Matthew Yglesias (January 21, 2008) - Debate Behindblogging (Politics)

As soon as they sat down, they stopped fighting.

Boooooring.

Although, Obama just really gave a good pitch for the 50 state strategy. Well put. Followed by Edwards dismissal of Mittmentum.

Posted by br | January 21, 2008 9:47 PM

It sure seems like Edwards is sucking up to Obama for the VP slot.

Posted by Christopher M | January 21, 2008 9:50 PM

The Update had me cracking up. Let's all take a stand for Mittmentum!!

Posted by Derrick | January 21, 2008 9:51 PM

read my recap if you like.

new barack obama tonight.

Posted by Brian | January 21, 2008 9:54 PM

Pretty suave way for Obama to emphasize that he's a CHRISTIAN and believes in JESUS CHRIST (not Muhammed.)

Posted by Christopher M | January 21, 2008 9:55 PM

And Obama had a great answer to that stupid Dr. King question: He wouldn't endorse any of us.

Posted by br | January 21, 2008 10:04 PM

It's really strange... each time Hillary really goes for the jugular (fairly or unfairly), I am repulsed. And then 30 seconds later, I realize that that's the whole rationale for her candidacy! She (and Bill) will simply do whatever it takes to win. And she's really whip smart, and was quicker than Obama in this debate. I think it will come down to whoever the media spins as the "winner" of the early flare-up -- otherwise, another draw.

Posted by Ryan | January 21, 2008 10:04 PM

I think Barack Obama (the hope-monger - a term coined by the two Clintons' campaign) was the clear winner.

I am happy. Since NH, I had not had a good sleep. Tonight I will sleep peacefully, knowing that my candidate demolished a spousal-beneficiary and her spouse.

Posted by eorse | January 21, 2008 10:06 PM

I had to walk out of the room when Wolf asked that last question.

Posted by jf | January 21, 2008 10:09 PM

Anyone else notice that Hillary evades the question consistently and just starts thumping out her talking points like some sort of inane windup doll? What's next? Will a question about her name be answered by a laundry list of her alleged readiness to lead and the fact she wants to eat John McCain's genitals raw? Can Clinton actually give a straight answer? Or was that not part of the droid model currently on display?

Posted by sashaqz | January 21, 2008 10:11 PM

Yes, things started out bad for Obama with the other 2 ganging up on him and Hillary continuing to lie about his record, but he really shone in the 2nd hour. I've noticed that he does much better when sitting than standing and that was true tonight as well.

Posted by Mike | January 21, 2008 10:15 PM

I want to hear someone ask Clinton why she did not bother to read the intelligence reports before voting for the war in Iraq. What sort of competence or experience is this? Also, let's hear her answer on what her position is on torture, and will she now disavow it?

Posted by nickzi | January 21, 2008 10:25 PM

Ehh, I don't know about Obama. He was my preferred candidate, but I thought he was unsteady in thinking on his feet. He waffled vaguely, his professorial stutter is only appealing in intimate settings, and there was no substance. Oh, and TOO defensive. Add a little humor, puh-lease.

Clinton was much better, sharp as a tack. The only thing I didn't like about her was how mean-spirited she seemed at times. It was those flashes of veiled contempt that stopped me from really liking her. (Oh, and the lies.)

Posted by Nigel Aimes | January 21, 2008 10:31 PM

I was pissed when Hillary said something of the sort, "while I was fighting hard for the country, you were a lawyer representing landlords".

A year ago I wanted the Democratic party to be successful in 08 to check the power of the Republicans.

Now I don't care. The democratic party will nominate Hillary. who know what she will do. if the polls favor genuine progressive reforms, she might enact them.

But if not, she will, like Bill, stab the democratic party in the back.

Posted by thehova | January 21, 2008 10:32 PM

Big night for Obama. His best debate so far. He finally showed some backbone when defending himself. He did it perfectly, without being overly aggressive. He only missed one cue. I was waiting for him say "Hillary, there you go, again." It was that kind of night for Obama. He's going to get great press.

Posted by Just Karl | January 21, 2008 10:35 PM

One thing that came out of this debate is Hillary's obvious (series of) distortions of Obama's statements. The Reagan kerfuffle worked to Obama's advantage tonight in the sense that is was so clear that Hillary was just making shit up. The 'corporate lawyer on teh board of Walmart' was probably the best zinger. And I think Hillary's 'slumlord' comment backfired in a major way, esp. considering the audience.

Edwards did better than expected, but he was barely in the first half of the debate.

Posted by jim | January 21, 2008 10:36 PM

Whatever the merits, when Hillary asked Obama about those 'present' votes and he was responding, she turned to him and gave him the most priceless deadpan 'welcome to the big leagues' stare.

Posted by Kiril | January 21, 2008 10:36 PM

"It's really strange... each time Hillary really goes for the jugular (fairly or unfairly), I am repulsed."

If they do what it takes to win, how come they spent the 1990s losing Congress to the crazier form of republican and ended up triangulating themselves to the right like a pair of whipped puppies? Granted, they are good at winning elections. Not so good on pushing liberal ideals onto the right wing, however.

The are the poster children for the politics of personal survival.

Posted by Rid | January 21, 2008 10:37 PM

In fact, the best zinger of the debate was when Obama said, "Hillary, now you're just making shit up." Forgot about that one.

Posted by jim | January 21, 2008 10:38 PM

If you think that question was bad, Matt, you must have missed the one asking Obama if Bill Clinton was the first black President ...

Posted by Nav | January 21, 2008 10:39 PM

Yes, I believe this was the point I struggled to make in my comment above about the Clintons:

"Granted, they are good at winning elections. Not so good on pushing liberal ideals onto the right wing, however."

Posted by thehova | January 21, 2008 10:40 PM

I thought Obama's best line was, re: Clintons "I don't know who I'm running against."

Posted by Just Karl | January 21, 2008 10:41 PM

I just got back from watching the debate--sound off, captioned-- at the corner bar. (Did bars nationwide tune their TVs to the debates rather than ESPN, or is it just that I live in Park Slope?)

Anyway. put me in the "Obama won" group, especially for his well-played solos in the "acoustic" second set.

Posted by James Gary | January 21, 2008 10:42 PM

Shorter Nigel:

Clinton was mean-spritied and lied. But Obama stuttered and wasn't funny. Therefore Clinton won, hands down.

Posted by Tractarian | January 21, 2008 10:46 PM

Best exchange of the night (having tuned in for less than I should have):

Hillary Clinton told Obama, "You talked about Ronald Reagan being a transformative political leader. I did not mention his name." Obama responded, "Your husband did." She shot back, "Well, I'm here. He's not. And..." But Obama interrupted, "Well, I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes."

And when you talk about the Clintons' electoral success, remember that they never won a majority, let alone a working majority. The won a PLURALITY.

Posted by ben | January 21, 2008 10:50 PM

Who is the best (or for that matter, good) debate moderators? The Contenders:

-- Tim Russert moderating is more or less just like a multi-person version of Meet the Press, with ridiculous "gotchya" questions and devoid of substance and meaning. Not him.

-- Brian Williams is acceptable, but repeats internet rumors in a serious debate and is always paired with Tim Russert. So not him either.

-- Wolf Blitzer asks candidates to speculate why they think MLK Jr. would endorse them, and then feels the need to clarify that MLK is, in fact, dead. Strike him

-- Charlie Gibson let the candidates engage one another (a plus), but to the point of comedy, where candidates were surprised to hear him interject. So, perhaps that's a tad too far in the anti-Russert direction.

So who's left? Anderson Cooper? Brit Hume?

Posted by Kevin | January 21, 2008 10:55 PM

Gwen Ifill

Posted by Joseph Clarke | January 21, 2008 11:02 PM

Tractarian: Don't get me wrong, I'm not voting for HRC in the primary. I'm just trying to see her from non-Obama eyes. I was skimming through FDL and Taylor Marsh and it's a right proper love-fest over there. Truth is, these are combative liberals through and through, and they want a barracuda, not Mr Nice Guy.

(Also, remember the audience was Obama-friendly; viewers in Florida might have had a very different impression.)

Now, I happen to think that Clinton will deliver a 51% mandate, and that's not what the nation needs. But it seems the liberal base wants a street fighter, and that's Clinton. If she can show she's more pugilistic than Obama or Edwards, she wins with that base.

Posted by Nigel Aimes | January 21, 2008 11:06 PM

I thought Obama and Edwards did a nice job, but who was the strange creature onstage with them? Was it Rudy Giuliani? It really did look like the result of a drag act, and sounded just like a Republican.

Posted by nedxkexne | January 21, 2008 11:07 PM

A couple of bad moments from Obama especially when he showed a defensive, weak demeanor trying to explain his present votes to Edwards, something that perhaps eventually got through to low information voters.

Besides that a win for him.

1. He challenged Hillary and showed he's capable of street-fighting.

2. He put a spotlight on Clinton's role make it more difficult for Bill to continue the attacks, while making Hillary uncomfortable as someone who is showing too much dependence on her spouse.

3. He showed substance.

4. He oozed presidentiality in the second half of the debate.

I loved his fire, but even more I loved his sense of humor.

And even though they knives were out on the first half, I liked how they could have a civil conversation.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | January 21, 2008 11:11 PM

Nigel: point taken. The base wants red meat, and that's what they'll get with Hillary, general election prospects be damned.

Posted by Tractarian | January 21, 2008 11:16 PM

For the first time, Senator Obama showed that in fact he knows how to the fight to his opponents!

Posted by Dawn | January 21, 2008 11:19 PM

Charlie Gibson wins for predicting up to 50% chance of an American city getting nuked in next 10 years. Follow that, kids.

Posted by El Cid | January 21, 2008 11:19 PM

UPDATE III: I think Wolf Blitzer's question about who Martin Luther King would endorse if he were alive today is possibly a new low for inane debate questions. It almost makes me feel bad I ever spoke ill of Tim Russert.

It was more obnoxious than that. Blitzer actually asked, Why would King endorse you if he were alive today?

Posted by southpaw | January 21, 2008 11:21 PM

I'll see your nuked city and raise you two college professors earning $200K a year.

Posted by Just Karl | January 21, 2008 11:22 PM

Clearly, Sen. Edwards won the debate tonight for being the most charming and easiest to listen to (and I'm a Hillary supporter). However, my husband was taken aback by Barack Obama's comment that Barack would have to watch Bill Clinton dance to determine if Bill was really the "first Black President." My husband, half listening in the background, said, "Whoah . . . why isn't that a racist comment? A white person couldn't say something like that." I didn't realize Barack's comment came across like that, because I actually thought it was funny (and probably true!). Hillary also had a funny response when she told Barack, "That can be arranged."

Posted by Lisa | January 21, 2008 11:22 PM

El Cid, I see your 50% chance, raise you 5% and did you know that I will be ready to lead on day one, as I have been for 35 years of buttock-clenching self-denial in my quest to save Walmart and bring higher cost health insurance to every poor American household? See, easy!

Posted by sashaqz | January 21, 2008 11:22 PM

Nick Kaufman,

I'm an Obama fanatic, but completely agree with your analysis, including his weak moments. At the risk of being attacked for praising Reagan, I think it would be fair to say that he had a Reaganesque moment tonight of being able to attack but still come across as lovable. As much as I disdained Reagan's policies, there is NO denying he had a talent for that.

Posted by Dawn | January 21, 2008 11:22 PM

How about Jim Lehrer or his compatriot Ray Suarez?

Posted by N M | January 21, 2008 11:23 PM

What really galls me about Hillary's criticisms of Obama is that she doesn't live up to her criticisms. She hammers him for changing his position from opposing the war to supporting the war to voting to for funding for the war. Um, Hillary, you supported the war and voted to fund the war!

She hammers him for saying he wants single payer, universal health care, then backing off from that. Um, Hillary, you backed off single payer, universal health care too!

So her strategy seems to be "hey, golden boy here is just as bad as me. So vote for me!" Great strategy for the party.

By the way, where is Howard Dean in all this? Should he be bringing the candidates into the principal's office and telling them to cool it like Leo McGarry did in "West Wing"??

Posted by Jayhawk Max | January 21, 2008 11:31 PM

UPDATE II: Glad to see Barack Obama taking HRC on on her claim that her record of backing catastrophic invasions of Iraq makes her uniquely qualified to battle Republicans on national security issues.

That was very heartening for me, as was the whole debate. I've been so frustrated that Obama has been letting the national security issues slide, and letting the Clintons get away with defining him. He finally got back to reminding people that Clinton has been Bush lite for six years, and has a retrograde Iran policy - and she had no effective response. But sure, if you want someone in the White House who will go to work on "day one" perpetuating the Bush agenda for the Middle East, Clinton's your candidate.

It was vital for Obama to show tonight that even though he is trying to run a national unity campaign, that doesn't mean he is going to stand by and play the patsy as the Clintons distort his record. And he had to show he wasn't afraid of taking on Slick Willy personally. He called bullshit on the Clintons tonight in a strong and dignified performance, and it warmed my heart. And once they sat down he absolutely owned the conversation. I can't wait to see Obama take on McCain.

Obama finally got a chance to make strong clear answers on the "present" nonsense, his health care approach, his Iraq record, the Regan comment and most of the other Clinton yarns. And he did it with Clinton and Edwards both teaming up to try to score points. Super job. He has to continue to win back wavering progressives by undermining the phony leftward con job Clinton has been getting away with now for several weeks.

Clinton looked small, ill-tempered and non-presidential tonight. That was the mean old lying, angry Hillary we've all come to know, not the made over Queen of Tears of the past couple of weeks. I guess she "lost her voice" again.

As eorse noted, some of us will sleep well tonight for the first time since New Hampshire. The Obama campaign is back on track.

Posted by Dan Kervick | January 21, 2008 11:32 PM

Lisa, do you really think Obama's "dancing" comment was *racist* ?

It's true that Clinton or Edwards probably could not have gotten away with the "dancing" comment, just as Obama couldn't have gotten away with saying "I'm very comfortable in the kitchen" as Clinton has. But both of these statements are OK because they don't use identity to divide people.

What's historic about Obama's candidacy is that to the extent that Obama's race has been part of his identity as a politician, it's been a catalyst for unity rather than division.

Posted by Joseph Clarke | January 21, 2008 11:35 PM

Hey, count this one for Edwards. One, whenever two candidates get really combative and negative, the third candidate gets the benefit. Edwards played the "above the fray" role perfectly, and consistently reminded viewers what the real stakes were.
I wouldn't be surprised if Edwards comes up in the polls, as a result of this debate.
And really, if the two top candidates for the nomination can't put their differences in the context of the real debates with the Republicans, do they deserve our support?

Posted by Tom in ma | January 21, 2008 11:39 PM

So her strategy seems to be "hey, golden boy here is just as bad as me. So vote for me!" Great strategy for the party.

You hit the nail on the head. This is something I've been baffled by from day one. Hillary's entire campaign seems to be predicated on this notion. That is what the "fairy tale" comment was about: "Obama is just as awful as I am." An odd argument to make, to say the least.

Posted by jim | January 21, 2008 11:41 PM

Joseph -- I didn't say Obama's "dancing" comment was racist. I said that my husband, half listening to the debate from another room, was taken aback by the comment, and thought it was racist, in the sense that a white person probably could not have made such a comment. I thought Obama's comment was funny. (Hope my husband isn't reading this blog . . .)

Posted by Lisa | January 21, 2008 11:46 PM

Clinton looked small, ill-tempered and non-presidential tonight.

Yes, I thought Hillary was back on her heels all night, even when she was attacking. It smelled of weakness. Some of this of was obviously the result of debating in front of a largely black audience on MLK day. I think it unnerved her a bit. She was crude in countering the issue of race in America by injecting the issue of gender. I don't know, it felt very forced and classless. "Don't forget that I'm a victim, too!" It made her look very small and overly combative.

Posted by Just Karl | January 21, 2008 11:47 PM

Lisa - I think the dancing joke played to the youth vote, like it was something that could fit into a "Friends" episode (that is, if there were any black dudes on the cast). In fact, Obama's deadpan humor is purpose-built for that demo. His staffers need to get him back on The Daily Show.

Posted by Nigel Aimes | January 21, 2008 11:57 PM

Glad to see Barack Obama taking HRC on on her claim that her record of backing catastrophic invasions of Iraq makes her uniquely qualified to battle Republicans on national security issues.
This is exactly why I think Clinton can't win in November. Remember 2004? A decorated Vietnam war veteran took on someone who walked away from the National Guard AND LOST.
If John Kerry can't beat George Bush when National Security is the issue, how is Hillary Clinton going to succeed against John McCain?
The solution isn't to pretend you're tougher on national defense than a Republican. Even if you are, most people won't believe it. Democrats will lose that fight every time if they fight it on Republican-defined terms.
They need to refuse to accept that the Republicans get to pick the playing field. Obama understands that, as his response to Clinton showed.

Posted by sc | January 21, 2008 11:59 PM

Lisa -- ok, I see what you mean.

I do think that Clinton has found clever rhetorical ways in the campaign to appeal to voters based on her gender without appearing to be "playing the gender card." Perhaps a comment like this is an analogous strategy from Obama.

Posted by Joseph Clarke | January 22, 2008 12:04 AM

Matt - Russert/Williams amnesia must already be setting in. Yes that last question was asinine but pull up the transcript for the first third of the NBC debate again - they make CNN look like learned, wise debate moderators, and by contrast Williams and Russert look like 12-year-old boys.

NBC presented one of the worst debates ever, what an embarrassment.

Posted by Steve C | January 22, 2008 12:12 AM

I got home from work at 8:45, and missed the fireworks, I guess. The second half was great! I read the accounts and it looks like Obama did what he needed to do, politically, much of which Nick Kaufman said. Obama's talking up "changing the playing field" was exactly what was needed, and generally, spelling out a bit more what he meant by unity, where politics recognizes common aspirations. All 3 of them have a lot going for them, which makes Obama all the more impressive to stand out against the other two.

But super negative bonus points to the press for only writing about fireworks. And for trying to stir up the Race issues. Can't someone other than Krugman (hereinafter "Krugs") write about mandates? Like someone who's not General Ripper going on about water floridation? Also, why on EARTH are they talking about McCain in a DEMOCRATIC debate? (Who must be the only politician on earth incapable of modulating his voice.)

Posted by David B. | January 22, 2008 12:16 AM

who know what she will do.

Ahem: George Bush with titties. Lots of red meat for the base!

But she is a Democrat, in the same sense Bush is a Republican.

max
['I love our managed democracy!!! Ok, can you stop poking me with the bayonet now?']

Posted by max | January 22, 2008 12:23 AM

I'm pretty sure Hillary's strategy is to tarnish Obama as much as possible while running on name recognition, fear of the black fella, and ability to fight dirty.

And whoever said that Edwards was "rising above the fray" missed the part where he had to remind the audience and the moderator that there were 3 people in the race/debate.

Posted by ben | January 22, 2008 12:26 AM

To clarify, if Hillary tarnishes Obama enough that they have similar +/-, then she wins on name recognition, etc.

Posted by ben | January 22, 2008 12:32 AM

I notice that Clinton now seems afraid of the term "mandates" and has opted for the euphemism "individual responsibility". This suggests to me they're feeling vulnerable on the topic. And the point about the mandates mess in Massachusetts is a further reason for them to be concerned.

Posted by Dan Kervick | January 22, 2008 12:36 AM

I think Wolf Blitzer's question about who Martin Luther King would endorse if he were alive today is possibly a new low for inane debate questions.

That none of the candidates said the obvious response to that counterfactual -- if MLK Jr. were alive today, the US would likely be a different place -- was sad, also.

To the people who watched, Edwards will come out well. To those who get to see Clinton and Obama's handbags-at-ten-paces moment over and fucking over again, who knows?

Obviously, this is good for McCain. [rolls eyes, remembers Wolf's arslikhan] After all, Jon Meacham made the most important point of the day to Jon Stewart: he has the best bus.

One thing to take from this: the GOP debate in LA is so not going to follow this format or dynamic. If it did, the candidates would be ripping each others' throats out.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 22, 2008 12:48 AM

Obama got a smackdown tonight. Hillary had an excellent command of the issues, giving detailed answers to questions about the economy and healthcare. She drew sharp contrasts between her record and Obama's, and challenged him on his healthcare program and his votes in the Senate.

Obama is in over his head, and I don't think he'll even win South Carolina. It's over. Hillary will be the nominee. Now watch the media ignore her.

Posted by Karen | January 22, 2008 12:56 AM

One upside to Hillary as the general election candidate against Romney or McCain (or whomever else may win, but it's increasingly looking like a race between those two) is that Hillary obviously has no trouble ginning up whisper campaigns to drag around her opponent's biggest weaknesses in the voters' eyes.

Against Obama it's been he's a Muslim/he sold cocaine/he's black and unable to bring the country out of our racial past.

Against Romney (Mormon/doesn't really love Ronald Reagan as much as he says) and McCain (too old/went crazy in 'Nam/too angry) she'd have plenty of material, plus whatever other revelations/old mistresses/multiple wives turn up this year.

She's in it to win it!

Posted by Ben | January 22, 2008 1:07 AM

Obama's comment about Bill Clinton was a dig.

Obama talked about "affinity" and I believe Obama choose he words carefully. Affinity isn't the same as admiration, it's just means familiarity. If you see the video of Andrew Young talking about Bill Clinton he makes comments about Bill Clinton forming a soul train line at some dinner and acting black and you hear somebody in the crowd in the background saying "That's the problem".

That whole "first black President" remark was twisted out of a Toni Morrison column about President Clinton's adultery. Toni Morrison:

African-American men seemed to understand it right away. Years ago, in the middle of the Whitewater investigation, one heard the first murmurs: white skin notwithstanding, this is our first black President. Blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children's lifetime. After all, Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas. And when virtually all the African-American Clinton appointees began, one by one, to disappear, when the President's body, his privacy, his unpoliced sexuality became the focus of the persecution, when he was metaphorically seized and bodysearched, who could gainsay these black men who knew whereof they spoke? The message was clear "No matter how smart you are, how hard you work, how much coin you earn for us, we will put you in your place or put you out of the place you have somehow, albeit with our permission, achieved. You will be fired from your job, sent away in disgrace, and--who knows?--maybe sentenced and jailed to boot. In short, unless you do as we say (i.e., assimilate at once), your expletives belong to us."

For Obama, with the same Ivy League education as Bill Clinton, the same giant intellect, the same single parent upbringing, AND NONE of Clinton's undisciplined personal failings to be called less black for being a better moral example is ironic in the extreme. A Presdient Obama would make the "blackness" of Toni Morrison's column, Bill Clinton's "blackness", a relic of the past. There's nothing in that "First black president" column about Bill Clinton's civil rights record or the effect of his policies. It's about the unacceptable nature of Bill Clinton's appetites to establishment America. Clowning and aping black mannerisms isn't the same as demonstrating true equality. Obama was mocking Bill Clinton's "blackness", mocking the entire construction of the question.

Posted by joejoejoe | January 22, 2008 1:09 AM

I think a semi-weird consensus is emerging that it was a nasty, substance-free debate. I did miss the first 10 minutes, with the walmart/slumlord bit, but I don't agree. I think it was pretty great, all 3 candidates did themselves proud, and had their moments. I think Edwards did very well, one of the best point of the night was difference in net wealth between white and black households, and how that's partly related to decades and centuries of some white families accumulating compound interest, when black families didn't have the same opportunity. Another good moment was when Obama pointed out just how huge is the total amount of money we'll be spending in Iraq, if McCain and his ilk get their way (2 trillion - enough to rebuild every road, highway, school and bridge in America)

A good crowd, and MLK's influence, probably helped. All in all, a good show.

Posted by roublen | January 22, 2008 1:14 AM

"Clinton looked small, ill-tempered and non-presidential tonight.

Yes, I thought Hillary was back on her heels all night, even when she was attacking. It smelled of weakness. Some of this of was obviously the result of debating in front of a largely black audience on MLK day. I think it unnerved her a bit. She was crude in countering the issue of race in America by injecting the issue of gender. I don't know, it felt very forced and classless. "Don't forget that I'm a victim, too!" It made her look very small and overly combative.

Posted by Just Karl | January 21, 2008 11:47 PM"

This used to be her most popular demographic. I saw one poll from 2004 that put her two points ahead of Bill among African-Americans. Gee, I wonder what happened between then and now to change that? African-Americans were the most loyal Clinton supporters among all of the key Democratic demographics. They pissed all over their base not just ideologically, but racially.

Posted by Reality Man | January 22, 2008 1:33 AM

"Against Romney (Mormon/doesn't really love Ronald Reagan as much as he says) and McCain (too old/went crazy in 'Nam/too angry) she'd have plenty of material, plus whatever other revelations/old mistresses/multiple wives turn up this year."

Oh great, winning on bigotry. I know that's why I registered as a Democrat. Nope, it wasn't my disgust at how Republicans have been using anti-black, anti-Latino, anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic, homophobic and sexist dog whistles to win elections. The Republican history of bigotry is the biggest reason I have been proud to vote against them. HRC has run against every major reason I am a Democrat.

Really, what really separates Romney (at least when he's on his good days) from HRC? What separates them on mandates, abortion, gay rights, Middle Eastern policy, etc.? What real reason would be there to vote for one against the other? HRC isn't that much more anti-torture than Romney. The affirmative action case for either one of them works. They are both equally honest and likeable. The truth is there isn't much daylight between them. It would basically be the Mormon Clinton vs. the female Romney.

Winning elections exist not just for their own sake, but to enact legislation. Clinton has focused her time in the Senate on giving Bush cover on foreign policy and complaining about Grand Theft Auto and flagburning. Do we want a repeat of Clinton's second term with the substanceless distractions like school uniforms and ickiness in movies?

Posted by Reality Man | January 22, 2008 1:43 AM

One upside to Hillary as the general election candidate against Romney or McCain (or whomever else may win, but it's increasingly looking like a race between those two) is that Hillary obviously has no trouble ginning up whisper campaigns to drag around her opponent's biggest weaknesses in the voters' eyes.

The fact that you see Hillary's patent dishonesty and lack of any compunction with "ginning up whisper campaigns" using racism and religious bigotry as a positive truly speaks volumes about a lot of Hillary supporters. They simply want their own Rove. And I'll grant you, she is that.

They seem to think she would govern differently for some reason, but who invented the permanent campaign? I thought the point of voting for a Democrat was not simply to put another Rove/Bush team in the White House under the Democratic brand name. I thought the point was that Democrats generally reject Rovian politics and would rather focus on actual policies, instead of winning for the sake of winning. Well, which of Hillary's policies do you support? Invading Iraq? Invading Iran? Her refusal to reject torture? Or maybe health care...the one thing she already massively screwed up when she had a chance the first time?

I fail to see how a willingness to say or do anything, including lying to your face, is somehow a positive, no matter which party one belongs to. I think this is really a fundamental difference between Obama and Clinton supporters in general. One side is concerned with changing the country, while the other is so concerned with "winning" that they have backed a horse that will actually change nothing. "But she'll win and that will piss off Rush Limbaugh! Hoo-rah!"

Posted by jim | January 22, 2008 1:53 AM

joejoejoe -- Wow. That is a brilliant reading of Obama's 'dancing brother' joke. It might even be possible that Obama inserted it in deliberately to rile up Bill Clinton (much as he may done with his contention that Reagan was transformative in a way that Bill Clinton wasn't).

If that's so (big IF), then it's surely a plan to goad Bill Clinton into losing his temper, in hopes of a public backlash.

Once again, though, absolutely awesome interpretation. (And such a shame that Morrison is still endorsing Hillary Clinton.)

Posted by Nigel Aimes | January 22, 2008 1:55 AM

Jim wrote:

"They simply want their own Rove. And I'll grant you, she is that. They seem to think she would govern differently for some reason, but who invented the permanent campaign? I thought the point of voting for a Democrat was not simply to put another Rove/Bush team in the White House under the Democratic brand name."

It's called peace through strength. If you stick a shiv in her ribs, she'll take a baseball bat to your kneecaps. We used to have plenty of politicians like that: Richard Daley, Sr., Phil Burton, George Wallace, Bobby Kennedy, LBJ. In the seventies, we got rid of most of them. We replaced them with George McGoverns and Tom Daschles. That's one reason why we've lost so many battles since. We have a few now including one who is running for president.

Posted by lombard | January 22, 2008 2:13 AM

Struck me when watching the rerun, from the first half. She very much seemed to be speaking as a sitting Dem senator as well as presidential candidate and earnestly asking for help on this.

Needs more media/blog attention:

BLITZER: Senator Clinton, do you want to respond to Senator Edwards asking you whether you're ready to commit to all combat troops being out of Iraq within a year?
CLINTON: What I have said is that I will move as quickly as possible. I hope to have nearly all out within a year.

We don't know what we're going to inherent from President Bush, but there is a big problem looming on the horizon that we had better pay attention to, and that is President Bush is intent upon negotiating a long-term agreement with Iraq which would have permanent bases, permanent troop presence. And he claims he does not need to come to the United States Congress to get permission, he only needs to go to the Iraqi parliament.

That is his stated public position. He was recently in the region, and it is clear that he intends to push forward on this to try to bind the United States government and his successor to his failed policy.

I have been strongly opposed to that. We should not be planning permanent bases and long-term troop commitments.

Obviously, we've got to rein in...

(APPLAUSE)

... President Bush. And I've proposed legislation and I know that members of the Congressional Black Caucus are looking at this, as well. We need legislation in a hurry which says, "No, Mr. Bush, you are the president of the United States of America. You cannot bind our country without coming to the United States Congress." This is a treaty....

(APPLAUSE)

... that would have to be presented and approved, and it will not be.

from the CNN transcript.

Posted by artappraiser | January 22, 2008 2:24 AM

Senator Obama really showed his true colors tonight. He has come across over the past two days as a "pouty don't gang up on me let's take it outside Bill" immature candidate. His reactions and attacks upon a supportive spouse are disrespectful. Fortunately, Senator Clinton handled it with professional grace. If Hillary had called Michelle out to the woodshed, Obama's reaction would likely be perceived or feared as threatening if not violent. This kind of immature reaction is not what we need in a President. In addition, his limited view became very apparent when he continually spoke of race without regard to inequality of genders. Senator Clinton speaks of both and continues to work for both as does Senator Edwards. His deflecting answer about President Clinton's dancing ability, while humorous to the audience, is actually insulting to others not of his race and thereby a racist joke. This sort of inappropriate response is not what we need in a President. We already have a bigot in office that is hated around the world. Senator Clinton is clearly the most mature and most knowledgeable agent of change. Senator Edwards has some great ideas but does not strike me as capable of working within Washington because he has not formed the necessary partnerships with other leaders. Senator Obama has a lot of growing up to do and maybe in 2016 after Senator Clinton's two terms as President, he will have matured and learned from her examples to become President at that time. In any case, I would like to see Senator Clinton win the nomination and bring all the democratic candidates into her administration along with some of the Republican candidates to show the unity we need to show to the world.

Posted by DC Voter | January 22, 2008 2:35 AM

Senator Obama really showed his true colors tonight. He has come across over the past two days as a "pouty don't gang up on me let's take it outside Bill" immature candidate. His reactions and attacks upon a supportive spouse are disrespectful. Fortunately, Senator Clinton handled it with professional grace. If Hillary had called Michelle out to the woodshed, Obama's reaction would likely be perceived or feared as threatening if not violent. This kind of immature reaction is not what we need in a President. In addition, his limited view became very apparent when he continually spoke of race without regard to inequality of genders. Senator Clinton speaks of both and continues to work for both as does Senator Edwards. His deflecting answer about President Clinton's dancing ability, while humorous to the audience, is actually insulting to others not of his race and thereby a racist joke. This sort of inappropriate response is not what we need in a President. We already have a bigot in office that is hated around the world. Senator Clinton is clearly the most mature and most knowledgeable agent of change. Senator Edwards has some great ideas but does not strike me as capable of working within Washington because he has not formed the necessary partnerships with other leaders. Senator Obama has a lot of growing up to do and maybe in 2016 after Senator Clinton's two terms as President, he will have matured and learned from her examples to become President at that time. In any case, I would like to see Senator Clinton win the nomination and bring all the democratic candidates into her administration along with some of the Republican candidates to show the unity we need to show to the world.

Posted by DC Voter | January 22, 2008 2:35 AM

Yeah, who does that uppity immature negro think he is?

Posted by DC Voter translated | January 22, 2008 3:25 AM

to paraphrase a wise scribe I had the pleasure to read:

'DC Voter, why did you drop the OU and HE from your name?'.

Obama inspires and leads. He leaves people with goosebumps and chills. He has vision and character and he draws out the best in all of us.

The Clintons (and no, you can't really separate them, because they are running as a twofer) are rough and dirty campaigners that lie and race-bait in order to draw out the worst in us. They are less likely to inspire than to coerce, less passionate than conniving and less principled than driven-by-polls. They are Bush-lite and they are Rove-lite. They will bring out more Republicans to the polls than Democrats and may tear apart the Democratic party with their raw lust for power.

Posted by ben | January 22, 2008 3:34 AM

Re: "Who [are] the best . . . debate moderators?"

Pretty much anyone other than TV journalists. If the democratic primary is supposed to be about choosing the candidate who can best further our vision of the way the country should be won and run, shouldn't the debates be moderated by someone who shares that vision? The moderator should be the agent of the rank and file of the party, helping us learn what we want and need to know in order to make a choice. Probably an elder (who thus lacks ambition of his or her own), who is generally well versed on the policy and the politics of the points at issue in the debate.

Ironically, the optimal candidate for this would have been Bill Clinton. Except for the fact that his wife is running. And that he has decided to become a slander machine. Think about it, wouldn't the 2004 primary have been better with a debate moderated by WJC?

Or what about Al Gore? He apparently has no interest in being in politics (largely because of the moronic gotcha bullshit of which the current debates are symptomatic), but he knows the issues and likes to talk about them.

The party's interests are not served by having the debates moderated by a bunch of egomaniacial halfwits more interested in their own pseudo-cleverness (Blitzer) and/or their ability to make the candidates squirm over meaningless crap that is of no interest to actual democrats (Big Russ (or Lil' Russ? . . . I can't keep them straight)). If we wanted that we could just invite Pete Wilson to moderate. These jokers are far more interested in scoring their own points than in actually helping democrats pick the best candidate. The bullshit questions they ask encourage the ignore the question, Luntz-style-talking-points responses that make us all hate politics. I want a moderator who will both (a) ask real questions, and then (b) hold the candidate to task if/when he or she dodges/dissembles/lies in response. Without both we are stuck in a politics of bad faith. Without the first you have only spectacle, without the second, propaganda.

Maybe they keep picking MSM talking heads because that's the only way to get debates on the teevee? Hopefully, by 2016, the next contested Democratic primary, the Internets will provide a suitable work-around.

Until then, raise your hand if you believe that if we capture a terrorist, who we are absolutely sure is a terrorist, who we are absolutely sure is about to set off a nuclear bomb in Des Moines, who we are absolutely sure might come clean if we "rough him up" a bit (just like frat hazing, or spending a couple hours standing like Rummy does, really, there's a memo that says it's cool), who we are absolutely sure that if the aforementioned roughing up occurs, the terrorist will truthfully reveal the location of the bomb, and that we are absolutely sure this information will lead to the bomb being found and de-fused, thus saving thousands of lives, it might be ok to rough the fellow up a bit, right?

Posted by mrmmm | January 22, 2008 4:23 AM

http://www.walmartfiles.com/barack-obamas-wife-has-wal-mart-as-her-biggest-customer/

Posted by PFC Wintergreen | January 22, 2008 4:38 AM

"The party's interests are not served by having the debates moderated by a bunch of egomaniacial halfwits more interested in their own pseudo-cleverness (Blitzer) and/or their ability to make the candidates squirm over meaningless crap that is of no interest to actual democrats (Big Russ (or Lil' Russ? . . . I can't keep them straight))."

They're like college freshmen who have taken a single political philosophy course and now think they're clever.

It might be interesting to get not completely boring academics who can look decent on TV (to re-assure the networks), such as Fukuyama and Zakaria possibly for the Republicans. I have had a couple profs before that could probably do that for the Dems.

Posted by Reality Man | January 22, 2008 4:58 AM

I enjoyed the debate. It did get nasty, but it also contained some policy discussion.

I thought that it was a draw between Obama and Clinton. And although I am planning to vote for Clinton, I like Obama. I really think that he is the most gifted candidate. But I think that he would get chewed up and spit out by the Republicans if he were to become the nominee.

Posted by Susan | January 22, 2008 6:46 AM

I want to hear someone ask Clinton why she did not bother to read the intelligence reports before voting for the war in Iraq. What sort of competence or experience is this? Also, let's hear her answer on what her position is on torture, and will she now disavow it?
Posted by nickzi

I'm no fan of Hillary's, but everyone that read the intelligence reports voted for the war. Including a few Committee Heads that were leaning against the War and a moderate Republican and CIA and Vietnam Combat Vet who spent a week going over it line by line and visiting analysts at the CIA before he was convinced the intelligence forces of 18 nations had compiled a solid case, and the War was necessary, because he thought it would be ugly and last years. (Rob Simmons, CT)

The problem is that Saddam had lauched what turns out was a suicidal bluff. He wanted the US and Iran convinced he still had nukes and had staked his honor on his lie with his generals. It was not the tubes, gas ballooons or other things militarily ignorant people on the Left think was "the problem" what convinced every nation, inc Russia and Iran, he still had plenty of WMD was HUMINT. It was the HUMINT from France, UK, KSA, Egypt, JOrdan, and Israel that reported their sources - high ranking officers IN THE SAME ROOM AS Saddam heard him discuss stockpiles of WMD with undisclosed Guards.

When his bluff was called, he could not admit he lied because he would lose all honor and be deposed and shot. Later, in interrogations, Saddam detailed his magnificent bluff that fooled the world - then said he had counted on oil for food sacntions going away in 2002 with his bribes (Before 9/11, Bush, and the Jews wrecked those plans - he noted), then he was going to immediately start on a new nuclear program with Centrifuge designs bought from AQ Khan. And go vigorously into missiles. With a goal of getting the Bomb before Iran.

Hillary had no Intelligence training, no familiarity with how analysis is synthesized. IF she "had only read the Intelligence Report" she would have been as well-informed as a Lefty would be on reading the raw data report on 78 aviation systems and parameters that existed shortly before crash, along with the Flight Data recorder, and walking through chunks of wreckage and the photos. Then making a Lefty determination of the plane crash being due to pilot error, equipment defect, bomb, or act of God. The unversed Lefty looking at a NTSB cras data workup wouldn't have a clue.

Posted by chris ford | January 22, 2008 7:20 AM

Chris Ford: "I'm no fan of Hillary's, but everyone that read the intelligence reports voted for the war."

You are flat out wrong. Senate Intelligence Chairman Bob Graham, who requested that the '02 Iraq NIE be prepared, voted against the AUMF/Iraq. Sen. Durbin, also on the Senate Intel Committee, read the report and voted against the AUMF/Iraq. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin voted against the AUMF/Iraq.

You can read the declassified version of the 2002 Iraq NIE at the link below. It's about as complicated as the DOT book you read to take your drivers exam at age 16 and at 93 pages with a bunch of bullet points, maps, and graphics -- it's about the same length.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/nie.pdf

Posted by joejoejoe | January 22, 2008 7:42 AM

RE joejoejoe's comment "You can read the declassified version of the 2002 Iraq NIE at the link below "
------------
Plus Senator Bob Graham indicates in his memoir ("Intelligence Matters") that the unclassified NIE was had already been created as a misleading propaganda piece.

That the CLASSIFIED Iraq NIE was even more forthcoming about the shortfalls in the evidence but Bush/Tenet INSISTED on keeping it suppressed and putting out their puff piece.

However, SENATORS --vice the general public -- had access to the Classified NIE.

All Hillary had to do was simply back Bob Graham, the leading Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee -- who was saying the intelligence case was not that strong and who was demanding more analysis and evidence.

She DID NOT support Senator Graham because in Hillaryland the calculus was simple: (a) Hillary Gets her money from Israeli billionaire Haim Saban , not from Bob Graham and (b) Haim's sock puppets, Kenneth Pollack and Marty Indyk, were putting out LA Times OpEd and best selling book saying Saddam was working feverishly to get WMDs/nukes, was almost certainly close to success, and needed to be taken out NOW.

After all, everyone knew that time is on the side of a 66 year old , highly unpopular dictator .

Hillary supporters have the most bizarre mindset: Implicit in their argument is that Hillary was too incompetent , not too corrupt, to be a US Senator. So let's make her President.

Posted by Don Williams | January 22, 2008 8:17 AM

Re lombard's comment "It's called peace through strength. If you stick a shiv in her [Hillary's] ribs, she'll take a baseball bat to your kneecaps "
-----------
From what alternative universe do people drag this pony dung??

We SAW how tough Hillary was during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. And before that , the Paula Jones scandal. And before that, the Gennifer Flowers scandal.

Hillary's ambition makes her a DOORMAT to her husband and to her male patrons. That's her whole primary schtick to female voters. Hillary's main story is that she's the serially abused housewife who's been taking shit for 20 years and deserves a break.

Posted by Don Williams | January 22, 2008 8:28 AM

Re Joejoejoe's comment "That whole "first black President" remark was twisted out of a Toni Morrison column about President Clinton's adultery"
--------------
Shorter Toni Morrison: "Bill Clinton's pimp hand be STRONG -- he keeps his bitch Hillary in line and ho's her out to the rich Jews."

Posted by Don Williams | January 22, 2008 8:33 AM

Clinton's dancing ability, while humorous to the audience, is actually insulting to others not of his race and thereby a racist joke.

Oh jesus christ, gimme a break: he was speaking the truth - ever been to a disco or a salsa club?

I have close to zero natural sense of rhythm (I'm alright at ballroom dancing, but one can learn that) and I am not insulted but amused, while admiring the natural abilities of blacks/latinos in this regard.

Posted by novakant | January 22, 2008 9:45 AM

So, Chris, by your argument, HRC's failure to do the basics on the intelligence report is not a problem because she is just an idiot anyway? An interesting defense. Now, how about explaining why Hillary the Torturer is not a Republican-lite candidate? Let's face it, John McCain has more integrity than she does on this point - and he reads the intelligence reports. Givem that, I suggest that Democrats vote for McCain over Hillary, get the Clintons and their vulgar self-promoting politics of payback out of our party, and come back as true Democrats in 2012.

Posted by nickzi | January 22, 2008 9:54 AM

"I think Wolf Blitzer's question about who Martin Luther King would endorse if he were alive today is possibly a new low for inane debate questions."

Dunno who MLK would endorse, but Martin Luther King III - MLK's son - endorsed Edwards this past weekend:

"I appreciate that on the major issues of health care, the environment, and the economy, you have framed the issues for what they are -- a struggle for justice,” he wrote. “And, you have almost single-handedly made poverty an issue in this election.”
"Ignore the pundits, who think this is a horserace, not a fight for justice,” King wrote. “My dad was a fighter. As a friend and a believer in my father's words that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, I say to you: keep going."

Posted by Petey | January 22, 2008 11:23 AM

Competitive Inanity!

Posted by Jalmari | January 22, 2008 12:53 PM

DC Voter really brings that inside the Beltway "conventional wisdom" this discussion is lacking!

"[Obama's] attacks upon a supportive spouse are disrespectful. Fortunately, Senator Clinton handled it with professional grace. If Hillary had called Michelle out to the woodshed, Obama's reaction would likely be perceived or feared as threatening if not violent. This kind of immature reaction is not what we need in a President."

Give me an f'ing break. Bill Clinton isn't just Hillary's spouse, he's a former President. Frankly, his red-faced tirades over the past two weeks have been totally classless and undignified, to the point that even Democrats without a horse in this race are urging him to shut up. Let me know when Michelle Obama starts calling the Clinton's a "fairy tale" or outright lying about their public comments.

"His deflecting answer about President Clinton's dancing ability, while humorous to the audience, is actually insulting to others not of his race and thereby a racist joke."

I would bet the house you are white. You need to lighten up and develop a sense of humor. Maybe go dancing or something...

Posted by Mike LeP | January 22, 2008 3:04 PM

Debate Behindblogging

Comments (84)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories