Don't count Edwards out. He has no intention of tucking his tail between his legs and going away, as much as Hillary and Obama would like for that to happen (and the media). I have to hand it to John, he is a fighter.
Posted by Judith at January 22, 2008 07:18 AMI thought they all did well and it was the first time I liked Edwards. Still, I'd rather see him in some kind of position like "poverty czar" than president. I also think he should talk more about exactly what he's done to end poverty, rather than just talking about how it's his life's mission.
Obama had the funniest line of the night when asked about Bill Clinton being the first black president. I think he was eloquent in praising Bill's work and then added that he'd have to check some other things more closely, like his dancing skills before judging if Bill was truly a brother.
I fundamentally disagree with Obama's assertion that everyone will be willing to buy health insurance if it's affordable. There are lots of young people who think they're invincible and will pay $100/month for cable or satellite TV but won't pay that much or less for health care. With Obama's plan, children are covered (not sure how), and if children are covered, some parents will be less likely to get coverage themselves, whereas if they have to get coverage themselves in order to insure their children, as is typically the case now, they're more likely to get coverage themselves. I just think he's totally wrong in understanding how people prioritize their spending.
I think Hillary did well, though some of her longer answers that started to get stump-speechy were tiring. All in all though, she stuck to the issues, had good answers and was solid as always.
Posted by CG at January 22, 2008 07:19 AMI agree. Complaining about Bill is just bizarre. It makes him look as though he expects to be the nominee without having to fight for it.
I am irritated with the attitude that there is something wrong with a debate being contentious, that expressing anger and passion is somehow crazy or out-of-control. When did even appropriate anger become taboo?
Posted by chrisc at January 22, 2008 07:19 AMActually, complaining about Bill is totally logically, and required. When you have the ex-President distorting and lying about the facts someone needs to call him out. Rom Emmanuel and Ted Kennedy even called him to ask him to calm down and stop lying about what Obama has said.
Posted by Wildcats at January 22, 2008 07:25 AMYes, the general election will be 100 times worse.
Bill's attacks are helping Obama to prepare for the carnage ahead should he win the nomination.
Compare anything Bill has said to these 2 potential swift boat talking points that WILL be coming.
1. "Do you really want a person in control of the nuclear football whose mind has been befuddled by rampant cocaine use?"
2. "Do you think this country can afford billions of dollars in slave reparations?"
Quit whining about Bill. There are REAL ass holes on the horizon.
Posted by TIKI AL at January 22, 2008 08:05 AMNicely written post, eriposte! You make a very strong case against Obama's leadership claims as well as his claims to commitment to certain ideals as his own voting record shows a distinct pattern of non-commitment or inability/ unwillingness to make tough choices.
As far as having the ex-President going to bat for Hillary....what do you expect? We all knew the minute Hillary announced her candidacy that this was the way it would be. Obama knew it too -- or should have known it. If he didn't, then this too is a reason to take a hard look at his assumptions of how the world works.
This contest is only starting to shape up....
Posted by jcricket at January 22, 2008 08:12 AMNice post, and thanks for linking to Steve Clemons - he's been a daily stop for me for a long time.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 22, 2008 08:23 AMWow...I want to say something about your savaging of the "present" votes (which has been talked about many, many times by other liberal bloggers who seem to understand the situation and approve of it) but I'll just be accused of being a moronic Obama partisan, so I'll just hold my comments.
I get that folks here don't like Obama. Anyone who hs taken a peek at this site in the last month would have gotten that point of view. I think in praising Clinton and Edwards you're not being fair to Obama, but whatever goes to make your candidate look the best, right?
With the venom hurled at Obama here, I find it really hard to believe that the posters here would vote for him. But, since it looks like Hillary's going to win now, I guess we won't have to worry about that too much. Just be a little better in victory than you have been during this phase of the campaign.
Posted by Mike P at January 22, 2008 08:41 AMMore schilling for Hillary.. why don't you rename the site and just call it, "Coasting for Hillary"?
The voting public cares little for this spinning on any side and vote for who they like. Hillary showed once again why she is the most disliked candidate on the scene by either party. She also showed why she is the least trusted. She succeeded last night in guaranteeing that if she gets the nomination, there will be no possibility of any alliance with Obama or his supporters. I'm on an e-list of several hundred Obama folks, and I make a guess that less than 10 per cent will go with Hillary in the general if she's nominated. I believe Obama will get the nomination in the long run, because, and there is some evidence of this, Dem voters don't want 20 years of Bush/Clinton dynasty.
You know, on this dynasty thing, I have a question. People talk about not wanting a Bush/Clinton dynasty. For some people that is the only reason they won't vote for Hillary. Does that mean that if George W hadn't been elected, all those people would be fine with Hillary? It wouldn't seem so much like a dynasty if we didn't have that second Bush in there?
As for venom toward Obama, I haven't seen any in this post--just questions. I've been leaning toward Hillary for a while, but I'm still on the fence. But to me, Hillary seems more on top of things and has a better understanding of the issues. I also don't like Obama's health care plan, as I said above. I think he's not being realistic.
Posted by CG at January 22, 2008 09:05 AMOn the issue of the economy, I think that has to lean toward Hillary, as Bill's economy was wonderful compared to republicans...He balanced the budget and was making payments back to the national debt and there was prosperity thruout the land which is terrific....I remember it well...This present economy is downright scary....
Posted by athyrio at January 22, 2008 09:12 AMObama is making a huge mistake in going after the big dog. Too many people want to marginalize what Bill Clinton means to Democrats. It's worth noting that the big dog had a 58% approval rating the day he left office, which means, among other things that lots of people other than Democrats thought he did a pretty good job. I understand why he has to go after Bill, he's proving to be very effective at pointing out inconsistencies in what Obama says, as opposed to what his actual record is, but the endgame here is that he's providing BC with a platform to be even more effective. His Reagan comments are proving very difficult to walk back from, and I believe picking a fight with Bill only highlights those comments in a way that can't help him (*though to be fair, he said some nice things about the former President last night) with rank and file Democrats.
I genuinely like Obama and would gladly vote for him if he wins the nomination, but this sense of victimization that his campaign seems to be trying to put across severely limits his ability to secure the nomination. The media is certainly doing him no favors in attempting to promote this narrative. It also doesn't help him to have Kennedy, and Emmanuel and Clyburn pushing that narrative either, It makes the guy look like he can't take care of himself. The media manufactured racial overtones of this contest are only hurting him more. He cannot win as a "Black" candidate, anymore than HRC wins as the "woman" candidate. The very thing that gave him a chance was that he had run his campaign without promoting his racial identity, now it appears as though the media, and some of his surrogates are attempting to label him that way. It's a great disservice to him, and the Democratic party.
Posted by Buck at January 22, 2008 09:17 AMCG,
I'd argue Obama's plan is more realistic because he doesn't think the mandate for adults is totally enforceable. I think that's a point on which reasonable people can disagree, though.
As to this post, the whole thing about whining that Bill is attacking Obama...lots of other progressives are talking about this as well (and Wolfson's comment that challenging false statements from Bill is a "right wing talking point"). There's a difference between being an advocate and an attack dog and Bill is definitely the later at this point. It's good cop/bad cop and the reason it sucks is that a lot of people, myself included, want to continue to think of Bill Clinton as a great Democrat, but like Obama or no, he is a promising Dem. politician and it sucks to see a eminence like Clinton tearing down someone who could be a good future leader in the party.
Posted by Mike P at January 22, 2008 09:17 AMI do not think you guys get it. The snipping between Hillary and Obama, regardless who started it first, turned lot of voters off. It is developing a divide in the Democratic party. Therefore I think the supporters of one who does not get nomination, will sit out this election. This will help Republicans who have started uniting behind McCain. I can clearly see the handwriting on the wall. McCain defeats Hillary.
So guys prepare to have more of the same for at least 4 more years. This is the elction for Democrats to lose and they are doing a fine job at it. Where is the democratic leadership such as Dean and Emanuel and why are they not putting stop to this bickering?
If this blog really cares to win this election for Democrats, stop this Hillary praising and Obama bashing and try to bring some sense to both the campaigns.
Posted by suresh at January 22, 2008 09:23 AMI posted my comments in your debate thread but it seems that the conversation has moved here so I'll repost it them here:
The two most significant things that I saw in last night's debate were:
1) JE went for and probably won the ABH Whiteguy vote in SC. Unfortunately for him, their wives are probably gonna vote for Hillary.
2) HRC told the Congressional Black Caucus that she will not be selecting BHO as her running mate so they'd better make plans accordingly. (This may or may not have an impact on SC votes, I think likely it will because AA leaders seriously do not want to diminish their place at the table).
Interestly, because she did it as a hit-back for BHO's Walmart comment, she can't really faulted for it because he brought it on himself. IMO, there is no way that the Clintons will allow themselves to be forced to put Rezko on the ticket. In this case, the Republican Whitewater fiasco, will help them to defend their position.
Posted by MaxUS at January 22, 2008 09:27 AMjosh marshall is not exactly a hillary supporter, but he made a similar point about obama
One observation stands out to me from this debate. Hillary can be relentless and like a sledgehammer delivering tendentious but probably effective attacks. But whatever you think of those attacks, Obama isn't very good at defending himself. And that's hard for me to ignore when thinking of him as a general election candidate.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/064349.php
in a comment at daily kos, to an obama supporter who was complaining about hillary's tough tactics, i pointed out that obama also plays tough, it's just that she's better at it. people need to give up the delusion that one or another of the candidates is somehow pure.
and for those who continue to whine that this is a pro-hillary site, i still intend to vote for edwards.
Posted by Turkana at January 22, 2008 09:44 AMsuresh,
i have yet to see a single hillary supporter say they won't vote for obama, should he be nominated. i've seen plenty of obama supporters say they won't vote for hillary. that makes me think they're not dedicated democrats, anyway.
Posted by Turkana at January 22, 2008 09:51 AMI think Hillary's stock is rising because of performances like that.
It is one thing to say "I'm ready on day one" and that "I have experience." It is another to speak with knowledge and authority that demonstrates those traits, and that is just what she did.
I used to be afraid of the pending attacks against her in the general election, but I am really getting excited now!
Posted by midwestdem at January 22, 2008 09:53 AMTurkana,
That is sort of the point of Obama's campaign, that he can bring more than just loyal Democrats to the table.
Posted by midwestdem at January 22, 2008 09:56 AMTurkana, it seems whining is a distinguishing feature of the Obama crowd. This morning, two different Obama supporters whined to Stephanie Miller on Air America that if Clinton wins the nom, they'll vote for McCain. All the Clinton supporters said they'd vote for Obama if he wins.
If this blog really cares to win this election for Democrats, stop this Hillary praising and Obama bashing and try to bring some sense to both the campaigns.
So, suresh, our hosts need to stop talking about their preferences or the Dems will lose, is that it? For the good of the party, Clinton supporters should just STFU, eh? Ah, democracy! Free speech for Obamabots - the rest of you just shut up! You're hurting Obama's feelings and losing the election!
Posted by iamcoyote at January 22, 2008 10:04 AMmidwestdem,
we don't need more than dems. the republican brand is in the toilet, and all we need do is flush.
Posted by Turkana at January 22, 2008 10:09 AMAt this point I am sure that Clinton is going to win the democratic nomination.
CG,
I give significant credence to your Dynasty point. Many people, like me, don’t like Hillary primarily because of that reason. And many of us don’t want Bubba cavorting in the Whitehouse. The rest of the world must think that we are a bunch of inbreed morons because we keep sending the same people back to Washington and expecting something different. If Hillary makes it back to the Whitehouse, the country will be torn apart exactly like Bush. Nothing will get done and 4 years hence, we will not have gained on the issues that most concern Americans. We will spend our time quibbling over minutia and missing the big picture.
I personally don’t want to return to the past because I am hoping that our worst days are behind us. I think we are Americans and that we should be unified in solving the hard problems that face our nation; such as the economy, energy independence, education, environmental issues, the federal deficit and that God forsaken war. It is my hope that most of us don’t want another polarizing and paralyzing individual who holds the country hostage to his or her personal desires regardless of what the majority of the country wants. ENOUGH!!!
Can we please turn the page on the Bush family and the Clintons?
i have nothing against barak obama ..should he get the nomination i will support him...having said that ..you obama fans really do whine a bit....i do not think he is electable...he should have waited ..thus i question his judgement...he does not have the experience..and it's starting to show...having black support is great but it's not going to get him elected...the repug attack mechanisn will chew him up and spit him out...
Posted by dennis at January 22, 2008 10:24 AMTurkana:
You just made my point by saying that Obama supporters will not vote for Hillary. What is the overall outcome of this? Hillary loses to McCain and we got another Bush Republican in the Whitehouse. Is that what this blog wants? If not, why not tone down your bashing of a fellow democrat and just discuss issues?
I thought in spite of the strong words used by Bill Clinton against Obama, he was praising Bill when question was asked "If Bill Clinton was the first black presdent" That showed Obama can go beyound just the bikering and give credit where it belongs. On the other hand, Clintons are taking this very personally.
Posted by suresh at January 22, 2008 10:33 AMI think Rezko is a big problem, and I don't understand why it's being ignored.
Obama bought his house and property with this man's help, securing more than $700,000 discount in the process. That just stinks. I notice that whenever I bring up the subject, Obama supporters tell fibs about the deal---saying "He just bought a strip of land" or some other such nonsense.
Obama secured a huge discount in buying his own fucking home with a man who is at the center of a corruption trial in Chicago now. How is this not highly damaging?
a battle that is going be one-hundredth less difficult
This reminds me of that moment in Star Trek when Kirk says his microphone will amplify sound by one to the fourth power - which, of course, means not at all.
I'm sure you want to re-write that bit.
I dislike the idea of Hillary being the nominee (the dynasty thing is only one of several reasons), but I think Josh Marshall must have been remembering things backwards when he wrote about this - Obama attacked her, and she responded in kind. I'm glad to see she's capable of quick retorts like that - our nominee is definitely going to need that talent.
I think it would be disaster to have both Hillary and Obama on the same ticket, btw. It's a nice fantasy to think such a thing wouldn't matter, but it will. Frankly, I'd be delighted to see either one of them in the VP spot, but I still think they have serious problems in the top spot, especially if Obama doesn't lose his creepy habit of alienating core Democratic voters.
Be that as it may, I'll vote for either one if they win the nomination; I know that the real enemy is the Republicans. Let's just make sure that next time we have a Democratic triangulator in the White House, they can actually feel some real pressure from us instead of just trying to skate between The Washington Post and the RNC.
Posted by Avedon at January 22, 2008 10:54 AMI don't think the Rezko thing is a big deal in actuality, but it is something republicans could exploit in a general election, so it does present a problem. From what I've read though, I don't really see that Obama did anything wrong.
Posted by CG at January 22, 2008 11:16 AMBringing up walmart or Rezko, it does not look like HRC or Obama will consider other for VP spot if they win the nomination. I certainly think it is necessary for everyone to look into his Rezko relationship. He said, he only represented a church but he called him as his political godfather before.
There goes Politics of hope/change.
BKK;
I still believe in the politics of hope over the politics of devide and destroy. Will every figure in a new Clinton administration be indicted and investigated while the country goes to hell in a hand basket?
For those who think the attacks will net another republican and love the party more than getting THEIR own candidate elected:
1.Tell Hillary to join Fred.
2.Tell Obama to join Fred and Hillary.
3.Everyone put all their support behind Edwards.
The southern white boy will kick the living crap out of the last GOP sleeze still standing with one hand tied behind his $400 haircut.
Posted by TIKI AL at January 22, 2008 12:22 PMangryman asks:
"Will every figure in a new Clinton administration be indicted and investigated while the country goes to hell in a hand basket?"
Probably, but the alternative would be to elect a Republican.
Republican Congresspeople have shown a remarkable talent to get Dems to eat their own regardless of who's in the majority. Democrats can't even manage to impeach Bush let alone remove him from office.
While your question centered correctly on the forthcoming Clinton administration, it would apply to any Democrat that managed to win back the White House. Luckily for us, the Clintons are better equipped to handle the VRWC this time around. Witness their facility with Big Media this campaign, no matter how much they try BM just can't seem to resist covering Bill and in doing so get Hillary's talking points on the 24/7 news channels.
Posted by MaxUS at January 22, 2008 12:27 PMMaxUS;
Agree wholeheartedly; Run John Run! The dynamics have to change from the same ole people. I think John is a fighter.
Posted by angryman at January 22, 2008 12:45 PMTurkana, I am convinced that we cannot win the WH without Edwards being the nominee, because poll after poll shows it is John who can beat any of the Republican candidates in the general election against McOld.
Posted by Judith at January 22, 2008 12:57 PMlast line should read: John can beat any of the Republicans in the general election, including McOld.
Posted by Judith at January 22, 2008 01:01 PMLOL Judith!
No, really, ROTFLMAO. Unfortunately for John, poll after poll shows that he can't even beat Hillary and Barack.
Posted by MaxUS at January 22, 2008 01:33 PMNice to visit a site that will look at all angles of the Democratic candidates. But in the comments, it is the same pettiness as I see as I visit other democratic websites. It appears if you don't support Obama, you are biased and slanted. You are classed as Hillary lovers and then the bile starts about her and the how dare you attitude of not suporting a vision. I find it amusing that those supporting Obama never want his platform discussed or his record challenged but harp back to Hillary, though they much more complain about what Bill did, and that is supposed to be fair game. I also laugh at the petulance of - if Hillary is the nominee I will never vote for her, or I used to like her but I don't now so I will stay home. If these are Obama supporters what does that say about the kind of supporter he draws or the fact that they are willing to sit back and let another republican win without a fight? It is about time that we visitors are allowed to read a balanced presentation of facts and platform and this article helped fill a small part of that void.
Posted by foreigner at January 22, 2008 04:26 PMAnd Angryman do you really thing that because Obama gets the nomination or the election that all the Republican hate and lies will disappear? Do you really believe that an Obama or Edwards presidency will calm the forces of hate that spew out from the right wing machine of Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, NewsMax and Drudge.
How do you think these "news" outlets make their living? They make their living by bashing Democrats. They got their start in the Clinton years and they have been propelled and fueled by Democrats ever since. They have lied and distorted every Democrat that they can.
Do you think that the Clinton bashing, the Gore bashing, the Kerry bashing (and let's not forget Jimmy Carter and Michael Dukakis and Walter Mondale and Ed Muskie)is an anomoly that an Obama can stop?
Republicans are not interested in smoking the peace pipe. That went out of style after the 1960 election (as far as I can tell) and reared its ugly head with the dawning of Richard "Tricky Dick" Nixon. Watergate was not a Democratic dirty trick, Willie Horton became a household name because of Lee Atwater, Whitewater was the produce of Karl Rove as was Gore's internet connection and Love Boat ride and Kerry's swiftboating.
But I'm sure Obama can make then stop all their nastiness because...well because...
Posted by Grandmother at January 22, 2008 06:15 PMeriposte says that Hillary shined while defending Universal Health Care. yeah.
too bad her proposal is not universal!
CG says:
"I thought they all did well and it was the first time I liked Edwards. Still, I'd rather see him in some kind of position like "poverty czar" than president."
spoken like a typical (non-progressive) liberal !
we need something other than Tag Team Clinton's Republican Lite. nevertheless, because i dont want the supreme court to move any farther to the right, i will vote for the democratic candidate, no matter who it is.
that being said it occurs to me if Tag Team Clinton gets back in the WH, who will make the decisions?
it also occurs to me that Tag Team Clinton's Rovian tactics may tear a hole in the Democratic Party. just as Bush is destroying this country to make his friends and family richer, might Bill be destroying the party to make sure his wife is the nominee.