Sorry, I have to disagree...just because Hillary accused Edwards of "mudslinging" and working right "out the republican playbook" doesn't make it true...and it wasn't in response to Social Security, it was in response to Edwards rightfully calling her on her vote for Kyle-Lieberman.
Posted by sarik at November 15, 2007 07:18 PMWas Clinton the first to say "mudsling?" I thought it was a total smackdown of Edwards by everyone else, saying "let's all not play these games." After that, it got pretty fun, I thought.
Digby has a good rundown:
Immigration Debate
by digby
Blitzer: Driver's licenses! Yes or No!
Obama: It's not so simple. We need comprehensive immigration reform and I think ...
Blitzer: Yes or no! What about the driver's licenses?!
Richardson: The congress has failed to act. It's a matter of public safety...
Blitzer: Yes or no! Yes or no! Yes or no!
Edwards: It's a complicated problem...
Blitzer: Huh? Driver's licenses! Yes or No!
Kucinich: There is no such thing as an illegal human being. I would repeal Nafta.
Blitzer: NAFTA??? WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING??? DRIVER'S LICENSES! YES OR NO!!!
Biden: No
I thought Biden was great, really, and Obama was stumbly, while Hillary knocked the "gender card" question out of the park.
The parts I hated - using the human rights/national security faux pas by Richardson as the either/or for the question about Pakistan. And the way that chick added on a whole bunch of pointed shit after the scared audience members asked their questions. That was extremely annoying.
Posted by iamcoyote at November 15, 2007 07:30 PMJohn Edwards chimed in with Social Security as well, and unspooled a string of attacks directed at Hillary right out of the Republican playbook...
Where does attack come from, please specify?
I thought everything Edwards said was justified and actually his comment (paraphrase) "There is no difference in Corporate Republi-cons in Washington or Corporate Democrats in Washington" is right to the point!
And since it seems Kucinich doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell, with republi-con pukes in the media like 'wolf' not allowing him to speak about impeachemnt, Edwards is our alternative. He seems to have a major part of the problem in Washington figured out. And... he's an electable Democrat!
Posted by Seven of Six at November 15, 2007 07:34 PMI have to say, though, it was a pretty good format. Fairly structured, but not mechanical. Everyone got a lot of time to have their say, and there was a lot of specifics that are worth looking at. Blitzer was really denigrating about the teachers - I hated that question, should "good teachers" be paid according to merit. WTF?? And I wanted to hear just one of the candidates say that all the teachers out there certainly aren't doing it for the pay!
Posted by iamcoyote at November 15, 2007 07:35 PMSoS, we'll have to see the transcript or a replay, maybe I'm wrong. It seemed he went off on her on at least two or three stale points he's been making a lot. I may be mistaken, I admit.
Coyote, you're so right about the education segment, we got nowhere fast. And what ever happened with the alternative energy discussion that was promised? I know there was a couple of minutes of ho-hum mentions, but very little.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at November 15, 2007 07:44 PMBlitzer was really denigrating about the teachers...
Coyote, I saw it more as an attack on Unions, I could hear it in Roberts voice also.
Boy, Richardson is long winded!
Posted by Seven of Six at November 15, 2007 07:44 PMSoS, I felt the same way as Jeff about Edwards' first response. He came out of the gate with a litany of all the talking points of the week, ignoring the question, whatever it was. Of course Volfie was trying to stir trouble from the very beginning, so it's not surprising.
What was surprising was the Iran question, and the fact that the candidates didn't seem to know about the IAEA's report this week. Sure, it came out this morning, but you'd think a big concern like an impending attack would have them on top of things. Unless they're not concerned Bush will attack.
Posted by iamcoyote at November 15, 2007 07:45 PMJeff, you're right, it was about unions, and geez, when Volfie went on and about about "well, what if it's a really crappy teacher, one who doesn't work hard enough..." My god! I loved Hillary's answer to that "One would hope someone that bad would have been weeded out."
Posted by iamcoyote at November 15, 2007 07:51 PMI don't get the format anyway, everyone of the questioners is a republi-con. WTF?
When do we get to have a republi-con debate with Bill Moyers or Olbermann asking questions? It's fucking rigged!
Posted by Seven of Six at November 15, 2007 07:53 PMNo kidding, SoS. Fer gawd sake, I'd like to see them try to answer any of those questions asked tonight!
Posted by iamcoyote at November 15, 2007 07:54 PMDodd had a lot of energy tonight, good showing for him.
How about that opening, when they came out one at a time, like a basketball team? I was waiting for someone to jump up and chest bump each other.
Oh, God, CNN is showing a replay, now. I have to turn something else on. I've overdosed.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at November 15, 2007 08:01 PMJeff, I did find this among the tickers at CNN:
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, who has significantly stepped up his attacks against rival Hillary Clinton recently, avoided taking a dig at the New York senator when asked by moderator Wolf Blitzer if she was playing the "gender card."Posted by Seven of Six at November 15, 2007 08:10 PM"I think that every single candidate on this stage should be held to exactly the same standard," Edwards said in response, before going into his standard stump speech on the differences between him and Clinton.
Edwards then drew boos from some in the crowd when he said Clinton took money from lobbyists.
"Wait a minute," Edwards said to the boos. "Voters have those choices, and they deserve to know that they have those choices, that there are in fact differences between us. But I think every one of us should be held to the same standard."
– CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney
Yeah, that was after she nailed that gender thing, they should've just went to a commercial. What he said was fine, except the lobbyist deal.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at November 15, 2007 08:17 PMNAFTA has basicly destroyed the economy of rural Mexico because it has flooded the markets of urban Mexico with the products of subsidized agracorps.
Does anyone really believe that Blitzer doesn't understand the relationship between NAFTA and the rampant inmigration by rural Mexicans that we have seen in the US scince its inception? Anyone who doesn't understand that the only way to solve the immigration problem is to rewrite NAFTA shouldn't be trusted as a conveyor of news to millions of Americans. Be it simple ignorance or willful colaboration it's an example of what is wrong with our corporate media.
My preliminary thoughts.
1. I was suprised that Obama struggled through one or two of the questions, especially the one on illegal immigration which he answered pretty crisply last time. He also seemed a bit out of his game when he talked over Clinton in the early part of the debate.
2. I thought that Clinton's counter-offensive took Obama and Edwards by surprise - to some degree. I also think that Richardson's and Biden's intervention on the "slinging mud" aspect forced Edwards and Obama to pull back on the attacks on Clinton.
3. I need to research the whole social security tax issue but both Clinton and Obama made strong points there - and Obama thankfully did not denote social security as a crisis. I definitely think Obama caught Hillary off guard with his retort which compared her to Romney and Giuliani.
4. Edwards had some difficulty explaining away his past votes that he now considers mistakes, and he took some heat from others for his recent over-heated comments against Clinton. Hillary took some heat, as expected, on Kyl-Lieberman and I thought she did not powerfully rebut the criticisms of her on that subject.
5. I am increasingly impressed with Bill Richardson through I don't know much about him; I continue to be impressed by Dodd.
Post-debate coverage by CNN - why in the world is James Carville included in these panels?
Posted by eriposte at November 15, 2007 08:18 PMAfter Hillary made her crack about the Iranians being labeled "terrorists," I turned the TV to a movie. Hillary is just another imperial war-monger.
Bush is the biggest terrorist in the world.
Posted by james k. sayre at November 15, 2007 08:27 PMJeff, I still say it's OK for Edwards to fire on Hillary about her taking money from a lobbyist. She said tonight that she can "handle the heat" and that she is being attacked because she "is ahead" (which drew a thunderous roar). I want Hillary to answer Edwards question, instead of everyone jumping to her defense.
So as far as I'm concerned it's all fair in love and politics!
Post-debate coverage by CNN - why in the world is James Carville included in these panels?
No doubt eRiposte, kos did a write up on it also!
Posted by Seven of Six at November 15, 2007 08:35 PMJohn Edwards was referred to as a "rabid gerbil" in todays New York Times. The author went on to say "Senator Clinton would be lucky if he tried to bite her on the ankle". The man is pitiful. He whines, he lies, he misleads. He has taken more money from the ABA than anyone on that stage.
His record in the Senate is awful. The man stood for nothing. He can take his $400 haircuts, his southern drawl, his 15,000 square foot home and return to it and take care of his lovely wife. And remember, he could not even carry his home state in 2004. What in the world makes people think he is electable. As awful as the Republican thugs are, people will not vote for the "rabid gerbil".
Obama's answers on heath care and driver's licenses for undocumented workers was sloppy. The man is a weak sister. He is so inexperienced he doesn't even know what he doesn't know.
What Dodd is doing on that stage is a mystery. Richardson is running for the Senate.
Biden co-authored the mean-spirited bankruptcy bill that passed last year. The BANKS OWN HIM. Always have. And remember, when he last ran for the presidency he had to withdraw after it was discovered he stole Robert Kenndy's speeches.
Senator Clinton puts the whole lot of them to shame. She will be the nominee and the 44th President of the United States. And rightfully so. She overshadows her nearest rivals by leaps and bounds. There is a reason she is the front-runner.
That man whore Guiliani would eat Obama alive. Not Senator Clinton.
Posted by Judith at November 15, 2007 08:57 PMWhat an asinine question, "Human Rights or Security"?
It's not so cut and dried, especially when we see abuses of our constitution by the executive branch in the name of security!
Security yes, but not if it costs us our human rights.
I found it interesting and somewhat appalling that the issues closest to the people of Nevada, energy, water and urban sprawl were not mentioned. Blitzer focused instead on trying to have edwards, Obama and Senator Clinton get into a three-way fist fight. Yucca mountain was barely mentioned and there are tremedous differences between the folks who live in north and south Nevada. I wonder if these good folks minded.
I think they did and at some point the nominee, Senator Clinton, will address their concerns. And similiar issues also affect the people in Utah and Colorado.
I know this debate settled none of those questions. I think the only thing this debate proved is that Senator Clinton got her game back and Senators Obama and Edwards were put on notice. Especially Edwards when he was booed.
Good for the audience. Somebody needs to shut him up and send him packing.
Posted by Judith at November 15, 2007 09:49 PMJudith, The crowd was 50% Clinton fans, what do you expect?
Sorry to say Clinton is a just what Edwards said, "A Corporate Democrat in Washington".
Her supporters obviously can't stand the truth.
She will be crushed when the RAM (Republi-con Attack Machine) comes out like rabid wolves if she is the nominee. Gender will matter, (along with race).
They will not vote GOP because of the candidate, they will vote to defeat Hillary.
Edwards is the only electable Democratic candidate. He beats all the GOP nominees in heads up polls.
Posted by Seven of Six at November 15, 2007 10:06 PM"How about that opening, when they came out one at a time, like a basketball team? I was waiting for someone to jump up and chest bump each other." ...(Jeff)
...Now that would have given Hillary a chance to show she was just one of the boys!
I thought she won the day easily, but would have liked her to point out that women still only make 75 cents on the dollar compared to men on the same job, and that there is no excuse for it.
Posted by TIKI AL at November 15, 2007 11:09 PMI've wondered how many times Edwards could use the word 'lying' or 'lie' about HRC. So she called it mud and it stopped.
And could Edwards not have said "no" when asked if HRC used the gender card (or yes if he thought so?) Instead he 'doubletalked'. "We should all be held to the same standards".
Turns out that he later said no, she didn't but yes, her campaign did.
Hillary did very well - I wish Edwards had done better.
Posted by logic101 at November 15, 2007 11:36 PMNote: 'Judith' is not the 'old Judith.' Someone else is using the same name.
Posted by Judith at November 16, 2007 04:17 AMas i recall the old judith is not a hillary fan..or has that changed
Posted by dennis at November 16, 2007 04:54 AMYa think that pearls or diamonds stupid question was troublemaker wolfboy's handywork, or just a smart ass doing a rip-off of the old boxers or briefs Bill Clinton question?
Posted by TIKI AL at November 16, 2007 05:09 AMSorry (real) Judith... I was wondering? It didn't sound like you.
I thought she won the day easily...
She rebounded nicely from the previous debate and was funny. I still say when you have the crowd behind you and the media treating you with with kid gloves, it would take an idiot to mess up. It seemed 'wolf' set the first 12 minutes up pretty good for Hillary and precisely to make Obama and Edwards to look bad.
No doubt Obama wavered and Edwards did take the necessary jabs.
I was really surprised at Kucinich going after Edwards voting record.
Posted by Seven of Six at November 16, 2007 05:15 AMThe new Judith is sweet and intelligent.
Posted by New Age at November 16, 2007 05:20 AMi thought the same of the old judith
Posted by dennis at November 16, 2007 05:36 AMI was wondering when "Judith" started talking up Hillary... New Judith needs to distinguish herself so we can tell them apart. New Age, our regular Judith is sweet and intelligent, too, just with different opinions!
Posted by iamcoyote at November 16, 2007 05:38 AMSoS, that was suprising. He challenged Edwards on voting for unlimited trading with China, and said he was suprised, since Edwards was a trial lawyer. Edwards smiled and said he didn't know what that had to do with anything and Kucinich talked right over him saying "product liability" and had a disgusted look on his face. DK does not like Edwards, obviously.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at November 16, 2007 05:39 AMThanks Dennis and Iamcoyote. Good to know someone thinks I'm sweet and intelligent (well sometimes).
Dennis, good memory. Not big Hillary fan.
SOS, not only didn't sound like me, not near as colorful. (smiles)
Heh, colorful is right, Judith! I guess New Age wasn't at the last TLC convention...what happens in Cabo, stays in Cabo...
I noticed last night when the Iran question was asked, no one talked about the IAEA's report, or the news that Iran was telling the truth about past programs. Bummer that their knowledge of the situation wasn't up to date.
Posted by iamcoyote at November 16, 2007 06:03 AMI noticed last night when the Iran question was asked, no one talked about the IAEA's report, or the news that Iran was telling the truth about past programs. Bummer that their knowledge of the situation wasn't up to date.
You're right coyote, it seems that their campaign teams have to look at the blogs first then frame a response.
Was the IAEA's report discussed in MSM?
Posted by Seven of Six at November 16, 2007 06:12 AMI am sure the candidates knew about the latest IAEA report, they just haven't figured out how to use it to their own political advantage without having to praise Iran.
BTW, I dont care for the old Judith, not only do I disagree with her on issues, her reasoning could use some upgrade.
Posted by at November 16, 2007 06:21 AMI guess you're in the minority anon.
Posted by Seven of Six at November 16, 2007 06:27 AMWhen the GOPers "debate" its about 9/11 and Clinton. The Dems at least discuss actual policy and governing issues. I basically don't watch these phony debates, but one change that might make me watch is if the "moderator" of each "debate" was a candidate from the other party, drawn at random. For instance, Kucinich is picked to moderate a GOPer debate....or Ron Paul is chosen to moderate the Dems? get the idea? How about Hillary as GOPer debate interrogator? or McOld struggling to stay awake moderating the Dems? That sounds like much more fun than Russert's Gotcha crap.
Posted by T2 at November 16, 2007 06:34 AMPersonally I was most impressed with Biden tonight. He has a certain "genuine" manner about him - and he can answer questions directly! Can someone tell me why he is not doing better in the polls?
And did anyone else pick up on the rapport that he and Hilary seem to have? He went out of his way to say he wasn't attacking her at one point, and she seemed to laugh the hardest at some of his jokes. Is there a Clinton/Biden ticket in the future?
Hilary was impressive and showed some teeth tonight, rather than just stand aside from the fray like in previous debates. What I would have liked myself is the challenge by Edwards regarding accepting lobbyist contributions be answered (how can this not be considered important Wolf?) and I also would have liked to see her challenged on how her government spending will be any less when she mentioned how much Bush's has been. All of her various costly programs have me concerned, but if the issue was clarified I may be assuaged. Particularly if it is a Clinton/Biden ticket.
Posted by J.J. at November 16, 2007 07:02 AMIt is very easy to attack someone who does not fight back as was the case during the MSNBC debate. I also like good fight as long as it is on issue and base on facts.
However, I was surprised how fast Edwards and Obama tuck in their proverbial tales and folded like wimps once they got punched in the nose. I don’t think either Obama or Edwards can handle Republican onslaught.
Posted by New Age at November 16, 2007 07:25 AMNew Age, Maybe people keep missing the details because they seem to enamored with Hillary. I thought Edwards said it well last night:
“There is a fundamental choice that everyone in this room and Democratic voters have to make, and that is, who do you believe will take on this system?” Mr. Edwards said. “When is our party going to show a little backbone and strength and courage and speak up for those people who have been left behind?”Posted by Seven of Six at November 16, 2007 08:04 AM
I thought Biden was great, as well, he made no attempt to hide his contempt for the silly questions Volfie was asking, especially the yes/no crap. He was really funny. Dodd was great in that respect, too.
Posted by iamcoyote at November 16, 2007 08:12 AMI thought Kucinich was great.
Posted by JohnT at November 16, 2007 08:38 AMjj, I think Biden is a Sec of St. And you know, I'd feel comfortable with him as prez. I've been a fan of his for a long time. Remember how great he was during the Clarence Thomas hearings?
JohnT, Dennis in '08!!
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at November 16, 2007 09:57 AMUmm, Jeff, as I recall, because of Joe Biden, Clarence Thomas IS a Supreme Court Justice.
That and his support for the Bankruptcy bill, understandable given his home state, is why he isn't doing better in the campaign.
And the reason he and Dodd and everyone else is up on the stage is because they want to talk about their ideas on how to make this nation great again.
Which assholes like Blitzer and Malveaux and Roberts and Brown desperately seek to prevent at all costs, because it doesn't help the bottom line.
And wouldn't it be nice if someone were to talk about the priorities that rewards Alex Rodriguez for lying about leaving the Yankees so he could negotiate a reported $275,000,000.00 contract with the Yankees? With incentives tied to his home run record chase of the tainted and indicted Barry Bonds?
I only hope he doesn't come close to breaking Bond's record.
Well it looks like the Dems now have the strategy to cut off funds. They send the bill to the Senate with strings and the Senate votes against it. The lack of votes is no longer an excuse which was bs all along. They will have to look for another excuse when they cave.
Posted by JohnT at November 16, 2007 10:32 AMDuck, you're right about Biden and Thomas. I still thought he was tough and ran the hearings well, but bottom line, he let the unthinkable happen, appointing that guy. My bad.
And A-Rod is as much of a pig as Bonds is. But Bonds may be going to prison. This whole decade of baseball should have an * next to it.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at November 16, 2007 11:05 AMTrue enough about the hearings, it was quite the media circus. Effing media, oh for the days of Clark Kent and Edward R Murrow.
Posted by Duckman GR at November 16, 2007 12:15 PMi am no fan of barry bonds...but the real culprit in the whole scandal is baseball itself..they let it happen..they knew and turned a blind eye..because it sold tickets..it's much bigger and deeper then bonds lying..he was always an asshole...
Posted by dennis at November 16, 2007 02:18 PM"BTW, I dont care for the old Judith, not only do I disagree with her on issues, her reasoning could use some upgrade."
Why Anon, you show such tolerance of those who don't agree with you on issues. I suspect you must be a Republican. Speaking of reasoning.....
Posted by Judith at November 16, 2007 06:49 PM"Judith! I guess New Age wasn't at the last TLC convention...what happens in Cabo, stays in Cabo...
Cabo, well what can I say (actually I can't say too much). I will say that Anon was there, and the glue didn't arrive in time for the ceremony.
Posted by Judith at November 16, 2007 07:38 PMI don't get it. Why in the world would anyone want HRC as the Dem nominee? She's just another corporate-owned politician. It's the 90's all over again. It will have been Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton and we're not dynastic. She is simply NOT the change we or America needs. I'm so tired of politics as usual, and unfortunately -- while I'm a woman and long to see a female president -- HRC is just more of the same. She's so intent on appearing strong like a man that she's lost the strength of being herself. She's over-scripted and robotic, and I personally find her a bit creepy. I'm tired of Bill constantly interjecting himself into the race. Been there, done that. MOVE FORWARD AMERICA. We have no more time to lose, taking back our government and rescuing the planet. Just another ambitious politican is not going to cut it in 2008.
Posted by Kris at November 17, 2007 01:12 PM