Obama and Clinton Debate in Cleveland: No Pain, No Gain
| Tue Feb. 26, 2008 9:40 PM PST
If the political winds in Ohio and Texas are blowing in Barack Obama's favor—and polls in each state show Obama gaining strength—Hillary Clinton did little during Tuesday night's debate in Cleveland to change the weather.
With a week to go before primaries in those important states, this debate was much a repeat of last Thursday's face-off. The two remaining Democratic candidates once again got hot and bothered over the issue of health care insurance mandates. But neither had anything new to say. The Clinton campaign has been pounding Obama for weeks on this front, but the wonky issue has not provided her any traction. And after 16 minutes of grueling back and forth—much of which was devoted to each candidate insisting that unnamed experts had pronounced his or her plan the best—Clinton did not achieve any breakthrough. She claimed the difference between their two health care proposals—she's for a comprehensive mandate that would force all Americans to purchase health insurance; he's for a limited mandate covering insurance for kids—is the defining issue of the Democratic presidential contest. His response: not really. He minimized the gap between their plans. And it's hard for a candidate to have a battle royale with a foe who deftly maintains, we ain't got that big of a dispute here, let's move on. By now it should be clear: mandates are not going to save Hillary Clinton.
The other big squabble of the night came right after the mandates mudwrestle, and it focused on NAFTA, which has emerged as an issue in the past week, with Clinton and Obama competing for blue-collar Democratic voters in Ohio. As part of this tussle, Clinton has in recent days complained that Obama has unfairly tarred her as a flip-flopper on NAFTA. (Her current position: the trade accord is flawed, needs to be renegotiated, and there should be a time-out in negotiating similar treaties.) At the debate, she declared that she's been a critic of NAFTA "from the very beginning." Obama called her out on this—and simultaneously, his campaign sent reporters a link to a YouTube video in which she praises NAFTA. (Obama's campaign website conveniently features a list of Clinton's pro-NAFTA remarks over the years.)
Continues Below
Continued From Above
For the rest of the debate, there was little policy disagreement. Tim Russert, who co-moderated with Brain Williams, tried to push the candidates into a catfight over the familiar stuff: experience, judgment, readiness to be commander in chief. Clinton did not go nuclear, and Obama calmly absorbed her well-rehearsed criticisms. He noted that Clinton "equates experience with longevity in Washington" and that this is not "the accurate measure." As always, Clinton was in command of policy details large and small (though she almost could not remember the name of the Vladimir Putin's presumed successor in Russia). Obama seemed more confident than ever in fielding foreign policy questions, and by citing Clinton's vote on the Iraq war resolution, he turned most questions in this area into a referendum on the judgment of the two candidates.
Clinton's few jabs at Obama barely nicked him. He parried successfully all night long. She pointed out that as chairman of a Senate subcommittee on Europe he has not held a single hearing on how to bolster NATO in Afghanistan. He replied that he assumed that post at the start of the presidential campaign and has not had time to do so. She claimed he had recklessly advocated bombing Pakistan. He pointed out that he had called for attacking al Qaeda positions in Northwest Pakistan if the United States comes into possession of actionable intelligence and if the Pakistani government does not take steps to go after terrorists there. And he noted that the Bush administration recently attacked and killed in Pakistan al Qaeda's No. 3 in a similar fashion. (In other words, he's tough enough.) Clinton accused him of voting against lowering the cap on credit card interest rates. He explained this had been a weak provision in a lousy bill that he had opposed for other reasons.
Though Clinton tried to depict herself as a fighter for working Americans, none of her slaps against Obama were too forceful. And Obama repeatedly hailed her experience and accomplishments—and smoothly explained why he believed he was the better candidate: he'd made the right call on the Iraq war, he can bring people together, he can attract independents. He effectively responded to a clip in which Clinton poked fun at his let's-come-together rhetoric. To defeat the special interests, Obama said, a president "will have to mobilize and inspire the American people...and there is nothing romantic or silly about that."
Russert hurled a few gotcha questions at the two. Obama refused to be pinned down on whether he would stick to an earlier pledge to accept public financing in the general election and abide by a spending limit far lower than the amount of money he could raise otherwise. When Russert hit Obama with a question about his being endorsed by Louis Farrakhan, Obama noted he had routinely denounced the Nation of Islam leader for his anti-Semitism. (Clinton took a stab at exploiting this matter by saying that she had not just denounced an anti-Semitic group in New York State during her first Senate run but had rejected its support. Fine, said Obama, I reject Farrakhan as well as denounce him.) In response to a Russert query, Clinton refused to say if she would release her tax returns anytime soon. (One issue is whether the $5 million she loaned her campaign came from a pot of money that includes funds Bill Clinton has received from overseas and special interest sources.) And when a wide-eyed Russert asked each if he or she would vow to re-invade Iraq to take out al Qaeda (should it establish a presence in that country), both Clinton and Obama declined to humor him.
There were no defining moments of this debate—not much to analyze or psychoanalyze. Early on, Clinton complained she always gets the first questions in the debates and alluded to a recent Saturday Night Live skit that parodied the media for being gaga over Obama. This was not quite a shift-the-paradigm gesture. And at the end of the debate, Brian Williams asked both candidates to note an action taken or a statement made during their public career that they wished they could undo. Clinton almost said her 2002 vote on the Iraq war resolution was a mistake. Then Obama showed her up by admitting a true error: that he had not tried to stop Congress from intervening in the Terri Schiavo case. He called this "an example of inaction" and won points for candor.
At debate's end, there was no blood on the floor—and not much enlightenment. Which, of course, benefits the front-runner. Clinton and her advisers had obviously calculated that their best chance now is to plod ahead and not try anything too daring in full public view. After all, by this point, the race and the candidates are well defined. And in Cleveland, Obama did not want to change the overall dynamics of the contest. In that, he succeeded rather well.
Comments
The TABLOID media (there are no true news stations anymore) are absolutely shameful and ridiculous! She inst whining, she is telling the truth something new to corrupt racist Obama and the media, she is doing WHAT HER SUPPORTERS ARE INSISTING SHE DO, STAND UP! Especially like she did to that bone head Tim Russet. They attack EVERYTHING she does! If she laughs, or tears up because she is HUMAN and touched by a supporters story, if she allows attacks, she weak, if she fights back, she a bitch????? God forbid someone tells the truth about the bogus weak inexperienced racist black politician, or the fact his speeches are stolen words, that he has no solutions or experience with foreign affairs. Something that puts this country at great risk! WAKE UP PEOPLE, WE GAVE OUR COUNTRY TO ONE POLITICAN WHO DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING AND WE ARE DOING IT AGAIN!!! Does Oprah pay for or own all the media? Is she paying off CNN/MSNBC, the idiot Tucker Carlson or ANY black idiot on CNN? I'm ashamed of the media and how we are electing the President at this most important time in history?when we all are working for China, Thank CNN/MSNBC/FOX and Obamanantion? Black community claim that they want to live in a society where discrimination doesn't exist, but they don't practice what they preach, Especially MR.LEWIS! When Obama continually pulls 90%+ of the black vote, it's obvious that most blacks are voting for a candidate because of skin color.
Women can move beyond the struggle for equal status and for material goods to the challenges and opportunities of citizenship. Quality of goals and the achievement of goals which will mean a better life for all. For me, it was the beginning of seeing how politics can bring tangible results. I always hope that the very best of our people will go into politics, and I am sure that some of our best are women. So, I say: "Don't hold back. Don't be shy. Step forward in every way you can to plan boldly, to speak clearly, to offer the leadership which the world needs. Let us today earnestly resolve to build the true foundation for Eleanor Roosevelt's memory--to pluck out prejudice from our lives, to remove fear and hate where it exists, and to create a world unafraid to work out its destiny in peace. Eleanor Roosevelt has already made her own splendid and incomparable contribution to that foundation. Let us go and do likewise, within the measure of our faith and the limits of our ability. Let Eleanor Roosevelt teach us all how to turn the arts of compassion into the victories of democracy. Eleanor Roosevelt taught us that sometimes silence is the greatest sin. Mrs. Lyndon Baines (Ladybird) Johnson
Former First Lady, United States of America
ALL WOMEN IN AMERCIA NEED TO SEE WHERE THEY RATE IN THIS COUNTRY! WE ARE ALLOWING THE MEDIA TO TAKE UP BACK 60 YEARS. THINK ABOUT YOUR DAUGHTER, MOTHER, AUNT OR SISTER. THE GREAT ELEANOR ROOSEVELT, LADY BYRD JOHNSON, JACKIE KENNEDY ARE TURNING OVER IN THEIR GRAVES AT THE WAY THIS COUNTRY IS ATTACKING A GREAT LADY TO PUBLIC SERVICE AND FORMER TWO TERM FIRST LADY WHO SAT SIDE BY SIDE ONE OF THE GREATEST PRESIDENTS FOR THE MINORITES AND MIDDLE CLASS IN HISTORY.
The TABLOID media (there are no true news stations anymore) are absolutely shameful and ridiculous! She inst whining, she is telling the truth something new to corrupt racist Obama and the media, she is doing WHAT HER SUPPORTERS ARE INSISTING SHE DO, STAND UP! Especially like she did to that bone head Tim Russet. They attack EVERYTHING she does! If she laughs, or tears up because she is HUMAN and touched by a supporters story, if she allows attacks, she weak, if she fights back, she a bitch????? God forbid someone tells the truth about the bogus weak inexperienced racist black politician, or the fact his speeches are stolen words, that he has no solutions or experience with foreign affairs. Something that puts this country at great risk! WAKE UP PEOPLE, WE GAVE OUR COUNTRY TO ONE POLITICAN WHO DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING AND WE ARE DOING IT AGAIN!!! Does Oprah pay for or own all the media? Is she paying off CNN/MSNBC, the idiot Tucker Carlson or ANY black idiot on CNN? I'm ashamed of the media and how we are electing the President at this most important time in history?when we all are working for China, Thank CNN/MSNBC/FOX and Obamanantion? Black community claim that they want to live in a society where discrimination doesn't exist, but they don't practice what they preach, Especially MR.LEWIS! When Obama continually pulls 90%+ of the black vote, it's obvious that most blacks are voting for a candidate because of skin color.
Women can move beyond the struggle for equal status and for material goods to the challenges and opportunities of citizenship. Quality of goals and the achievement of goals which will mean a better life for all. For me, it was the beginning of seeing how politics can bring tangible results. I always hope that the very best of our people will go into politics, and I am sure that some of our best are women. So, I say: "Don't hold back. Don't be shy. Step forward in every way you can to plan boldly, to speak clearly, to offer the leadership which the world needs. Let us today earnestly resolve to build the true foundation for Eleanor Roosevelt's memory--to pluck out prejudice from our lives, to remove fear and hate where it exists, and to create a world unafraid to work out its destiny in peace. Eleanor Roosevelt has already made her own splendid and incomparable contribution to that foundation. Let us go and do likewise, within the measure of our faith and the limits of our ability. Let Eleanor Roosevelt teach us all how to turn the arts of compassion into the victories of democracy. Eleanor Roosevelt taught us that sometimes silence is the greatest sin. Mrs. Lyndon Baines (Ladybird) Johnson
Former First Lady, United States of America
ALL WOMEN IN AMERCIA NEED TO SEE WHERE THEY RATE IN THIS COUNTRY! WE ARE ALLOWING THE MEDIA TO TAKE UP BACK 60 YEARS. THINK ABOUT YOUR DAUGHTER, MOTHER, AUNT OR SISTER. THE GREAT ELEANOR ROOSEVELT, LADY BYRD JOHNSON, JACKIE KENNEDY ARE TURNING OVER IN THEIR GRAVES AT THE WAY THIS COUNTRY IS ATTACKING A GREAT LADY TO PUBLIC SERVICE AND FORMER TWO TERM FIRST LADY WHO SAT SIDE BY SIDE ONE OF THE GREATEST PRESIDENTS FOR THE MINORITES AND MIDDLE CLASS IN HISTORY.
Is the press going to follow up on Hillary's bizarre answer on tax returns -- that she can't release them because she's just too darn busy to get around to it? Let's be clear, these are not papers that need to be "prepared." They were prepared long ago, and filed with the government. All that has to happen is copy them and send them out. If Hillary is too busy, could we get some volunteers to make themselves available to do the photocopying? How about we all call Hillary's office and offer to come in and do the photocopying, so that she doesn't have to take time from her busy schedule.
Jerry,
Calm down and stop getting all lathered up on the Michelle Obama comment that she intimated was regretfull. Of course she is proud of her country and she said so thereafter. She explained what she meant and you need to move on. Haven't you ever said something that did not quite come out the way you perhaps intended? Move on. Hillary cannot galvanize the country the way Obama can and he looked oh so presidential tonight. The MSNBC poll showed that Obama won the debate easily.
IT IS AN URBAN LEGEND THA OBAMA HAS BEEN INCONSISENT ON PUBLIC FINANCING.
His position has ALWAYS been to condition acceptance of public financing on an aqreement with the other side to prevent cheating:
September 2007. Obama answers to a questionnaire sent to the various political campaigns in September 2007 by the Midwest Democracy Network, which is attempting to push finance reform, stating:
"In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."
February 20, 2008. Obama reiterated exactly this position in a letter to USA Today in responses to charges that he was flip flopping:
"In 2007, shortly after I became a candidate for president, I asked the Federal Election Commission to clear any regulatory obstacles to a publicly funded general election in 2008 with real spending limits. The commission did that. But this cannot happen without the agreement of the parties' eventual nominees. As I have said, I will aggressively pursue such an agreement if I am my party's nominee.
I do not expect that a workable, effective agreement will be reached overnight. The campaign-finance laws are complex, and filled with loopholes that can render meaningless any agreement that is not solidly constructed.
As USA TODAY has critically observed, outside groups have come to spend tens of millions of dollars "independently," while the candidates they favor with these ads "wink and nod" at this activity. There is an even greater risk of this runaway, sham independent spending now that the Supreme Court has wrongly opened the door to more of it in a recent decision.
I propose a meaningful agreement in good faith that results in real spending limits. The candidates will have to commit to discouraging cheating by their supporters; to refusing fundraising help to outside groups; and to limiting their own parties to legal forms of involvement. And the agreement may have to address the amounts that Senator McCain, the presumptive nominee of his party, will spend for the general election while the Democratic primary contest continues.
In l996, an agreement on spending limits was reached by Sen. John Kerry and Gov. William Weld in their Massachusetts Senate contest. They agreed to limits on overall and personal spending and on a mechanism to account for outside spending. The agreement did not accomplish all these candidates hoped, but they believe that it made a substantial difference in controlling outside groups as well as their own spending.
We can have such an agreement this year, and it could hold up. I am committed to seeking such an agreement if that commitment is matched by Senator McCain. When the time comes, we will talk and our commitment will be tested.
I will pass that test, and I hope that the Republican nominee passes his."
[deleted]
Submitted by Wayzom (not verified) on Wed Feb. 27, 2008 4:45 AM PST.
Jerry,
Cutting and pasting an article by a conservative commentator about a candidates wife is not really a comment on a debate by the candidates.
--
Senator Clinton had a bad night. She need a home run. She may not have struck out completely but she did not hit any out of the park. Her mismanaged campaigned that wasted her supporters fund at every turn ahs come to an end.
Submitted by William W. Wexler (not verified) on Wed Feb. 27, 2008 5:27 AM PST.
If there was any defining moment in the debate, I think it would be Hillary getting caught in a lie over her position on NAFTA. First, she did indeed support NAFTA, I can clearly remember this as I was taking a class in international marketing at the time and it was a hot topic. Second, this points out the flaw in the basic campaign rationale; namely, she's ready to go from Day 1. On NAFTA and Iraq, she made what have turned out to be political blunders and although it doesn't sink her "experience" argument entirely, it is taking on a lot of water. Third, getting caught in a lie about supporting NAFTA in Ohio on national TV can't be a good career move if you want to win the nomination.
-Wexler
Submitted by capt (not verified) on Wed Feb. 27, 2008 6:02 AM PST.
Let's all hope the next few states make the nominee a done deal.
We have lots of work ahead. The general will not be a skate.
Submitted by Diane (not verified) on Wed Feb. 27, 2008 6:04 AM PST.
"IT IS AN URBAN LEGEND THAT OBAMA HAS BEEN INCONSISENT ON PUBLIC FINANCING."
While that may be so, it is a LIE to say you didn't want pac money and didn't take any. Unfortunately, no one called him on it. He campaign has taken millions of dollars from at least two pacs, some of which was used to buy the gay-hating preacher and singers in South Carolina.
In no state so far has Hillary been ahead in the polls and then lost. In every state where Obama "surged" Hillary ended up winning: CA, MA, NJ, NV, AZ, NM. No doubt it will be close, but with Hillary hanging on to slim leads in TX and OH, history shows that she is very likely to win both states. With a big win expected in RI, how do you withdraw after winning 3 of the 4 states on March 4th?
Submitted by danny (not verified) on Wed Feb. 27, 2008 7:21 AM PST.
Scott. If i recall right, she was ahead in wisconsin, until obama's "surge" put him ahead before he eventually won.
"a big win expected in RI" - kind of an oxy-moron
and check your polls, he's pulled ahead in texas. Zing!
--
shouldivoteforhillary.com
In no state so far has Hillary been ahead in the polls and then lost.
Scott, are you an idiot? First, she was winning EVERY SINGLE state, except maybe Illinois at the beginning. Secondly, Iowa? Conneticut? Wisconsin? Missouri? There are others, you are delusional. I am not saying she won't get maybe OH, but to say EVERY STATE he surged in she has won is categorically false.
"In no state so far has Hillary been ahead in the polls and then lost. In every state where Obama "surged" Hillary ended up winning: CA, MA, NJ, NV, AZ, NM. No doubt it will be close, but with Hillary hanging on to slim leads in TX and OH, history shows that she is very likely to win both states. With a big win expected in RI, how do you withdraw after winning 3 of the 4 states on March 4th?"
Are youout of your mind? Wasn't she ahead in all 50 states in December? How about Iowa? Wasn't she ahead? How about Wisconsin in second week of February? How about Missouri? Wasn't she ahead there all the time? How about Maine? They don't count right?
Scott, good observation about Obama's surging (although he did get one more delegate than she in NV). But please consider this: Polling from TX 2/23-25: Obama 49, Hillary 45; another poll 2/25: Obama 47, Hillary 46. I say Obama takes Texas and Hillary may squeak out a win in Ohio. But remember what Bill said: if she doesn't win both, she's done.
If Democrats have any doubt about who is the best nominee for our party they should read this article posted on Politico this morning. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8711.html
I'm sure you've read that Obama has picked up 35 superdelagates in the last week or so and Clinton has lost 3. There's a reason why. It's called self preservation. I'm usually not a betting person, but now I'd bet every penny to my name ($131.00) that Bill Richardson and John Edwards will endorse Obama. Richardson will endorse this week while Edwards might wait until after March 4th. Any takers?
Dont get me wrong, I am for Obama all the way, but I think what Scott is saying is if Hillary is ahead RIGHT BEFORE the election (a few days before maybe) then a last minute surge like in CA, NJ, and MA falls short. However, we still have a week to go -- and thats an eternity in politics. Obama has already started to surge. Its time for Hillary to make a graceful exit -- if she has it in her.
Did anyone notice one thing in last night's debate? When asked about the job loss in New York and her promise to increase jobs HRC replied that its not her fault, its the Gore's fault because he didn't win the white house in 2000. So all the promises that she is delivering right now she needs a 60-40 senate and the majority in the house to implement? What happened to working across the isles and bringing people together? I can see who the all talk and no action candidate is here. I can see who is delusional.. who is in the dream land... I am surprised that very few commentators picked that up last night...
Obama the fraud continues his assault to infiltrate the system with his liberal agenda.
Can we trust this man with his hand next to "the button"?
Rezko has ties to Middle Eastern banks and was born in Syria. He had his bail revoked because he got caught sending money to Lebanon. Obama has known this man for fourteen years and even had his wife do a favor for him.
Obama goes to a church that supports Farrakahn. Obama has done his best to lie his way through this but the fact remains. He has been a member of this church since the eighties and has even referred to the man in question as "Minister Farrakahn." You can't reject a guy that you secretly have respect for.
Obama also has ties to Bill Ayers from The Weathermen. He has accepted money from this man, and he is on friendly terms with this man to this date. Watch the documentary "The Weather Underground" This is who Obama associates with.
The media hasn't given this guy a fair run, and the GOP smiles. McCain may win this one in a landslide.
LC,
Your assessment that the media hasn't given Obama a "fair run" is one I've seen repeatedly over the last couple weeks. I vehemently disagree.
Every day, MSM outlets create stories for Clinton...remember, even perceived "bad" publicity is good publicity. She gets more direct interviews, more FACE time on TV (we see more television footage of her "in action," compared to still shots of Obama) and overall she is treated to MORE air time.
That only makes sense, given the nature of corporate media, and Clinton's status as a corporate darling.
As for your talk about Obama's supposed "friends," you must not know much about the Clintons...
And why not refer to him as "Minister Farrakahn?" I have to put my mouth around "President Bush" all the time. And, by the way, you're probably not aware of this, but Farrakhan's "endorsement" was hypocritical in nature. The Nation of Islam hates biracial people as much as they hate anyone - I know this from experience (I'm biracial, and have had numerous unpleasant encounters with those folks).
So he goes to a church whose minister has said nice things about Farrakhan in the past...how well do you know your Priest/preacher? Would you be willing to take responsibility for all of his mistakes?
On your insinuation that Obama has "ties" to the Weathermen: Knowing someone...accepting donations from them, doesn't exactly constitute a "tie," and furthermore, this is 2008, not 1968. I don't think the Weather Underground is too significant these days...
Grow up, huh? You say McCain will win in a landslide? What if he has to compete with the type of mudslinging that you've exemplified...Obama's supposed associations with questionable characters hardly compares to McCains status as a member of the Keating Five!
I am interested in seeing her tax returns also. When she loaned her campaign the 5 million dollars I did not think about where the money came from, however, I do think that the American people have a right to see that information. If the money is primarily from special interest or worse overseas I would have to say that is not in the spirit of the rules that prohibit foreign money in campaigns. Lastly, I would add that while going over her tax return and trying to determine where the money came from it seems that it sort of unrealistic goal. I am sure that a lot of money was made from a lot of different sources.
The enlightenment I received was the wholesale sanctioning of a gang bang by the MSNBC "moderators," while Sen. Obama looked on, waiting for the next opportunity to say "I agree." Sen. Obama's glaring deficiencies in foreign affairs were never more evident than in last night's "debate." Sen. Clinton showed grace under unfair fire by Russert/Williams and gave intelligent answers to complex questions, particularly with regard to the situation in Russia (no matter that she could not be perfect on the Russian heir apparent's name). Sen. Obama's follow up to her answer was very weak. I cannot imagine a foreign ally or enemy who is not salivating at the thought of getting the upper hand over a weak Pres. Obama. Sen. Obama couldn't even be straightforward about Minister Farrakhan. You know the Nation of Islam has always had superb organization with door to door ground troops. They have survived every criticism of racism/anti-semitism because they have great presence in the black community to this day. Can't blame Sen. Obama for not wanting to benefit from their ground troops, even if they were campaigning for him without his "formal" approval. He tried to have it both ways last night and came out looking silly as he attempted to turn the issue into a "semantics only" issue. But It's all about getting bodies out on election night to cast votes. Always was. Turnout, I believe it's called. And Nation of Islam is very effective and their endorsement is quite valuable, whether it's publicly acknowledged or operating behind the scenes.
More on the race card in this campaign, including stuff about Bill Moyers. Go to:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c2...
Mandelay,
I think most of us are sick of the race card...why obsess over it?
And as far as the "foot soldiers" you refer to are concerned...I don't think you know what you're talking about. It's one thing to sell newspapers to like-minded idiots, it's another to canvass for a political candidate, and I guarantee you there will be little if any of that on the part of the bow-ties.
You're probably not aware of the fact that the Nation of Islam reputedly despises biracial people - which makes Farrakhan's endorsement confusing (hypocritical).
You're apparently also unaware of their true standing in the black community. Sure, there are people who subscribe to that garbage, but most of us view the Nation of Islam as an embarassment. We don't share their anti-semitic or afro-centric views, and we're also pretty sure they killed Malcolm X. Their endorsement is NOT valuable. It's quite the opposite, actually.
So when did you become so warped that you now hate a woman "of color"? Mrs. Obama merely meant that she was proud that most Americans viewed her husband as an American Citizen running for nomination, and not as a "Black" person running for nomination, got it?
Wow. The people at Mother Jones think Obama won the debate, anyone who says otherwise is wrong, and can't understand why one would want to categorically reject outright anti-semitism, as opposed to merely denouncing it. What a shock. Really.
(PS-FYI Mother Jones... to denounce is to suggest that an individual is not right, to reject is to assert that said individual is plainly wrong)
Oh, and TKD: Hillary's tax returns are not a matter of photocopying, and your putting together a team would do nothing. As a former president, Bill Clinton's tax returns (which are filed as joint returns with Hillary's so essentially both Bill and Hillary's tax returns) are inherently property of his library, a subsidiary of the national archives. Their release has to be reviewed and released by the executive branch (aka Bush). That was the whole Cheney controversy of last summer. Might wanna check up on stuff like that before you post, buddy.
Submitted by Trixie (not verified) on Wed Feb. 27, 2008 10:15 AM PST.
The twentieth debate between Clinton and Obama defined, once and for all, the meaning of superfluous. If Clinton asks for another, I hope the networks tell her to get lost. Does she really want to take all the new-found zest out of election and make it so boring nobody will want to have anything to do with it anymore? Nothing was said yesterday that hadn't already been said ad nauseam. This additional debate was a last straw that just didn't float.
"motivate" "excite" "galvanize" ... Are voters so anemic, so unenthusiastic about their country that they need a "quick fix", a "high" from a candidate?
I'm an American citizen living in France and -- after watching the Ohio debate between Clinton and Obama -- I watched a small film of the man the French voted in as president in May 2007 (53+ %)On a visit to a national agricultural fair, President Sarkozy's popularity has dropped so low that he was rebuffed by a disgruntled citizen who said he didn't want to be touched by the president for fear of being soiled (or "defiled" depending on how you translate it. Sarkozy's reply could be translated "Beat it, [deleted]!"
How could the voters have made such a mistake in May. They ignored his record and voted him in on his rhetoric, and now, 8 months later, this is what they've got.
The "loser" in France's presidential elections was also in the news. Ségolène Royale continues -- like Hillary -- to work away at public service. She was visiting Bordeaux to support the campaign of another member of her party. And she could also be quoted: "[the country] needs serious people who will get down to work and obtain results."
France is going to have one long wait before they can replace the man they voted in. Just like America has had a long wait up until now. It would be a shame to sell this election for a song, even though -- I admit --Will I Am 's clip is so nice to listen to.
So --- look at that debate again. The journalists were far more demanding this time. Things did come out on Obama. He's chairing a subcommittee and never has a meeting. He's received funding from a muslim extremest, he would send the troops back into Iraq after we pull out if Al Quaeda sets up shop. There's lots of stuff in that debate, but it's not underlined, it's not showcased, it's not set to music.
Unglaze you minds so that the States can get its house back in order. Don't vote for the rhetoric, vote for the record.
To Jerry Chui:
Are you kidding me? You're posting Malkin as a journalist. For crying out loud, Michelle Obama simply misspoke. "Prouder than I've ever been" might likely have been the written thought on the matter. Malkin is a tool of Bill O'Reilly. Seriously, got anyone of note who cares, seriously cares, that Michelle Obama had a slip of the tongue. Bet you have more than one a day without the pressure of an everywhere press.
David:
I noticed that you refer to Obama's website to blast Hillary on NAFTA. Once again, you are not being fair because you don't refer to Clinton's website.
This is from Hillary's website:
"Last night former Clinton adviser, David Gergen, confirmed that Hillary 'was extremely unenthusiastic about NAFTA':
GERGEN: "I was actually there in the Clinton White House during the NAFTA fight and I must tell you Hillary Clinton was extremely unenthusiastic about NAFTA. And I think that's putting it mildly. I'm not sure she objected to all the provisions of it but she just didn't see why her husband and that White House had to go and do that fight. She was very unhappy about it and wanted to move on to health care. So I do think there's some justification for her camp saying, you know, she's never been a great backer for NAFTA." [David Gergen, Anderson Cooper 360, 2/25/08]
Sen. Obama has sent mailers misrepresenting Hillary's position as pro NAFTA. The Cleveland Plain Dealer and Politico have called these mailers "erroneous" and "bogus.""
It's a joke when the news media shows polls with Obama way behind then catching up by great leaps and bounds. Most, if not all, of these polls were taken WHEN THERE WERE STILL 6 CANDIDATES running. What a joke. If that isn't media bias, I'm not sure what is. Obama's "surge" is by and large the result of others dropping out. I.E., look at Mike Huckabee's "surge". She's being screwed over by male chauvanist media, yuppies, and rich college kids. Oh, that's who I want picking my president. This is just great. Makes me sick.
Hillary seems to be trying to spend the majority of each debate discussing health Care. Even when she is breaking the rules to do so. What, she doesn't realize how boring she has become?
She wants to keep her Tax Return SECRET until after the Primary. (Shades of her failed Health Care plan)
Now, there can be no reason for keeping it secret other than the fact that revealing it would get her in trouble in the race for the Presidency.
Of course she wouldn't have worried about the scandal coming out during the General Election. (When it would have been too late)Look how many scandals the Clintons have skated through to date.....
I'm neutral here, but Corn's analysis is glaringly half-facile. Obama's perf was indeed Teflon, way cautious, as before, as befitting a front-runner. But Corn strangely misses the flailing, tragic, self-pitying pathos visible in Hillary's perf, such as in her strange (for a debate) complaint that the press treats her unfairly. The press does treat her unfairly, but you don't raise that to the voting public. Self-victimology is not leadership. She played it too safe to tilt the dynamic, as she needed to do, but her few attempts at hitting Obama were remarkably inconsistent, flailing, and backfired, i.e. in the Farakhan (sp) exchange. Did Corn miss that Hillary only fell further behind last night?
Give the comment a little context: are you PROUD of the Vietnam War? are you proud of the CONTRA War? are you proud of the many US "stooge" dictators we prop up around the world: Pinochet; the Shah; Somozas; Saddam when it was convenient; Marcos; Noriega; Sukarno; Pol Pot?; the LIST goes on and on! Alan Dulles once said it cynically accurate: "They may be bastards, but they are OUR bastards." Are you PROUD that the US is 38th in the world on HEALTH and longevity issues? This is merely an expression that recognizes the fact that our priorities have been mixed-up for decades.
She was clearly uncomfortable, she shifted in her seat and stumbled over her words when it came to her releasing her tax papers. When she said she was "too busy", I thought WOW, how worst could she make herself out to be, in the eyes of the voters. This woman is suppose to be smart, or so I'm told, I have not seen it surface yet. Whoever is giving her these lines should be FIRED!
If Clinton is too busy now how does she expect to run the White House and America?
Clinton is done for, thank goodness, and yes I hope Obama does win, he has more respect and gives more respect than Hilary Clinton could ever imagine existed.
Too busy? Somehow I can't see Bill and Hillary hunched over their PC last April trying to get Tax-Cut(r) to work. I'm pretty sure they have "people" to do that sort of thing for them. Retrieving their returns, if they really want to make them available, is just a phone call away.
For someone who's supposed to be smart, that was a pretty stoopid dodge. (and yes, I do know how to spell stupid)
What is it with all the bitter women who support Hillary?
I'm sorry, but apparently the apples don't fall far from the candidate, looking at the comments here.
Yes, I've read that Obama's ahead in the polls, but I don't give it much thought.
I am, however, excited that we have these two great choices, and this competition beats anything I've seen in the past three Democratic primaries.
Be a little more positive and a little less nasty -- everyone.
Hillary was 'booed' . . . again! This is the second debate in a row where she took a cheap shot and was actually booed by the audience. It was harder to hear during this debate but it happened. Obviously she did not figure out that it's not a good thing to get booed the first time it happened. What's that say about her character.
Did anyone else notice that Barack was quite gracious to Hillary when asked why he thought he would be a better President? He said that Hillary would make a fine and capable President but that he was more likely to bring people together to actually accomplish things. When Hillary had the same chance to return the compliment, no dice. Just like she 'agreed with everything Obama said' when asked in the last debate about him being a possible VP or her being his VP. He said she would be on anyones short list and she simply agreed she would be without saying anything nice about him.
When you denounce something, you actually speak against it. When you simply reject something, you do not necessarily speak out against it. Denouncing implies, and it could be argued that it requires automatic, rejection while you can simply reject something without renouncing it. Personally I think that denouncing is stronger than rejecting but to move the debate along, Barack graciously conceded the point and said he denounced and rejected Farrakan(sp?).
Barack was, as always, gracious and more Presidential than Hillary ever has been and, I suspect, is even capable of being.
Wexler's comment is dead on .Hillary was exposed and not for the first time if your paying attention .Rusette quoted her 1996 and 2004 nafta supporting comments verbatim.She had no answer . I can't believe her supporters can't see how disingenuous she is. Her and Bill have been playing "Rove " ball from day one .The party should get behind Obama now! Continued devision plays into the Republicans hands . jh
Reply To:
WWWexler: You claim Clinton lied about NAFTA, I don't know. I thought she was for 'Free' Trade, but then again so is Obama! He wants to enforce 'clauses' (enviro. & labor), in the past, last night he didn't answer at all!
Hajji: You, nor anyone else has the RIGHT to tell someone else who, and when they MUST endorse! Particularly, Edwards who earned his delegates! and was the only true Progressive/Populist candidate!
Scott & Danny: Hillary won in a landslide in Massachusettes, where BOTH Senators, and the Governor (Obama's good bud) Duval who's campaign in Mass. was almost identical to Obama's! A lot of high hopes, and rhetoric! 16 months later, the People of Mass. spoke clearly, about how happy they are with Duvals results!
***Country Before Party***
***Go Green (PARTY)****
***www.votesmart.org***
