All the pundits are waiting until someone declares a "winner" and they will then jump on. To me the winner was clearly John McCain.
The only thing that I think Hillary did better was that she sounded well rehearsed, but the transcripts blur some of the stammering that Obama did, so I'm not sure she wins on that either. But her attacks sunk lower and were more personal, whereas his were mostly defensive. I think if he wants to defang her he could say something along the lines of "with all the resources that you dedicate to digging up dirt on me, if this is all you can bring then I'm in pretty good shape." Because that's how it came across to me -- she clearly seemed willing to bring everything she's got (she looked particularly proud of herself for playing her Rezko trump card), so if that was it then big woop. But he still appears to be holding back and only confronting her when absolutely necessary.
That would've been a good thing to say, I agree. Would have covered a few different bases.
A spare thought:
Obama did some battling, that's good. He should probably get some sort of ballast though, something more sit-down and personal before Feb. 5th. A way to make an impression on people like I mentioned somewhere (so many concurrent threads on the Dem primary race!), not just debating or soundbites. Like, I dunno, a talk show. (At this point I hadn't connected dots). Like, ooooh, Oprah!
She could be absolutely perfect right now. Inroads with women, especially. Hope that Obama will be on her show for like an hour on February 4th. (Or maybe Friday the 1st, give some extra time.) I looked around to see whether anything like that is in the offing, saw something about her being busy with launching her new cable channel but getting back to campaigning for Obama soon.
Oh, does the writer's strike affect her? Seems like no.
FreeDuck wrote:I agree it was brutal, but I don't think Obama had any choice.
Well, with that I agree. I was just pissed that they (well, Hillary - and Bill) succeeded in pushing him into what ended up quite the defensive crouch almost throughout the debate, which meant completely throwing him off of his game. At least thats how I saw it.
That said, Ive only looked at two blogs or something and the comments on cnn.com (Ive been asleep..), and it seems there are a bunch of others who thought Obama didnt come off bad and actually outdid Hillary, so perhaps I'm wrong. And for once, I would be really glad with that, cos he really didnt deserve this.
FreeDuck wrote:Because that's how it came across to me -- she clearly seemed willing to bring everything she's got (she looked particularly proud of herself for playing her Rezko trump card)
Yeah, and did you get where she joked, "we're only just getting warmed up"? It was meant to kinda defuse the situation, but it also made it look like she especially enjoys the dirty stuff - or at least, it does if you remember her "now comes the fun part" from last December.
nimh wrote: (Ive been asleep..)
I was beginning to wonder if you ever did this ; )
I did see some of what you are talking about, and I admit being very nervous for him and also being pissed at how they've been goading him.
nimh wrote:FreeDuck wrote:Because that's how it came across to me -- she clearly seemed willing to bring everything she's got (she looked particularly proud of herself for playing her Rezko trump card)
Yeah, and did you get where she joked, "we're only just getting warmed up"? It was meant to kinda defuse the situation, but it also made it look like she especially enjoys the dirty stuff - or at least, it does if you remember her "now comes the fun part" from last December.
Yeah, and another reference came when she was talking about battling the Republicans. I guess she's trying to come off as particularly good at it and enjoying it. "They've been attacking me for 16 years" I thought would only play well with her dedicated fans. The rest of are sick of that game and sick of 51 to 49 elections and Rovian style politics that she appears to enjoy. I guess that's part of her "fighter" persona. It could work, it just doesn't for me.
okie wrote:I admit I didn't listen to the whole debate, but did anyone, anyone, anyone hear anything substantial concerning any political policy?
Oh dont you start that again, Okie. After the last debate you repeated this several times - nothing of substance! nothing about anything concrete! nothing specific!
Well, at the time I went through the whole transcript and compiled five and a half screens full of very specific talk of concrete proposals on nitty gritty policy stuff - there was more than I've heard in a Republican debate so far. And that wasnt even from the whole transcript, I gave up typing after about two thirds.
There were specific proposals and numbers about the mortgages crisis, the minimum wage, education, taxes, campaign finance, the war in Iraq, the US military.
I posted the whole thing here.
And you know, I never got a response. But please, I'm not going to do it again. I proved you wrong last time, you can be assumed to be so this time as well.
sozobe wrote:That would've been a good thing to say, I agree. Would have covered a few different bases.
A spare thought:
Obama did some battling, that's good. He should probably get some sort of ballast though, something more sit-down and personal before Feb. 5th. A way to make an impression on people like I mentioned somewhere (so many concurrent threads on the Dem primary race!), not just debating or soundbites. Like, I dunno, a talk show. (At this point I hadn't connected dots). Like, ooooh, Oprah!
She could be absolutely perfect right now. Inroads with women, especially. Hope that Obama will be on her show for like an hour on February 4th. (Or maybe Friday the 1st, give some extra time.) I looked around to see whether anything like that is in the offing, saw something about her being busy with launching her new cable channel but getting back to campaigning for Obama soon.
Oh, does the writer's strike affect her? Seems like no.
A bunch of us are trying to get him to buy national air time before Super Tuesday and make a 30 minute spot that thoroughly presents his philosophy, and outlines his plans, and strategy for implementation. He just did a short one for national consumption but it isn't enough time to cover everything.
It is about the only way he can duplicate what he's done in Iowa and New Hampshire in 22 states at the same time.
Will anyone watch a 30-minute spot, though?
Oprah has a huge built-in, persuadable audience. She's already said she would have him on the show, and it's evidently fine under FCC rules.
Whoops. No, it's not. She can campaign for him outside of her TV show all she wants, but ON her TV show she needs to give other candidates "equal time." So, Obama on February 4th, Hillary on February 6th? Heh.
Hmm.
I kept finding contradictory things about the FCC equal time rules as they apply to Oprah. Apparently it is
fine after all:
Quote:But will her backing also translate into votes? And more to the point, could Ms. Winfrey drum up support for Mr. Obama on her powerhouse talk show, which attracts millions of daily viewers?
Ms. Winfrey can indeed promote Mr. Obama's candidacy as freely as she wishes. According to a Federal Election Commission regulation, commentary by the media does not count as a campaign contribution unless the broadcasting station is owned or controlled by the candidate.
If Opra has Obama on her show without giving Clinton, and Edwards equal time it will just be another instance of big money buying the candidate of their choice using my airwaves. Obama wants change as long as it benefits him. I would like real change in washington. Not some neophyte sitting down to talk to a bunch of republicans who will just screw over us like they have the last 7 years. If I elect a democratic congress and president I want them to rescind most of the crap that Bush has initiated while in office.
I can tell you that Hillary thinks she won.
I just saw a clip of her at a press conference this morning.
She looked quite happy and confident.
She let everyone know that Obama came "looking for a fight...and he got one."
She chalked it up to his being "frustrated."
This is like watching a prizefight. The quicker, more skilled boxer can out score the plodding slugger unless the slugger can taunt him into going toe to toe.
Forget whatever actual substance may or may not have been presented, the story following the debate is the fight.
The Clintons won the debate going away.
Edwards took a distant second place simply because he will be seen as remaining above the fray, but I doubt too many votes will switch to him because of this one episode.
Obama is taking a whupping, and the press is still treating him with kid gloves. If he wins in SC, as it seems he will, it will be tough for the press not to start digging as Bill has been insisting that they should.
Looks bad for Obama.
We always hear strategists tell us that if attacked, a candidate has to fight back. I'm not so sure that's the best strategy for Obama to follow. Do Democrats really want to see that he can fight, even in anticipation of the general election, when not fighting is his signature? He and his team may be underestimating how much his appeal comes from the belief that he is above and apart from politics as usual.
Originally, I thought that was a rather lame strategy to follow, that Democrats wouldn't remain intoxicated by airy rhetoric. I was wrong.
I have seen too many people in and outside of this forum express an incredible amount of excitement, and yes, even hope about this guy, even though a clear eyed and objective assessment would be hard pressed to discover any sort of record that would support his lofty promises.
Clearly there is a sizeable segment of Democrats who long for an inspirational candidate who can reignite their idealism. Whether or not that yearning extends deeply into the greater population remains to be seen, but it is the only chance Obama has to be elected president.
I think his campaign has been suckered into going toe to toe because he has responded personally to the "taunting," and because his team is afraid to urge anything other than the conventional response to attacks.
He would be much better served if he continued to play on the only strength he has - the ability to convincingly convey a transcendant character.
He can't compete with Hillary in a slugfest. If for no other reason than she has Bill.
He can't compete with her in a contest of experience, notwithstanding that most of her so-called experience is puffery.
He can't compete with her on policy. He just doesn't have as extensive and detailed a knowledge of the issue as she does.
The Clintons know where they are vulnerable to Obama and like true fighters they are not simply defending Hillary against Obama's strength they are actively neutralizing it.
To some extent The Inspirational Obama is like a soap bubble. It's pretty and airy and draws the eye, but it's also very delicate. If Obama is seen to be something less than what he promises or simply unable to hold true to the hope he has restored, the bubble bursts, and then what is left?
I suppose its possible that his current Democratic supporters will stick with him based on the hope he's inspired in them, but he won't pick up new supporters. If he doesn't come out of the Democratic primaries with his rather pristine image intact, his eloquence is likely to ring hollow with the voters who only loosely follow the stories the press turns during this period.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:I can tell you that Hillary thinks she won.
I agree. Furthermore, if Obama's supporters think last night was bad, they ain't seen nothin' yet. If there comes a time that the Clintons
ever think they're slipping into second (it's clear they've conceded SC to Obama), then the gloves will really come off.
Anyone who thinks she doesn't have more - much, much more - in her 'arsenal' of mud to sling at Obama is naive. I think last night was just a gentle peek at what's in store for Obama if he comes even close to upsetting their 'dynasty'.
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:Finn dAbuzz wrote:I can tell you that Hillary thinks she won.
I agree. Furthermore, if Obama's supporters think last night was bad, they ain't seen nothin' yet. If there comes a time that the Clintons
ever think they're slipping into second (it's clear they've conceded SC to Obama), then the gloves will really come off.
Anyone who thinks she doesn't have more - much, much more - in her 'arsenal' of mud to sling at Obama is naive. I think last night was just a gentle peek at what's in store for Obama if he comes even close to upsetting their 'dynasty'.
Indeed, and they will have help from the media.
Oh, absolutely.
Who says there's no justice?
Did you see that video
the Edwards campaign sent out about how the media is allegedly shafting him in its coverage? Most of the video isnt particularly persuasive, but the ending is memorable. You see footage from network TV, in which a focus groups is questioned about their impressions of the Nevada debate. In a massive show of hands, they show they thought Edwards had won. The local TV guy asks them who came in with a preference for Edwards - just two hands. This is important, the questioner says, turning once again to the group, just how many of you thought he won the debate? Again a massive show of hands. At that very moment, the distracted anchor back in the studio turns his attention back to the group, seemingly having blinked through the whole segment, just in time to breathlessly ask - "so, one question: who did they think did better, Clinton or Obama?"
Well, if you look at the headlines today it looks roughly like that..
Quote:Obama and Clinton Tangle at Debate
New York Times, United States - 6 hours ago
Clinton, Obama Take Gloves Off
U.S. News & World Report, DC - 1 hour ago
Clinton, Obama get fiercely personal
Chicago Tribune, United States - 3 hours ago
Obama, Hillary take off gloves
Chicago Sun-Times, United States - 5 hours ago
Obama, Clinton trade blows in SC
Boston Globe, United States - 8 hours ago
Clinton and Obama Step Up Attacks in South Carolina Debate
Bloomberg - 10 hours ago
Clinton, Obama Clash Sharply in Debate
Washington Post, United States - 10 hours ago
Issues Take Back Seat at Debate as Obama and Clinton Tangle
New York Times, United States - 12 hours ago
Clinton-Obama barbs dominate debate
CNN - 10 hours ago
Clinton and Obama fight to a standstill
Times Online, UK - 7 hours ago
Clinton, Obama showed toughness in SC debate
Baltimore Sun, United States - 2 hours ago
Sigh...
Quote:Debate gets fiercely personal
Chicago Tribune
The smoldering acrimony between the Democratic presidential front-runners flared openly as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama traded charges in a debate Monday about who is dishonest, who is cowardly and who is doing the bidding of reviled special interests.
The debate was the most fiercely personal of the election season as the candidates showed the strains of a long and bitter campaign. At one point, Obama and Clinton raised their voices over each other to be heard. Each even attacked the other's biography.
Obama dismissed Clinton for working as "a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart" during the 1980s while he was a community organizer on the streets of Chicago's South Side.
Clinton countered by blasting Obama for doing legal work he did for Tony Rezko, a developer and campaign donor to Obama since indicted on corruption charges, while she joined her husband in struggling against the Republican-controlled Congress during the 1990s.
The Walmart vs Rezko thing seems to be a main point in a lot of the stories..
Quote:[T]he Illinois senator accused the New York senator and her husband of misleading the public. Obama declared the former president's charges were "simply not true" and [..] suggested the tactics were indicative of a lack of integrity.
"What's also important [is] that people are not just willing to say anything to get elected," he said. [..]
Things didn't simmer down much during the second portion, when they sat in an arc of chairs for what was billed as a "discussion" but which turned out mainly to be more fighting.
Another article that portrays the fight as a one-to-one, equal-time tit-for-tat..
Quote:The Democratic presidential front-runners clashed angrily in a debate Monday night, with Sen. Barack Obama accusing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband of repeatedly distorting his positions and Clinton asserting that Obama is trying to run away from his record. [..]
The debate turned personal almost from the outset, as Obama accused the Clintons of misrepresenting his comments about Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party's ideas, as well as his record on the Iraq war. "That is simply not true," he said.
Clinton responded forcefully: "It is very difficult having a straight-up debate with you, because you never take responsibility for any vote, and that has been a pattern." [..]
Looks like thats a line thats also quoted a lot.. Otherwise it's also the same points that are highlighted:
Quote:In the debate, Clinton and Obama offered perhaps the most pointed criticisms of one another in the campaign. Obama went after Clinton during a discussion on economic stimulus by recalling his years as a community organizer in Chicago, adding: "While I was working on those streets watching those folks see their jobs shift overseas, you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart."
And he brought up Bill Clinton's campaign surrogate role by chiding, "I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes."
Hillary Clinton, reacting to Obama's discussion of Republican ideas, struck back by saying: "I'm just reacting to the fact, yes, they did have ideas, and they were bad ideas. . . . Bad for America, and I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor [Tony] Rezko in his slum landlord business in inner-city Chicago." [..]
No mention of Edwards until the tenth para... and not in a good way:
Quote:Former senator John Edwards (N.C..) pursued Obama over his voting record in the Illinois legislature, seeking to turn the forum into a three-way brawl. [..]
The smaller leftwing publications seem to accord Edwards more respect -- but happy they are not.
Quote: The knives come out in South Carolina
Salon
The final Democratic debate before Saturday's South Carolina primary was, in truth, about as ugly as you could get, given that the three candidates on the stage agreed with each other on 95 percent of the issues and have no long histories of personal animosity. The winner -- partly by default -- was John Edwards, who managed to stay above the fray except when he would suddenly swoop down to score a debating point against a surprised rival. [..]
For those who crave the blood sport aspects of politics, it was a night to remember. Clinton demonstrated that she has the ability to pile one attack on top of another without pausing for breath. [..] But Obama demonstrated that (unlike turn-the-other-cheek insurgents like Bill Bradley in 2000) he could fight back. Referring to his years as a community organizer in Chicago, Obama said to Clinton, "While I was working on those streets watching those folks see their jobs shift overseas, you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Wal-Mart." [..]
After fuming in silence, a portrait in irrelevance, Edwards finally got the last word and he ran with it. "Are there three people in this debate -- not two?" he asked. "And I also want to know ... on behalf of the voters here in South Carolina -- this kind of squabbling -- how many children is this going to get healthcare? How many people are going to get an education from this? How many kids are going to college because of this?"
With only one more Democratic donnybrook (Jan. 31 in Los Angeles) remaining before voters [..] go to the polls on Woozy Tuesday Feb. 5, elaborate debate score cards have limited utility. It is difficult to sort out which of the attack lines resonated with voters and which were virtually unintelligible.
Did Democrats cringe after hearing about Clinton's service on the Wal-Mart board because the company pays paltry wages and offers skimpy benefits? Or did they react positively because they associate Wal-Mart with low prices? Did anyone other than political pros and the campaign press corps get the reference to Rezko? [..]
But after Monday's mayhem in Myrtle Beach, the pride was -- at least momentarily -- gone. All that remained were the scars from a family argument that had turned horribly awry. It was about as nasty a debate as we have seen in this presidential cycle -- and Mitt Romney was not even in the state.
Quote:Clinton, Obama Come to Blows; Edwards Wins
The Nation
In the edgiest debate of the Democratic presidential race, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton repeatedly engaged on Monday night in bitter and at times personal exchanges with one another. And John Edwards effectively pointed to the heated squabbling between the two frontrunners in anticipation of Saturday's South Carolina Democratic primary as a deviation from the issues that matter. [..]
Clinton accused Obama of playing fast and loose with his positions. "Senator Obama, it is very difficult having a straight-up debate with you because you never take responsibility for any votes. That is a pattern," she charged, drawing jeers from the crowd [..] Obama complained about "a set of assertions made by Senator Clinton as well as her husband that are not factually accurate" [..].
Can I just say that Hillary's line here was perhaps the nastiest and most uncalled for line of the whole debate? It's just out there, considering he goes out of his way to respond to every accusation, even as it throws him off his game (which must have been the point in the first place). And the nerve for
Hillary, of all people, to say that! If there is anyone in the field who has mastered the art of ducking questions - of never ever responding directly to a straightforward question!
Quote:Unfortunately, Obama lodged his complaints about the mischaracterization of his record on the same night when he was doing much the same thing. Noting that Obama had attacked both his foes for votes they had taken, Edwards said, "What you're criticizing her for, by the way, you've done to us."
Obama struggled to explain himself by explaining voting procedures in the Illinois Senate. But it was a tough sell, although perhaps not so tough a sell as Clinton's attempt to dodge a question from Edwards about whether she would bring the troops home from Iraq within a year.
In short order, Edwards had gotten the best of both his opponents. That was the order of the night. Again and again, Edwards took the side of one of the frontrunners against the other, effectively serving as an arbiter between the two. [..]
But the former senator from North Carolina had to fight for it. More than half an hour into the debate in South Carolina, where voters will participate in a high-stakes Democratic primary on Saturday, CNN moderator Wolf Blitzer had presided over what was essential a showcase for Clinton and Obama. [..]
Radio commentator Carl Jeffers [said] that, "There are a lot of Americans who are turned off by this personal animosity between Clinton and Obama and that benefitted John Edwards."
That was certainly Edwards' hope. [He said,] "I think that people who watched this debate with an open mind were probably impressed."
What is not known, at a point when everyone seems to be taking sides in an increasingly intense fight between Clinton and Obama, is how many people watched this debate with an open mind. There skirmishing between the Clinton and Obama camps may simply solidify support for he leaders. [..]
FWIW,
I watched the debate last night, and I thought it was more funny then informative.
Hillary and Barak sounded like two little kids trying to play "oneupmanship" on the school playground, and Edwards sounded like he was mad because they wouldnt let him play.
As a conservative, I must admit it was fun watching them self destruct like that.
