She's human, and everyone has a bad day. This could have been just that. Even so, the thing about Hillary is that she learns from her mistakes very well. This is early in the campaign season. She'll take stock in the evening, learn, and come back with a vengeance. Its way too early in the campaign cycle to say that tonight's flaws mean much in the long run.
As a disclaimer, I am presently a Dodd supporter. I like that he has been drawing lines in the sand against the unitary executive bullshit. Pragmatically, it remains unseen what kind of following he can draw, but there is time and he makes good sense.
We have months before the true dem candidate is known. Lots will happen. They will all take turns stumbling. Those who stumble more often later on stand the greater chance of losing the opportunity to be the dem nominee. Those who stumble early and learn will probably fight until the end. Time. Opportunity. Brains. Homework. How it all plays out remains to be seen.
No matter what though: I am voting dem against ANY republican FOR SURE.
Posted by jcricket at October 30, 2007 10:59 PMAs I have pointed out before and for all the reasons the other candidates pointed out, Clinton's vote on kyl-lieberman was a huge mistake. bush, cheney and the republicans try to explain huge mistakes with bullshit and Clinton is using their play book. The bullshit approach works with people that don’t think for themselves (the fox propaganda followers and for some that post here). All of the Democratic candidates are in a tough position. There are two dilemmas here. One is the “strong on national security” illusion. The second is that “red state voters” may vote for democrats in the general election. All the candidates know, including Clinton, that being “tough on national security” is a game that republican cowards are playing and the corporate media is pedaling. The fact is what is called “tough on national security” is really destroying the country. Most of the Democrats haven’t learned that the brainwashed “red state voters” are not going to vote for them.
More disturbing was how the moderators steered the debate toward issues to divide the candidates and inject republican talking points. The moderators used the delusional republican presidential candidate statements to set the agenda for this debate. The corporate media and especially the russets are a big part of the problem.
On another note, I was struck by how much better the country would be when any of the Democratic candidates took office. What a relief!!!!
Posted by smooth at October 30, 2007 11:10 PMthe debates are a joke..i stopped watching them a long time ago..they are an indicator of very little..it's a msm tool which the candidates have to play with..unfortunately..tim russert is a shill..nothing more..there isn't a person up there that wouldn't have a hard time if they were being attached by all sides...not one
Posted by dennis at October 31, 2007 03:46 AMHillary's vote on Kyl-Krapperman was likely another "poll driven" vote, just like her mistaken vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq. The public is being fed war-fever again by Bushco and their corporate media, and she doesn't want to stand in the way of that, or another glorious US militarist operation, for that matter.
If anything, her Krapperman vote was even more craven, haven seen what Cheney does with these types of "This Country is Evil" votes. Or she agrees that we must attack Iran over its nuclear program, take your pick.
So she either isn't really a progressive or she is a craven poll watcher, at least on foreign policy.
And the fact that she refuses to answer direct questions about enormous national problems shows that she is (and will be) a tenacious status quo defender. Why? All that corporate money she's raked in---THAT'S what causes candidates to somehow "not be able" to give a direct, coherent answer. The corporate money's "position" doesn't permit a direct answer.
Hillary will be just more of the same DC Beltwayism, I think that's becoming pretty clear. The Clintons play the DC "game" far better than anyone, they have NO interest, zero, none, in having any of the "rules" change. She's the wrong answer, but we'll see what the Dem primary voters say.
Posted by euzoius at October 31, 2007 05:36 AMI thought Hillary did a fantastic job explaining her Iran Vote and Social Security. Considering she was being attacked from all sides, she held herself up very well.
If you watch all the NEWS package of the debates, you'd think they pummeled her. I saw a different debate, I guess. In my opinion, she stood her ground.
John Edwards did a great deal of attacking, but I can't recall one single thing he said that stood out in terms of his own positions and policies. Not one thing. All I remember was his relentless attacks and his smug face after he thinks he's delivered a blow to Hillary. It's the smirk and smugness that really turned me off.
As for Obama, he was very mellow. He pretty allowed Edwards to do all the attacking. I think his statement about allowing illegal aliens to get driver's licenses will hurt him in the general elections.
Hillary's answer on the driver's license was vague at best and it would allow her some wiggle room. Obama pretty much locked him in that position. Did Obama forget that Spitzer had to backoff from that?
Biden just stood out with his one-liners. However, not much else in terms of stating his positions.
Posted by Jamie at October 31, 2007 05:42 AMAnd what do you suppose AIPAC's position was on Kyl-Krapperman? It would be interesting to see how often Hillary disappoints AIPAC. Perhaps a job for the indefatigable eriposte?
Posted by euzoius at October 31, 2007 05:44 AM"Yes, she stood her ground well on Iraq, but resorted to a straw man in defending her Iran vote on Kyl-Lieberman"
Steve, I disagree. John Edwards offers alot of criticism on Iran, but he doesn't state what his position is if Iran does continue to develop nuclear. He doesn't offer diplomacy or military action. All Edwards has to say is that Hillary is allowing Bush a blank check.
Steve, do you know Edwards' position on a nuclear Iran? He doesn't offer an alternative.
Maybe Edwards just doesn't want to deal with Iran, therefore, Hillary is correct in stating that Edwards side is doing nothing.
Hillary is criticized when she takes a stand and criticized when she doesn't. Here, she stood her ground on Iran.
Posted by Jamie at October 31, 2007 05:49 AM"smirk and smugness turned me off"
Now we're gonna start associating Bush's defining personal characteristics to Edwards, eh? OK.
Posted by euzoius at October 31, 2007 05:49 AMeuzoius, I wasn't making any comparison to Bush. I saw a smirk and a smug face on Edwards. Each and everytime he attacked Hillary... there was a satisfaction in his face that translated into a smug. I'm sorry if you're offended by that comment.
Is smugness something that Bush monopolizes?
Posted by Jamie at October 31, 2007 05:52 AMI dunno, I thought Clinton did pretty well, considering every question was seen as an opportunity to mention Kyl/Lieberman by the others. She looked more polished and engaged than the others, especially Obama, who mumbled and stuttered. I was really disappointed with Edwards' continuous attacks about K/L (goaded by Russert), to the point where he was talking in circles. He looked petty to me, and I usually like him! And like I said in the previous thread, Russert's questions were snotty little gotchas - "So, you'll campaign on Rangel's bill?" etc. Biden had some great putdowns of Rudy - "he's an unqualified idiot..." Nice to hear. Not to mention Kucinich telling Russert that he and his cohorts were responsible for ramping up the Iraq war and that the media should stop trying to ramp up an Iran attack. Good stuff. After watching Tweety do a pre-game that sounded like he was calling a boxing match (really!), I'm not surprised at all the attacks - the frikkin' talking heads think they're the real stars and the candidates are just there to give them a foil to make them look tough. Instead, Russert just looked silly.
Posted by iamcoyote at October 31, 2007 05:56 AMDid you think Edwards "smirked" and was "smug" when he ran in 2004? Or is it something he's just picked up lately?
No need to answer, rhetorical questions.
Posted by euzoius at October 31, 2007 05:56 AM
euzoius, do you have anything of positive and of substance about your own candidate?
I take that from post that it's much easier for you to attack than to actually say something worthwhile about your own candidate.
Posted by Jamie at October 31, 2007 05:57 AMeuzoius, in 2004, John Edwards campaigned on being positive. Don't you remember? In fact, as Dean and Gephardt beat each other up, it was Edwards campaign that benefitted from that bitterness.
John Edwards of 2008 is running on a campaign of negativity.
But that's besides the point. I saw him smirk last night and I'm just writing my opinion. Watch the debate. His smug face is a turn. Sorry if you're offended by it.
Posted by Jamie at October 31, 2007 06:00 AM"Negativity"---Hoo boy, now we're gonna start hearing that Edwards is running a KKKarl Rover speciality, the negative campaign. Do you work for a campaign, jamie?
As for "my" candidate, I'm responding to the post---it's ABOUT Hillary's performance, or at least that's what it seems to be about to me. And I'M not attacking her personal characteristics and finding such qualities as perceived "smugness" to be dispositive to my vote.
Take a pill, your candidate is going to be mercilessly attacked for more than a year (and not just on her policy positions) and you better start getting used to it.
Posted by euzoius at October 31, 2007 06:24 AMDidn't see the debate but just wanted to comment on the NYS drivers license issue. It's a pretty clear cut issue as far as I'm concerned. But not everyone sees it that way. Not requiring proof of legal presence in the country to obtain a drivers license in NYS is not new. It's actually a return to pre-9/11 policy. Sort of. NY State is revamping it's entire license policy in coordination with the DHS. In short order the license that a person who can't prove US citizenship will be able to obtain will indicate that it is not a valid form of US government ID. For people requiring a license that will still serve as valid ID for things like airline travel an enhanced license will be available. This is important in northern and western NY because Spitzers efforts will enable New Yorkers to use these enhanced licenses to cross the Canadian border without having a passport. The standard "not US govt. ID" license will not enable you to do so under new post-9/11 regulations.
All Spitzer's plan will do is allow undocumented immigrant already in New York to legally drive a car. There are thousands of them driving now, illegally. All this will do is bring many of them into the regulated system.
The only reason Clinton could have to hedge on the issue is because so many people can't get beyond the 'immigration' aspect of the policy and see it as the simple public safety issue it really is. The amount of vitriol from the anti-immigrant crowd that the issue has generated illustrates that well enough. Clinton surely would not have had enough time to elaborate on the details of Spitzer's plan, in the rapid fire debate format, enough to cut through the misinformation out there on this issue. A clear cut yes or no from her in that debate setting wasn't going to change anyone's mind on the issue. So I don't blame her too much for hedging. I'd imagine she'll be issuing a statement elaborating on her position shortly.
Posted by snark at October 31, 2007 06:25 AMI didn't watch the debates last night. But I liked what John Edwards had to say the night before:
It's time to tell the truth. And the truth is the system in Washington is corrupt. It is rigged by the powerful special interests to benefit they very few at the expense of the many. And as a result, the American people have lost faith in our broken system in Washington, and believe it no longer works for ordinary Americans. They're right.Posted by Seven of Six at October 31, 2007 06:50 AMAs I look across the political landscape of both parties today -- what I see are politicians too afraid to tell the truth -- good people caught in a bad system that overwhelms their good intentions and requires them to chase millions of dollars in campaign contributions in order to perpetuate their careers and continue their climb to higher office.
This presidential campaign is a perfect example of how our politics is awash with money. I have raised more money up to this point than any Democratic candidate raised last time in the presidential campaign -- $30 million. And, I did it without taking a dime from any Washington lobbyist or any special interest PAC.
I saw the chase for campaign money at any cost by the frontrunner in this race -- and I did not join it -- because the cost to our nation and our children is not worth the hollow victory of any candidate. Being called president while powerful interests really run things is not the same as being free to lead this nation as president of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Hillary Clinton is a manufactured political creature. Let down the shield? Seriously? The shield is all she has. She IS the shield. Beyond the shield, there is no "there" there.
She is completely beholden to the beltway. She wouldn't do jack shit for anyone outside of it were she to become president.
Posted by RAM at October 31, 2007 06:51 AMJamie, you're so full of shit that I'm surprised you don't have a personal septic tank.
Naked apologists are never attractive. Edwards really got under your skin. Hmmm. I wonder why?
Posted by RAM at October 31, 2007 06:54 AMsmooth is so right about the "tough on national security" crapola. The objective evidence is that the "bomb 'em and invade 'em" with your all-powerful military is a disastrous approach for this "war", and that a majority of Americans are suspicious of Cheney's militarism, yet the Dems refuse to make the case, denounce the More-of-the-Same Bushist GOoPs and declare that Bushism has made the country LESS safe.
That's the best strategy on this crucial issue, and instead Dems let Repub framing run the show. It would be easy to humiliate the GOoP-fellating Russert(s) on their GOoP framing, but then you couldn't "make nice" with him after the show while feeding him cocktail weenies with GOoP sauce.
Posted by euzoius at October 31, 2007 07:04 AMThanks, snark, for the rundown on the licensing thing, I've heard it discussed before, and thought that's what it was about, but wasn't sure. I agree, it's not something you can talk about in a sound byte, and it's sure to inflame the anti-immigrant crowd to apoplexy.
GoW, sorry, RAM, while I don't agree that Edwards was smirking and smug, I really came away disliking him after his continuous dog-with-a-bone attacking of Clinton last night. It was an obvious media/Russert/Tweety-manufactured theme for the evening: Cage Match Against Hillary!! and it really looked desperate for him to be playing along with it, instead of taking Richardson's lead and not allowing Russert to set the tone. Not to mention he repeated himself over and over, which made him look unpolished. Then, joining with Obama to use the rightwing talking points about Social Security in !crisis! really pissed me off. Why, oh why give the Republicans an issue to springboard off of like that? Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Posted by iamcoyote at October 31, 2007 07:41 AMThe entire "debate" is a farce...
We, through allowing this system, have created a situation where to be president, you have to:
-be privileged and white,
-and have about $200 million to piss away on a popularity contest
We are limiting ourselves to that pitiful handful of people, not at all representative of the society they wish to lead.
You have empty shell candidates who are playing not to lose, rather than ever actually saying what they think. All positions are dictated by polls and focus groups. The final insult-this entire futile event is "moderated" by a shill like Russert, the shiniest of jewels in the crown of our corporate media-that handles truth like an inconvenient by-product of all their other business dealings.
Your time would be better spent banging on pots...
Posted by Cartman at October 31, 2007 07:51 AM"At times she came across as someone who is so guarded against misspeaking that she ends up saying nothing of substance." Well, true. But also, maybe, she doesn't have anything to say of substance on ever single issue. I think you can say that about all of the candidates, and definitely about all the GOP candidates. I don't watch these prelim debates...which are certainly not debates in the real sense, rather just show business. And having Russert moderate is disgusting. When Hillary and Rudy=Bush "debate", I'll tune in.
Posted by T2 at October 31, 2007 07:58 AMI agree, it's not something you can talk about in a sound byte, and it's sure to inflame the anti-immigrant crowd to apoplexy.
You mean like this?
Posted by snark at October 31, 2007 08:13 AMI wish that somebody would ask Timmy the Catholic, when he unloads one of those slanted questions on a Democrat, "Well, Tim - I notice you don't ask these kinds of prejudicial questions when you're moderating a Republican't debate. Could you rephrase the question so it doens't sound like you got it from Karl Rove?"
Then again, I don't watch these dog and pony shows any more either. Republican't operatives tossing out biased questions to the candidates (biased in favor of Republican'ts, and biased against Democrats) and playing 'gotcha' instead of trying to show the american people what the candidates positions are is not exactly infotaining...
Posted by (: Tom :) at October 31, 2007 08:26 AMAs with previous MSNBC debates my Linux using Opera and Firefox would not play them, and XP with Firefox would not although all setups played the advertisements fine.
If someone knows of how to prod the DNC to move away from supporting MS sleazy tricks
Posted by jaynicks at October 31, 2007 08:34 AMsnark, heh, Dobbs is in a continuous state of apoplexy about them "illegals" in't he?
Tom, Timmeh was a disgrace, wasn't he? I don't usually watch these things, but it's been a while and I really did want to see Hillary's answers to some of the accusations that have been going around. I was kinda surprised at how she impressed me, really. Maybe it was in contrast to how annoying I thought the others were, but I thought she held up well. And I'm sorry, but when one of the guys (forgot which one, but I think it was Obama who really appears not very up on the facts, on Social Security or Iran), said that K/L "authored" an Iran war, I wanted to throw something. Yes, it was a dumb vote on a stupid non-binding thing, but shit, it isn't the blank check that everyone's making it out to be. If Bush wanted to attack Iran, he's going to do it no matter what. Cheney's authoring that fookin' war, not Hillary; and Dodd's fear that everyone will be using that vote instead of blaming Bush if it happens is pretty dang silly.
Posted by iamcoyote at October 31, 2007 09:20 AMEdwards smirks and look smug!!!!
I attended a debate party with about 25 people; 18 were hillary supporters, the rest undecided or supporting others including 1 repug (a spouse of a hillary supporter)
some of the undecided liked biden; others they remained undecided but ruled out edwards/obama/richardson. We all love kucinich but we all know he will not be there in the finals...
And Dodd did not fare well on free healthcare for the illegal aliens!!!!
So this immigration issue will be a thorn for all dems.
And to top it off, I was the only one in the group who views/writes on the blogs. Others avoid it and are not influenced by the bloggers!
Timmeh and Tweety need to come clean and come out with a joint statement like: "We hate Hillary and will do everything in our elite media power to destroy her." They are disgusting.
Could this hatred be based in something as simple as a woman trying to break into the white penis only club? Do they feel threatened?
And Tweety was in the Peace Corp?
Posted by TIKI AL at October 31, 2007 12:52 PMYou know, after reading this, all I can say is there are some serious flaws in our system of how candidates get public airtime in order to get elected. I'm certainly no fan of Hillary's(actually more of a Dodd fan at present) but I despise this attack the leader bs from our convential wisdom generating world of Kewl Kid punditry. It's one thing for candidates to try to go after each other, but is certainly another for the Gotcha PUmpkin king to constantly do it.(at the behest of)
And to be perfectly honest, not only does it turn me off from whomever does it (including the political candidates that do it) but it makes me want to vote for the person who was constantly attacked...in other words it backfires.
On doctor shortages, Hillary, who likes to run based on her "experience" as Bill's sidekick, must have been shaking in her shoes that one of the others would have remembered that Bill signed a bill, I believe in 1997, that capped the numbers of interns that the feds would help fund in the training of doctors. The reason? Because of the impending doctor glut. I don't think that cap has been changed since then. Since it takes 10 years to train a doctor, can you imagine what's going to happen as the baby boomers with their increased health needs meets the brick wall of retiring baby boomer doctors?
Hillary is running a shallow campaign, low on substance and details. Maybe that's because it is politically smart not to commit herself....or maybe she is simply a candidate who is unoriginal and shallow on background and insight on issues. She and Bill miscalculated on the "glut" of doctors, and Hill miscalculated on Iraq, and now she is miscalculating on Iran. Oh, well.
Posted by Julie at October 31, 2007 01:14 PMJulie,
The AMA was pushing the med school cap and onlty changed their tune in 2002. Show me where someone was making a counter argument that we were gonna face a doctor shortage that Clinton ignored.
The article you linked also points out one of the real problems in our healthcare system, distribution of doctors. They have to offer all kinds of incentives to get med students to choose to become general practitioners. Everyone wants to get into some specialty or niche where they can make more mone than being a GP. Adding a lot more doctors isn't going to be a sure fix for that.
Posted by snark at October 31, 2007 01:45 PMsnark, when I saw Steve's comment on doctor shortages, it reminded me of this bill back in the ninties, and I remembered thinking at the time back then how oddly illogical the bill was. It didn't sit well with me. So, seeing Jeff's comment on the debate, this afternoon I tried doing a google on the subject to see if I could find it, had a heck of a time coming up with the right combination of words to find what I did. I'm sure that if it was illogical to me then, it was also illogical to a lot of others, but they probably weren't allied to lobby groups like the AMA. So, feel free to do your own googling, as I've done mine.
It would be interesting to know if the shortage of doctors has contributed to the high cost of medical care, don't you think, as in supply and demand? It would also be interesting to see if this cap has tended to keep poor students out of that field.
Posted by Julie at October 31, 2007 04:14 PM