportunity to deliver the keynote, which was the biggest moment of his political career.
I don't blame him for acting out of self preservation, but let's get real. No one is a successful candidate for President without being politically calculating. It's getting a little tiring hearing Obama supporters insist that everything he does is only with the purest of intentions.
I'm like a lot of Dems, I wish this debate had been more civil. But the fact remains that the Obama camp has gone to great extremes to paint Hillary as a racist, often by tweisting and misrepresenting her words. So please spare me all of the "SHE"S LYING" comments. In American politics, trying to reap political gain by portraying someone as a racist is much more objectionable than calling them a Reagan lover.
As for electability, I have yet to see any evidence that Hillary is unelectable. Note how as people see who she is, as opposed to the Republicans' portrayal of her, they like her much better. Most of the polls reflect people's attitudes before she began campaigning. Besides the fact that I don't care to choose my candidate based on who the Republicans like the most, I would point out that so far Obama has won one caucus, whereas Hillary has won two primaries and a caucus. Don't you think if Obama is so much more electable, he might want to start actually winnng some elections?
hello_world wrote on January 22, 2008 9:26 AM:Get over it. Move into your retirement homes already, so we can finally make this country great again.And that's helpful, how?
I agree with your premise of getting over the 90's. and, if you have an opinion, by all means share it. But if you're not trying to troll, and there are already plenty of those here and elsewhere, then leave the personal stuff out of it.
ChrisNBama wrote on January 22, 2008 9:57 AM:Legal Disclaimer: I'm an Obama supporter.
Before Iowa, I was confident that I would vote for any of the candidates should they win the nomination, that includes Hillary Clinton. But like others, I've become completely disenchanted with her.
Two instances in the debate last night crystallized this conviction:
1. When Hillary, even after being confronted with Obama's words, continued to suggest that Obama "liked" republican ideas.
2. Hillary lamely defending the "fairy tale" argument by UNDERMINING it. She agrees that Obama was against the war from the beginning. Somehow, voting for funds to supply the troops has become supporting the war. Hasn't she voted yes on those same appropriations? Is she saying, in effect, that SHE supports the war? What in the hell was she TRYING to say? Seriously. It was more tortured than an inmate at Abu Ghraib.
The reality Hillary is unable to run away from is that she enabled this President to conduct this war by authorizing, and then defending the vote AND the war until it became politically expedient to distance herself from it. She is a master of triangulation. No doubt about it. What it reveals however, is a moral bankruptcy. We don't need a master politician right now. We need a moral leader. On this basis alone, the choice is clear. Barack Obama.
ChrisO wrote on January 22, 2008 10:06 AM:For all of the Obama supporters who keep crying about the "fairy tale" remark. Continuing to get all huffy about this, and misrepresenting what Bill Clinton said, makes your complaints about other supposed lies look like just more whining. Bill Clinton clearly said that Obama's claim that he has opposed the war every step of the way, is a "fairy tale." This is true.
Please tell me how twisting that to mean that Bill said Obama weasn't against the war at the beginning is any different from what you're accusing the Clinton's of doing? And to make it worse, Obama supporters further twisted the fairy tale comment to accuse the Clintons of racism. This is shameful.
aardvark liberalis wrote on January 22, 2008 10:16 AM:Obama isn't against wars, just dumb wars. I am not against Clintons, just lying, corrupt, Bush-enabling, racist carpetbagging Clintons.
Josh-Quasimoto wrote on January 22, 2008 10:39 AM:Whatever the issues may be, I keep on hearing from one particular candidate in the Democratic field that if they think the mud-slinging is thick now, then wait until the general election! Unfortunately for the democratic field their current mud-slinging is looking alot like the crazy weather from this past year! Crazy and often! But I believe this is having a negative effect on possible turnout and enthusiasm for change. It seems that the mud-slinging is making the democratic field weaker by the day and giving the Repub's a better chance in the general even though they have left the good Ol' US of A in a recession(possibly even worse), a giant federal deficit, behind the eight-ball in new energy development, a failed war campaign (mostly as the war on terror will never be truly won, just like the war on drugs), no new immigration policy, retro-active provisions and legislation in woman's reproductive issues as well as the issues tied to the LBGT community, a failing veteran's care organization, a trade gap, struggling education systems, etc (I am sure I am leaving some things out, but nonetheless it is bleak)! This is where we are, this is the point from which we must move forward. I personally feel that a candidate who is moving things forward in the conversation is needed wile also displaying that they have a firm grasp on where we have been and why things worked in some cases and where they did not in other's. Obviously, not all Republican ideas are bad and not all democratic initiatives are good so we, I feel, must look at each situation and come of with solutions while leaving space for state's and local communities empowerment to enact tailored initiatives for the specific problems facing their communities. What we don't need is one-size fits all solutions leaving us with all of our eggs in one basket, just waiting for a catastrophe!
I feel that our economy and the face of the country have changed! I fear that many economically elite in this country foresee a future where they are not competing with their fellow Americans but rather foreign economically elite, a world Oligarchy. It seems what is in our best interest is often tied to what is in their best interest; obviously it would be naive to think that what might be in their best interest could not be mutually beneficial. But I am not economically elite, so I might be biased, but the economic gap is widening. Maybe a recession will fix all that but probably not as their might always be a silver lining or something to be exploited in today's global economy!
Gotta go, Stay solid!
dr. duh wrote on January 22, 2008 1:07 PM:I live in New York. Hillary has been an excellent senator. May she stay in that post for life.
Desider wrote on January 22, 2008 4:14 PM:ChrisNBama,
Yes, accepting the Bush's dialogue that "supporting the troops means keep paying the bills" and never finding a way to push for withdrawal is exactly the same as "supporting the war", except for some inconsequential mumbling and self-righteousness. If it makes you feel better, Hillary doesn't get any bravery stars there either.
Obama's statement: "I think it's fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10 to 15 years in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom." A reasonable person would read this as saying the Republicans were doing a better job at coming up with new (good) ideas and moving the goalposts instead of accepting the status quo. The rest of the Obama quote seems to say now the Republicans are running out of steam (which implies that 15 years ago they were full bore). It smacks of admiration, with some observation that now the Democrats can take their place since they're slowing down. But Obama really doesn't make it clear - are we supposed to come up with our own asinine equivalents to "make government so small we can drown it in a bathtub"? "Axis of evil"? "No Child Left Behind"? Can he acknowledge that Democratic ideas like "midnight basketball" or "memorial for Woodstock" were laughed out of Congress, but "reclaiming kids through golf" received $3 million? When Media Matters, an independent group, had the audacity to defy "conventional wisdom" by pointing out that Petraeus was nothing but a shill, they were lynched publicly by the Congress AND the press. It's not even whether Obama thinks Republican ideas are good or not - it's that he buys the Republican spin that they're coming up with interesting proposals and Democrats aren't, when they've simply been more partisan than any of their predecessors and are better at strangling every Democratic idea in its crib. Republican "ideas" included shooting up a pumpkin as part of 1000 investigations into scandals, but as soon as one of theirs occupied the White House, looking into the leadup to 9/11 and to War in Iraq just became a bridge too far, a little bit too much past conventional wisdom.
Careful who you sleep with, Barack - you might find they want to be paid, and it might not be in cash.
