Matthew Yglesias (February 21, 2008)

Am I the only one who thought that the "cares about people like me" speech at the end worked like a charm, and has a potential to change the race, at least in Texas?

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | February 21, 2008 9:52 PM

Yeah, that was really a great last answer. Clearly genuine, IMO.

Posted by Korha | February 21, 2008 9:54 PM

I think Clinton has come to terms with her situation and made a decision to go out gracefully.

But it is noteworthy that both of their campaign styles are far more suited to front-running than coming from behind. Obama certainly didn't pass Hillary because of any of his debate performances.

Posted by Swopa | February 21, 2008 9:56 PM

Good assessment, but, to my great consternation as an Obama supporter, I think there is another phenomenon also going on.

Since the time of the last debate the Obama campaign has lifted off into a near-messianic frenzy. Many of his new supporters, or newly-energized old supporters, haven't yet seen him in a debate format and know him only from his thrilling speeches; could this have 'brought them down to earth' in a potentially harsh manner? Was he not as magical as they expected? I mean, this was a very different Obama than 'Yes We Can'. It may sway many votes or accelerate some kind of backlash...

Posted by CG | February 21, 2008 9:57 PM

I think Clinton has come to terms with her situation and made a decision to go out gracefully.

Were you watching when she spouted her Xerox line?

Might have been the most ungraceful moment of the Democratic primary campaign.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 21, 2008 9:58 PM

No presidential debate should be "dull", if the questioners are doing their jobs.

For instance, instead of having a cultural separatist and Mexican citizen who refuses to become a U.S. citizen asking about immigration, CNN could have had someone who's on the other side from both candidates ask them how many years it would take to do all the checks under "reform".

If it takes a decade or more to do the checks on all the IllegalAliens that both Hillary and Obama want to legalize, then, gosh, maybe they should be asked about that.

Of course, Party hacks like MattY don't need to concern themselves with such minor issues.

Posted by TLB | February 21, 2008 9:59 PM

Cue Marc Rich.

The Clintons never go out gracefully.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 21, 2008 10:00 PM

@CG: As a fellow Obama supporter, I wouldn't worry too much.

This was not an exciting debate for either of them. All Obama needs to do is not mess up. He's got two more weeks to close on Texas.

And yes, Hillary's last answer was lovely....but at the same time, there was something, as Ambinder pointed out, "wistful" about it. It sounded to me like she had seen the writing on the wall.

Posted by C.Michol | February 21, 2008 10:00 PM

While her last answer was better than Obama's, it's to be expected as she went second. And while is was much better than his, it ultimately sounded a bit canned.

Posted by guachi | February 21, 2008 10:01 PM

It doesn't seem like she made a strong case for more debates.

Posted by Galois | February 21, 2008 10:01 PM

Nice xerox closing Billary.

Posted by john o. | February 21, 2008 10:01 PM

I'm not sure what the import of the final remark will be, but it played to me like Hillary's recognition that this race is pretty much over for her. In particular, I would point to her adoption of the language of "hope" in the last line and "whatever happens; we're gonna be fine."

I'm an Obama supporter, and it's still extremely difficult for me to imagine what the end of Hillary Clinton's candidacy will look like. And for that reason, I think she's probably got one comeback left in her.

Posted by southpaw | February 21, 2008 10:02 PM

Nice xerox closing Billary (a lift from Bill '92 according to Josh Marshall).

Posted by john o. | February 21, 2008 10:02 PM

Obama was VERY good on the C-in-C question, and the foreign policy questions in general. I think he did extremely well (even more so if we're handicapping for having a cold). Clinton is very good at this too. I think this was yet another win for the Democratic Party, because we have such great talent up there.

Posted by Beth in VA | February 21, 2008 10:03 PM

Am I the only one who thought that the "cares about people like me" speech at the end worked like a charm, and has a potential to change the race, at least in Texas?

If that's literally the only thing anyone talks about from the debate, then yeah, but there were other things too that will be in his favor (his good answer on Iraq, her lame-o Xerox line).

Nobody asked them about the NYT McCain story, did they? Everyone on Hardball was salivating about what would happen when that question came up tonight, obviously operating under the assumption that it would be the key issue of the entire debate. But no one brought it up at all, right? At least that's refreshing.

Posted by Haggai | February 21, 2008 10:03 PM

Josh Marshall hints that her last answer is very reminiscent of something Bill Clinton said in 1992. Please let it be lifted. Please please please LOL

Posted by Benjamin | February 21, 2008 10:03 PM

Assuming Obama goes all the way, what if he makes Hillary his health care "czar?" (And no, she won't be VP.) It's obvious she's passionate about the issue and has great command of it. So why not give her the chance to lead the effort in the Senate?

Obama could give her a chance to salvage her legacy after her '93 health care flop and the embarrassing campaign she's run up to this point. Everybody walks away happy, and as an added bonus, it would shut Krugman up.

Posted by SDinIA | February 21, 2008 10:03 PM

Obama gave me multiple orgasms.

Posted by Completely Objective Unbiased Undecided Voter | February 21, 2008 10:04 PM

Obama is probably going to win the nomination on freshness and style points but Hillary is very very impressive.

She had to keep the Xerox line in play but to her credit she got back to substance quickly.

Posted by Still Undecided | February 21, 2008 10:06 PM

"Asked about his lifting of lines from Gov. Deval Patrick (Mass.), Obama sought to dismiss the charges of plagiarism as the sort of politics the American public is sick of. "The notion I had plagiarized from someone who is one of my national co-chairs who gave me the line and suggested I use it I think is silly," Obama said. "This is where we get into silly season in politics and people start getting discouraged about it."

Clinton, however, clearly believes this is a political weak spot for Obama and went after it -- hard. "If your candidacy is going to be about words, they should be your own words," said Clinton. "Lifting whole passages is not change you can believe in, it's change you can Xerox."

That line, obviously prepared in advance of tonight's debate, fell flat. The crowd went silent and then a smattering of boos rang out. Obama shook his head and muttered to himself.

That exchange highlighted the difficulty for Clinton when it comes to drawing contrasts with Obama. Any attack falls into a familiar dynamic that she is a partisan politician practicing politics as usual while he is a transformational figure bringing hope and change to the system.

Obama has created a framework whereby arguing against his approach to government and philosophy is arguing against the hopes and dreams of the American public. It is a very hard nut to crack for Clinton." (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/?hpid=topnews)

I think that's about right. The whole plagiarism thing was not just in poor taste but was also incoherent. First she makes the Xerox line, then she brings up the YouTube video, and then she tries to reason from that to how he has no substance? That whole section made no sense. She came off seeming more desperate than ever before.

Posted by R. Vangala | February 21, 2008 10:09 PM

Hillary is fairly amazing. But it comes at a cost that probably explains why she has such high negatives. Her mastery of policy details and political rhetoric must seem off-putting to traditional types. They probably want to see a woman comfortable in her own authentic personality. Instead, there's this dazzlingly bright and secure character.

Is Hillary a phony? To ask the question is to answer it.

Posted by walt | February 21, 2008 10:09 PM

She had to keep the Xerox line in play

Why? It made her look completely desperate and it was pathetic.

The crowd hated it.

Why did she have to do it?

The same reason she had to loan herself $5 million dollars? Because her handlers made idiotic decisions?

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 21, 2008 10:09 PM

'xerox closing'

The start of her closing remarks were exactly the same as those made in the 'crying' answer in NH.

Still, it was a very strong ending and probably tipped the entire debate in her favor.

Posted by Kolohe | February 21, 2008 10:10 PM

You know when they were scripting certain lines inside the Clinton debate prep team, some people fell in love with the "Xerox" line and insisted that she used it. There were probably others who voiced concern that it would sound scripted and fall flat, but they got outvoted.

Posted by blah | February 21, 2008 10:13 PM

I agree HRC's last answer was effective, but she may have sabotaged herself. The part about "the hits I've been taking" was a verbatim quote from Bill Clinton's 1992 New Hampshire speech - which would not be a big deal except for her sanctimonious garbage about not using other people's lines. I wonder how people will feel about this warm, heartfelt moment once someone finds the YouTube of Bill using the exact same words?

Posted by Kevin | February 21, 2008 10:14 PM

As a white male in an all white rural Georgia town, there is this expectation (or perhaps a stereotype) among people I know that Obama is going to be a black preacher/civil rights type of leader, which would not play well here. Except for these debates, all we see on tv is highlights of these "inspirational" speeches, and for the most part, they reinforce the stereotype. For me at least, these debates showcase Obama as presedential, and I know the debates have changed the minds of people I know about Obama. What ever bias or fear that might exist of Obama as a "black" candidate is eliminated with these debates.

Posted by Scott | February 21, 2008 10:15 PM

As a white male in an all white rural Georgia town, there is this expectation (or perhaps a stereotype) among people I know that Obama is going to be a black preacher/civil rights type of leader, which would not play well here. Except for these debates, all we see on tv is highlights of these "inspirational" speeches, and for the most part, they reinforce the stereotype. For me at least, these debates showcase Obama as presedential, and I know the debates have changed the minds of people I know about Obama. What ever bias or fear that might exist of Obama as a "black" candidate is eliminated with these debates.

Posted by Scott | February 21, 2008 10:16 PM

Obama started off subdued and restrained, with Clinton going for it with energy and some crowd-pleasing lines, but Obama grew in strength and command throughout the debate, and was more focussed, incisive, and concrete as Clinton began to ramble a bit I thought. I thought on substantive policy differences, Obama had the better of the arguments all night, especially on foreign policy. But I think his account of the mandate issue, and connecting it with the mess in Massachusetts, was his most convincing presentation yet of the case for his approach.

But their were two dramatic episodes: Clinton's cheap shot about "change you can Xerox" bombed badly with the audience, deflated her confidence and put her back on her heels the rest of the night. Given the way things were going for her up to that time, quite well I thought, I was shocked she decided suddenly to go crassly negative. It was a real blunder, and it opened the way for Obama to take a stronger and more dignified position, and make the case the rest of the night for his theory of change based on unification and building coalitions, while Clinton then looked like a representative of the old politics that the audience clearly was not interested in seeing.

Then the other dramatic, and somewhat weird part: In Clinton's final comments, she began with the "people ask me how I do it" line, a clear reference back to the famous exchange in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. She then started telling a bunch of sad stories about people in wheelchairs and such. Frankly, it looked like a calculated effort to make herself well up.

On a more uplifting note, I thought the little handshake at the end during Clinton's final comments was a moment of genuine sincerity and bonding between the two candidates, and may have signaled Clinton's regret for the earlier cheap shot. And Clinton's summing up helped create a space for reconciliation and reunification of the two camps. Her comments to the effect that whatever happens to her, Democrats will go on to win really captured the mood of the audience, and they justly applauded her for it. It did sound like a bit of a swan song, though, didn't it?

Posted by Dan Kervick | February 21, 2008 10:16 PM

As a white male in an all white rural Georgia town, there is this expectation (or perhaps a stereotype) among people I know that Obama is going to be a black preacher/civil rights type of leader, which would not play well here. Except for these debates, all we see on tv is highlights of these "inspirational" speeches, and for the most part, they reinforce the stereotype. For me at least, these debates showcase Obama as presedential, and I know the debates have changed the minds of people I know about Obama. What ever bias or fear that might exist of Obama as a "black" candidate is eliminated with these debates.

Posted by Scott | February 21, 2008 10:17 PM

Half the crowd might have hated it but it scores points with many. The plagiarism charge has dinged Obama and the media gives it play. Check the headline on TPM:

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/hillary_on_obamas_speeches_its.php

I don't blame her for getting the line off but am glad she didn't overdo it.

Hillary has high negatives because she's been a target for more than 15 years. They have barely started going after Obama.

Posted by Still Undecided | February 21, 2008 10:17 PM

Still, it was a very strong ending and probably tipped the entire debate in her favor.

Assuming it gets mileage beyond this. I'm not sure it does. I think the Xerox boo gets mileage.

The problem for Hillary is she needs to do a heckofa lot more than just tip debates to her favor.

Posted by Jake | February 21, 2008 10:18 PM

I wonder how people will feel about this warm, heartfelt moment once someone finds the YouTube of Bill using the exact same words?

I don't think anyone will think of it as less than heartfelt, mostly because the "change you can Xerox" line of attack was so obviously stupid from the first time her campaign started making it. Though I guess it might reinforce how little there is for her to attack about Obama.

Posted by Haggai | February 21, 2008 10:19 PM

Were you watching when she spouted her Xerox line?

Well, okay, she did give in to temptation a few times. (And to be honest, I was only listening at that moment while doing something else.)

BTW, Kevin and others above are right about her lifting from Bill in NH in 1992 ("I've taken some hits in this race, but they're nothing compared to the hits the American people have taken," etc.) Instant karma's gonna get you, Hillary...

Posted by Swopa | February 21, 2008 10:19 PM

One small comment. Hillary calling out Sen. Kirk Watson's "freeze" from the other night was probably not a good idea. Watson is hugely popular in Austin, and ran statewide in 2002. He is known by Democrats across the state and is thought of as one of our top talents.(which is actually true, MSNBC performance, aside). One of my friends was at the Democratic Party debate party. He said the Watson call-out bombed even worse than the "xerox" line. Lots of boos and hisses.

Posted by Texan | February 21, 2008 10:21 PM

One small comment. Hillary calling out Sen. Kirk Watson's "freeze" from the other night was probably not a good idea. Watson is hugely popular in Austin, and ran statewide in 2002. He is known by Democrats across the state and is thought of as one of our top talents.(which is actually true, MSNBC performance, aside). One of my friends was at the Democratic Party debate party. He said the Watson call-out bombed even worse than the "xerox" line. Lots of boos and hisses.

Posted by Colin | February 21, 2008 10:22 PM

Half the crowd might have hated it but it scores points with many.

Only with Obama haters like you, and there aren't that many.

The plagiarism charge has dinged Obama and the media gives it play.

No, it hasn't. At all. The desperation of Team Clinton on this is tragic.

Check the headline on TPM

So? Just a sampling of the comments on that thread - virtually all negative:

Cheap and childish.

Hillary got the only boos of the night with the Xerox line.

he should cry. loudly. like an infant.

Her Xerox line, which Bill Schneider over at the CNN live blogging, characterized as "contrived", really went over well. The crowd booed.

You're a dead ender.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 21, 2008 10:24 PM

I agree that the Watson call-out was a disaster. Obama was ready for that one and knocked it out of the park.

Posted by Still Undecided | February 21, 2008 10:24 PM

The plagiarism charge has dinged Obama and the media gives it play. Check the headline on TPM:

Indeed, check out the headline, but also read the comments. It really came off as more petty than anything else.

Posted by Jake | February 21, 2008 10:25 PM

"if she was still the front-runner, this would have counted"

But ... this doesn't count. Ha ha. Way to have the worm turn on you Clinton.

Posted by Bill Cowper | February 21, 2008 10:27 PM

Hillary was good as always, but even with her stirring finale, I thought Obama took the night.

He held his own on Hillary's srtong suit, health care, and smoked her on the rest: the economy, immigration, Cuba, foreign policy, Commander in Chief, the invasion of Iraq.

Even when their policy positions are identical, Obama's more pithy. Hillary sounds great for the first minute of a response but then starts to drift into a wonky ramble.

And she got booed on the Xerox snipe. Booed.

Posted by Lucy | February 21, 2008 10:29 PM

It was very sad watching her. Yes it is over and she knows it.
She basically said i'm gave up, and wants not be hated.
I hope she gets a very very prominent job in the new adminstration.

Obama is oozes class and presidential presence. He will make a great president

Nice that they shook hands. I know she will try her best to rally the party behind Obama now and take back the WH.

Posted by Kelly Pierce | February 21, 2008 10:31 PM

One small comment. Hillary calling out Sen. Kirk Watson's "freeze" from the other night was probably not a good idea. Watson is hugely popular in Austin, and ran statewide in 2002.

And it also gave Obama a great opening to rattle off his legislative accomplishments, and show that even if one of his supporters doesn't know what's on the list, he does. One can find a lot of online comparisons of the legislative records of Obama and Clinton, and frankly Obama has the better of the comparison, and knows it. He said twice "I'm not denigrating Senator Clinton's record" which was a polite way of suggesting it wasn't as strong as his.

Posted by Dan Kervick | February 21, 2008 10:31 PM

Something about Hillary and her policy knowledge...I don't know if it's great that she can get up there and just rattle off policy at the drop of a hat. I mean, it's great that she's informed (obviously) but that's simply memorizing material. People seem to ding Obama for not instantaneously firing back with a canned response and maybe that's because he's considering the question and thinking about the best possible answer. You'd think after the last 8 years we'd want someone who can appreciate nuance. And, so this doesn't come off as an attack against Hillary, both she and Obama have a much, MUCH better grasp of policy nuances than McCain does.

Posted by Mike P | February 21, 2008 10:32 PM

Dan Drezner thinks Clinton copied that last bit from Jack Stanton.

Posted by Ottawa | February 21, 2008 10:34 PM

Indeed, check out the headline, but also read the comments.

The comments are from Obama cult-members. Lots of voters don't hang out on the internet.

I'm not saying it was a particularly effective attack just that it was understandable in a campaign. Sorry that Hillary slurred your deity.

Posted by Still Undecided | February 21, 2008 10:34 PM

Let’s see. Even assuming "plagiarism" which of course is a slander in and of itself, who are you going to trust?

The classless, ruthless, corrupt, sexually abusing, incompetent Billary,

Or

A gifted, dedicated genuine leader with impeccable integrity and judgment that will surround himself with the best and the brightest and be on a mission to be the best president ever?

Time for Obama, the media and the leaders of the democratic party that support Obama to come back at her 10 fold and remind us all again how fucking dishonest and corrupt they are.

Posted by Monica's Blue Stained Dress | February 21, 2008 10:35 PM

I love how the pundits seem to think that the ability to ramble and rattle off "policy" is as important as they seem to think it is. The fact that part of HRC's closing was hijacked from a JRE speech is just too ironic. Pity the people that fall for that weak shit all over again.

Posted by Coltrane | February 21, 2008 10:38 PM

A superb victory for Obama. Brilliant. Perfect pitch, cool, unflappable, reassuring.

He's going to win both Texas and Ohio.

I finally feel some sorrow for Hillary. She ended on the right note. Good for her.

Posted by Manfred | February 21, 2008 10:39 PM

I'm not saying it was a particularly effective attack just that it was understandable in a campaign.

No, you said, and I quote, "the plagiarism charge has dinged Obama" and that she had to do it.

The comments are from Obama cult-members.

Reason #6 why your candidate has gotten crushed by the voters.

Sorry that Hillary slurred your deity.

Reason #5.

You guys never get tired of that. Oh well.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 21, 2008 10:40 PM

Why feel sorry for Clinton? The right man is going to win. She slimes because that is all she has and all she is: slime.

Posted by Bill Cowper | February 21, 2008 10:41 PM

Sorry Matt, you are in the echo chamber of the media right now. Health care was not her strong point tonight, nothing was...step out side the spin room and listen to the people not the reporters.

Posted by eh? | February 21, 2008 10:44 PM

The whole reconciliation thing: is it a sign she is angling for the VP slot now? I think she has realized that is her only chance of ever getting back in the white house at this point.

Posted by MS | February 21, 2008 10:45 PM

The comments are from Obama cult-members.

So . . . . are you still undecided, Still Undecided?

Posted by southpaw | February 21, 2008 10:47 PM

A gifted, dedicated genuine leader with impeccable integrity and judgment that will surround himself with the best and the brightest and be on a mission to be the best president ever?

And, when the comet comes, he'll have ponies for everyone! Now, put on your black Nikes to prepare for the journey...

Posted by TLB | February 21, 2008 10:48 PM

that a leader might "pause to think" is not an altogether bad thing, it it? it's the result of a person who was truly educated. she might ace the multiple choice section of the exam, but i bet he'd write the better essay.

Posted by deeluzon | February 21, 2008 10:48 PM

"...but her ability to rattle off policy details on the fly really comes through whereas Obama needs to pause to think"

Matt, the last thing I'd want is a president who thinks before answering a question. Much better if someone can recite passages from a briefing book.

Posted by Helter | February 21, 2008 10:52 PM

I would give the copycat charge to Clinton on points. She may have cribbed a line from her husband but his campaign relies on themes and rhetoric that originated with other candidates.
(I wouldn't call it plagiarism since a good portion of what Obama is borrowing is from his own Senate campaign)

Obama 08 = Patrick 06 = Obama 04 = Edwards beta 04
and there is some Washington 83 somewhere in there as well.

Our concern is to heal. Our concern is to bring together. Business as usual will not be accepted by the people of this city. We shall work as one people for our common good and our common goals.
We fought that good fight with unseasoned weapons and a phalanx of people who mostly had never been involved in a political campaign before. Our government will be moving forward as well, including more people and more kinds of people than any government...

Posted by skeptic | February 21, 2008 10:52 PM

Just for fun:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAYItnI-lPo

Posted by R. Vangala | February 21, 2008 10:53 PM

Her closing comments were almost verbatim to Edwards' closing remarks at a previous debate!!!! Wasn't shit genuine about it!

Posted by Dawn | February 21, 2008 10:54 PM

I love how the pundits seem to think that the ability to ramble and rattle off "policy" is as important as they seem to think it is.

I'd like it if they actually did think that; we wouldn't have gotten saddled with Bush over Gore if pundits took that stuff seriously. But they clearly DON'T think policy is important. I.e. they think talking about it is "rambling" or "rattling".

People not stuck in an internet bubble realize that Hillary is very good at talking about policy and at communicating how her fluency with it can affect people's lives in a positive way. That's her main strength as a politician. Obama, who wasn't nearly as good at her at that when the campaign started, has improved significantly on that front, and that's no small part of why he's taken the overall lead.

Posted by Haggai | February 21, 2008 10:54 PM

I find it really troubling how ungracious Obama supporters are being here tonight.

I think as a strong Hillary supporter - as everyone here knows I am - I can say Obama had a good night, and he didn't make any big mistakes. Nothing that was said was a knock-out or game changer. I think he scored with the response on speeches and his line on Iraq, and I think she scored on health care. She had a strong and empathetic closing answer which stopped this debate from being an Obama victory. Not that I think it will change the trajectory of either candidate.

Having said all that I would think supporters of Obama should at least acknowledge that Clinton passed up a big opportunity to hurt Obama for the general election. She easily could have said he wasn't ready to be president, and ill-prepared to be commander-in-chief. I don't think that would have given her the nomination but it may have cost him the election in November. So before anyone get's too smug let's remember that.

Posted by Tim K | February 21, 2008 10:55 PM

So . . . . are you still undecided, Still Undecided?

Yup. This has been a tough one for me to sort out but I'll be happy with either as nominee. They both impressed me tonight.

Posted by Still Undecided | February 21, 2008 10:56 PM

As someone who lost a lot of respect for the Clintons over the past few months, I thought she comported herself well in this debate and I have much less doubt that she could take down McCain and drive back her negatives over the course of a general election campaign.

That being said, Obama was equally good if not better in this debate, will be the Democratic nominee, and will be a President with a mandate for liberal change. I feel good.

Posted by ScottS | February 21, 2008 10:57 PM

George Bush never pauses to think.

Posted by Woody Bombay | February 21, 2008 10:58 PM

I find it really troubling how ungracious Obama supporters are being here tonight.

Agreed. They're really an ugly group. That's gonna make it difficult for some to get behind Obama whole-heartedly this fall.

It's kind of a Bill Belichick attitude. And you know how that worked out for him.

Posted by Still Undecided | February 21, 2008 11:01 PM

She easily could have said he wasn't ready to be president, and ill-prepared to be commander-in-chief.
But she didn't have the nerve, she knows she can't win that argument.

Posted by blindjoedeath | February 21, 2008 11:02 PM

Clinton saved the debate with her close, I think. Obama was winning before the last answer by a small amount, but I think that she evened it out with a strong finish after a fairly flat responce by Obama. Clinton's Xerox attack was a mistake, I think, and Obama turned most of her other attacks on these lines to her advantage. As usual, Clinton did a bit better on health care and Obama did a bit better on foreign affairs.

Clinton also gets points for not attacking on the commander-in-chief question: it might have helped her, but it would have been really bad for the party in that it would have given McCain an effective TV commercial against Obama if he is the nominee. I've not been a big fan of the Clinton campaign, but if they continue not to do there in debates, they deserve our sincere thanks.

Posted by ikl | February 21, 2008 11:14 PM

She easily could have said he wasn't ready to be president, and ill-prepared to be commander-in-chief.

you're right. especially considering that she's been saying that exact thing for the whole of the primary, but he was sitting right beside her and would have had a response to it and everything. it was better that she kept her thoughts to herself.

Posted by TPH | February 21, 2008 11:15 PM

Texan: "Watson is hugely popular in Austin, and ran statewide in 2002. He is known by Democrats across the state and is thought of as one of our top talents.(which is actually true, MSNBC performance, aside).

If Watson is one of of the top democratic talents in your state then all I can say is that the Texas Democratic Party is in dismal, dismal shape.

Tim K: "She easily could have said he wasn't ready to be president, and ill-prepared to be commander-in-chief. I don't think that would have given her the nomination but it may have cost him the election in November. So before anyone get's too smug let's remember that.

That's true, and good for her.

Posted by Korha | February 21, 2008 11:16 PM

I have an opinion to share too! Really, I do!

Posted by AQ | February 21, 2008 11:17 PM

"I find it really troubling how ungracious Obama supporters are being here tonight.

Agreed. They're really an ugly group. That's gonna make it difficult for some to get behind Obama whole-heartedly this fall."

Well said. Billary and fans have set new heights for attacking below the belt, then crying and claiming victum hood, right wing conspiracy, all those bimbos are lying, I did not have sex with voting for war in Iraq and Iran... I was just lucky with that futures investment, I just don't know why I shredded those legal documents, don't ask don't tell, triangulation, republican landslide...heath care debacle.... oh my

"poor me, poor me"

At some point it will don on Billary that the negatives are real and based on a collective view of the most educated segment of this country that they are disqualified for another presidency.

Posted by ganard | February 21, 2008 11:18 PM

TPH:

especially considering that she's been saying that exact thing for the whole of the primary

Sorry, just want to correct something there. Although the Clinton campaign has implicitly made the argument that she is ready and he is not, it has been an implicit argument. She has never provided the type of definitive quote that could be deployed against Obama in a negative ad. In fact, I can't count how many times (in this debate, other debates and in many interviews like on MTP) she's been asked directly by reporters "are you saying Barack Obama is not prepared to be president?" and she has always, always, always taken a pass.

In contrast, Obama hasn't held back in saying directly that she is divisive and unable to unite the country.

Posted by Tim K | February 21, 2008 11:21 PM

Still Undecided, your moniker is as ungenuine as your chosen candidate.

The truth is that the "typical Obama supporter" is more difficult to caricature than the typical Clinton supporter. And "cultist", especially when it comes to politics, is not an apt description of most of us. In fact, if anything defines "us" it is the explicit rejection of the false choice of membership in either the cult of Democrats or the cult of Republicans, and the Rove versus Clinton soundbite game that goes along with it.

Posted by T.K. | February 21, 2008 11:22 PM

It's amazing to me how many people are willing just to ignore "Change we can Xerox"--clearly an attempt to deride Obama in repeatable sound-bite form--and wax eloquently about how "genuine" and "honest" Hillary's last moment was---ESPECIALLY when her campaign manager wastes no time getting on the horn making sure all the media people present it as such.

I mean, it is simply stupid to interpret her last statement as anything other than a calculated attempt to make one last push, to appeal one last time to the sympathy of the old party.

Posted by wj | February 21, 2008 11:23 PM

First, it's interesting to me to see people say that she won the healthcare argument. I think it's their starkest policy difference, but is really kind of a Rorschach for how "Dem" you are. I've always been a Democrat, but I'm really pretty moderate and sometimes cross over in local elections for the right candidate. To me, Barack's policy position on healthcare is simply more appealing, because I am put off by the idea of a "nanny state" (as are MANY independents and moderate Republicans). His plan shows trust in the people do make rational decisions if he clears the path... I like that, so I thought he carried that argument tonight. I guess she must have been persuasive because I'm clearly outvoted on that front, but there isn't much she could say to sell me on her approach to that particular problem.

Posted by Cranky Kate | February 21, 2008 11:23 PM

I think Obama has to be counted the clear winner tonight, for this reason:

Obama's chief argument against Clinton, made over and over, is that while the policy differences between them are relatively slight, Clinton simply does not have the ability to produce change, because she does not know how to bring people together, while he has a demonstrated record of success in doing just that. He uses the example of her health care initiative during her husband's administration as an example of how not to go about attempting change, and a case study in failure. The unstated implication of much of his argument, of course, is that Clinton is an antagonizing and polarizing figure.

When Clinton let loose with the Xerox crack, she proved his point. She divided the enthusiastic Democratic audience in half, right before our eyes, and he then commanded the discussion the rest of the night.

Game, set, match.

Posted by Dan Kervick | February 21, 2008 11:26 PM

Dan Kervick:

When I read comments like that I almost wish Hillary would just flat out say Barack isn't ready for the big chair. If only to wipe the smirk off the faces of Obama supporters as they gloat.

Then I snap out of it and realize we ultimately are on the same side, although it's easy to forget sometimes.

Posted by Tim K | February 21, 2008 11:29 PM

Still Undecided:
Agreed. They're really an ugly group. That's gonna make it difficult for some to get behind Obama whole-heartedly this fall.
It's kind of a Bill Belichick attitude. And you know how that worked out for him.

I think this is overstated. Barack supporters fervently support him, get stressed out when he's close to winning, and get defensive and prickly. The same is true of anyone else. I haven't seen a whole lot more graciousness from either Hillary or McCain supporters on comment threads or in person.

That said, I think it's very vital to understand the example Barack is really trying to put forward, which at least ideally does not include a lot of defensiveness or prickliness. Obama is prone to those mistakes too, like anyone, but his overriding message is one of finding common ground and building bridges. And if we want our nominee to be our president, we have to open ourselves up to true reflection and debate.

The other side will throw plenty of mud, and that's fine. Mud will fly in both directions. But even though his own campaign will not perfectly adhere to it, Barack will be talking about unity, and with good reason. When we chop the country in half, special interests win and the American people lose. When we form real mandates for action, things will get done.

Posted by mk | February 21, 2008 11:33 PM

Obama had some good moments, but her ability to rattle off policy details on the fly really comes through whereas Obama needs to pause to think.

You can also put me down for not seeing this as a mark against Obama. I'm not impressed by people who can rattle off pre-memorized responses; am more impressed by those who take the time to think about the substance.

Posted by guyx | February 21, 2008 11:33 PM

They're really an ugly group.

So rich coming from "Still 'Obama cult-members' Undecided."

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 21, 2008 11:38 PM

The Plank just reported that her closing statement was lifted from an Edwards speech.

and that is why people feel so strongly about billary.... duplicitous in the extreem.

Posted by gammarays | February 21, 2008 11:38 PM

I don't think that is fair to Dan Kervick. His analysis seems pretty sensible and is in line with exit polls showing that voters are more likely to think that Clinton attacks unfairly (in SC even her own voters thought this!). I don't think that Obama was the clear winner except in the sense that he is ahead and didn't clearly lose, but that judgment depends on my guesses of how much voters will focus on what.

I think that Cranky Kate's analysis of the health care issue is pretty sharp - Obama is better positioned on this issue in the general election, but Clinton is better position in the Democratic primary. I don't know enough to have a firm opinion (health care policy is hugely complicated), but I am inclined toward Clinton's position on the merits. But is is a bit hard to say how undecided Democratic primary voters are likley to see the exchange . . .

Posted by ikl | February 21, 2008 11:38 PM

I don't think that is fair to Dan Kervick.

Tim K is not about fair.

Tim K is about Hillary uber alles, and, in the alternative, slamming Obama for everything, real and imagined. Emphasis on the imagined.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 21, 2008 11:41 PM

Addendum/summary to the comment I just posted:

It's time to ask whether we want to challenge ourselves to really believe in Barack's theory of change. If we don't, the talk of unity is truly window dressing.

I for one fundamentally like, and would fight to support (not as ironic as it sounds), his vision of change.

Build bridges, find common ground, talk to those whom you disagree with. Improve communication and transparency. Don't be small. Yup, that goes for the supporters of the guy too, not just the guy himself.

Posted by mk | February 21, 2008 11:41 PM

SoCalJustice:

I've actually been quite fair to Obama tonight if you were paying any attention. I acknowledged he had a very good night and nothing in the race is likely to change as a consequence of the debate. It's his race to lose. I just pointed out - correctly - that Hillary could have done him real long-term damage and took a pass.

You're the only one being vindictive and unfair here.

Posted by Tim K | February 21, 2008 11:43 PM

Tim K said:

Sorry, just want to correct something there. Although the Clinton campaign has implicitly made the argument that she is ready and he is not, it has been an implicit argument.

dude, I am so sorry. I have this terrible condition where I am able to read into implicit arguments and I imagine that what they are implying is what they actually mean. I know, I know... it's fucked up, but I have to live with it. If it means anything, I am only implicitly arguing that your reasoning is retarded so there should be no fear that any other poster will pick up on that fact and turn it against you.

Posted by TPH | February 21, 2008 11:46 PM

Obama Supporters

You sure are full of yourselves. If he is the nominee, can he win without her supporters? Most of you seem to think so. Great PR job. The great mystery of the race is the disconnect between Obama and his supporters especially on the Web. If he is so inspirational, why do most of you sound like bullies?

TLB

Your comment is perfect!

Posted by EWard | February 21, 2008 11:46 PM

I second mk's sentiment.

Posted by ikl | February 21, 2008 11:49 PM

I also thought two of the biggest moments of the debate were Clinton's "change you can xerox" moment and her final "we'll be fine" answer. However, it's already being noted elsewhere that her final answer was taken almost verbatim from a response that John Edwards used on the trail and in debates. Perhaps Clinton's use was sincere--it certainly struck me as a good moment for her at the time--but if her lifting of Edwards' line gets any attention, it makes her seem like an awfully big hypocrite...

Posted by Cass | February 21, 2008 11:50 PM

You're the only one being vindictive and unfair here.

Right, Tim K.

I see you've still learned nothing.

How long have you been posting here? The last couple weeks?

Almost all spent either making stuff up out of whole cloth and attacking not just Obama, but his voters and supporters. At every turn.

All the while, your candidate and her campaign got fairly nasty, behavior which you egged on.

And now you want people to take you seriously and give you a big group hug.

It's really not going to happen.

You can't continually call someone a cult member for a period of weeks and then expect them to embrace you and/or even take you at face value.

You're a serious piece of work - and I don't mean that as a compliment.

Even Andruw - a fervent, but decent Hillary supporter - called you on it yesterday.

At least listen to him if you won't listen to the "cult members."

This is ridiculous.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 21, 2008 11:51 PM

If he is the nominee, can he win without her supporters?

Are you people actually Democrats, or just Hillary fans? If the former, THERE SHOULD BE NO QUESTION that you will support the Democratic nominee in the fall.

And that goes for the Obama supporters as well. Everybody needs to cut the crap about staying home and pouting in November. Either of our candidates is INFINITELY preferable to sleazy warmonger McCain.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | February 21, 2008 11:54 PM

TPH:

I have this terrible condition where I am able to read into implicit arguments and I imagine that what they are implying is what they actually mean

I'm not sure whether you are simply igorant about media and communications or are just playing dumb. Hopefully you're just being argumentative, otherwise it's pretty sad. But implicit arguments cannot be packaged into sound-bites, clips and quotes to be used in attack ads, by surrogates and in stump speeches. Tortured and complex arguments are difficult to get across to voters, as this campaign has demonstrated yet again. The fact Hillary has never come right out and called Obama unprepared does matter, regardless of what you think.

Posted by Tim K | February 21, 2008 11:55 PM

SoCalJustice:

No, frankly you're being a bit over the top.

Posted by Tim K | February 21, 2008 11:59 PM

EWard and TLB, if you support Hillary, my guess is that you are partisan Democrats. If you are suggesting that, by and large, partisan Democrats would stay home while hundreds of thousands of newcomers and independents attempted to carry your party's candidate to victory over McCain in November, that would be one stunning argument to make.

I would argue this is the first time in post-WWII history (certainly it is the first time since Kennedy in 1960) where a Democratic nominee would have this sort of trancendential appeal, including broad based and enthusiastic appeal with new voters. It is time to admit that their are very good reasons for this phenomenon that have nothing to do with (and are actually the opposite of) a cultist mindset.

Posted by T.K. | February 22, 2008 12:01 AM

The fact Hillary has never come right out and called Obama unprepared does matter, regardless of what you think

Not again, Tim K. Google is your friend.

This is Hillary yesterday:

"One of us is ready to be commander in chief," she told the crowd in New York. "Let's get real. Let's get real about this election, let's get real about our future, let's get real about what it is we can do together."

From:

As Crucial Tests Loom, Clinton Hits Harder
She Says Obama Isn't Ready to Be President
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/20/AR2008022002946.html

Your act is really, really tired.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 22, 2008 12:03 AM

Over the top = someone calling you on your B.S.

I'm hardly the first person to do it here. It happens to you on almost every thread.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 22, 2008 12:06 AM

SoCalJustice:

You're really the one who is beginning to get tiresome.

Find me the quote where she says "Senator Obama is not ready to be president." You won't find it. Whenever she is asked she says some variation on "I let the voters make that determination."

When somebody says "One of us is ready to be commander-in-chief" of course we all know what she was implying, but she never came out and said it. She didn't even say "... and one of us is not." Which she easily could have said.

Listen, clearly we disagree on this point. That's okay. Relax.

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 12:07 AM

Steve LaBonne

Well said! However, McCain is not sleazy. I have the utmost respect for him.

Posted by EWard | February 22, 2008 12:07 AM

You're really the one who is beginning to get tiresome.

Maybe you'll get so tired of me that you'll move on to some place where your dead ender act is appreciated?

Whenever she is asked she says some variation on "I let the voters make that determination."

The fact that you think that's a good thing speaks volumes, because all that exhibits in her is cowardice.

If that's the argument she wants to make - and it is the argument that she's making - then be courageous enough to say it. You don't get elected president being coy and sly. A lesson she is about to learn.

As for me relaxing, to let you and the hilariously ridiculous "Still Undecided" slander people left and right, and then whine about how mean people are in return - that's just insane, Tim.

I wish I could say this has been fun or enlightening.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 22, 2008 12:15 AM

T.K.: thanks for asking, but I'm non-partisan albeit slightly leaning Republican. Even if I were a member of a party, I'd always put country first. I've also been posting at MattY's various sites since he was in diapers, in case it matters.

I'm not a Hillary supporter so much as someone who realizes that Obama would be even worse, including recently dog-whistling for the NAU. It's hard not to read what Obama wrote (excerpted at the link) as anything other than a signal to very powerful people that he's willing to do their bidding, just as long as they let him throw some bones to the useful idiots who'll vote for him.

Posted by TLB | February 22, 2008 12:18 AM

SoCalJustice:

And are you under some impression that I've found your interjections intellectually engaging?

I've written complimentary things about Obama's performances and results. Even tonight I have done so. I've never read you write a single remotely positive comment about Hillary.

My opinions are not any less valid because they conflict with your own. And I'm not a "dead-ender" for seeing some serious flaws in Obama's presentation to the voters and readiness to lead.

I somehow find it hard to imagine you rallying around Clinton were she still leading this race.

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 12:20 AM

In Tim's world implying Obama is not ready to be president without directly saying it somehow elevates Clinton. When Hillary is questioned on this and she refuses to answer that once again elevates Clinton.

Posted by blindjoedeath | February 22, 2008 12:21 AM

Still Undecided:
The comments are from Obama cult-members. Lots of voters don't hang out on the internet.

I'm not saying it was a particularly effective attack just that it was understandable in a campaign. Sorry that Hillary slurred your deity.

Still Undecided:
I find it really troubling how ungracious Obama supporters are being here tonight.

Agreed. They're really an ugly group. That's gonna make it difficult for some to get behind Obama whole-heartedly this fall.

It's kind of a Bill Belichick attitude. And you know how that worked out for him.

No comment needed, I think.

Posted by socratic_me | February 22, 2008 12:27 AM

blindjoedeath:

Those who put stock in such meaningless phrases as "a different kind of politics" or "politics of hope" sort of lose the right to start calling other people delusional.

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 12:27 AM

The zealous Obama supporters are going to be sorely disappointed in November.

His candidacy will probably give many people a lot of satisfaction that they supported a historic candidacy, but that will hardly enough for him to beat McCain in November.

Posted by gregor | February 22, 2008 12:29 AM

When somebody says "One of us is ready to be commander-in-chief" of course we all know what she was implying, but she never came out and said it. She didn't even say "... and one of us is not." Which she easily could have said.

Are you really that stupid? There is only one reason someone says "One of us is ready to be commander-in-chief", and that is to imply that the other person is not.

Posted by Kevin | February 22, 2008 12:29 AM

TK

Your argument makes sense, and I can reason with you. Before Iowa, I didn't even have a favorite candidate. However, after reading these blogs, I gave my support to Hillary.

TK and Steve LaBonne come across as decent Obama supporters.

Posted by EWard | February 22, 2008 12:29 AM

And are you under some impression that I've found your interjections intellectually engaging?

No. I'm under the impression that you're a tireless, disengenuous hack not worthy of intellectual engagement.

I've written complimentary things about Obama's performances and results. Even tonight I have done so.

Good for you. You spend 95% of your time here trashing him and his supporters.

I've never read you write a single remotely positive comment about Hillary.

Not that I need to prove myself to you - in fact, this isn't for you, this is for other people reading this.

"Pretty decent opening statement by Hillary, btw."
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/tied_in_texas_1.php#comment-1395064

And again, not that it matters, but I've written many comments here attacking Andrew Sullivan for his Clinton-hatred.

I don't feel the need to trot them out when dealing with the Obama haters - especially the disingenuous ones.

My opinions are not any less valid because they conflict with your own.

It has nothing to do with the fact that they conflict with mine, it's the fact that you have a history of making shit up, Tim. And many people have called you on it.

And I'm not a "dead-ender" for seeing some serious flaws in Obama's presentation to the voters and readiness to lead.

You're a dead-ender because you go out of your way to make stuff up to bolster your world view - which has been in free fall since Super Tuesday.

I somehow find it hard to imagine you rallying around Clinton were she still leading this race.

Your imagination is one of your biggest problems.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 22, 2008 12:30 AM

Thanks for the non response Tim. You can't answer a question so it's on to the next insult.

Posted by blindjoedeath | February 22, 2008 12:32 AM

A href=http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/wrapup_1.php#comment-1395924>TimK:
Having said all that I would think supporters of Obama should at least acknowledge that Clinton passed up a big opportunity to hurt Obama for the general election. She easily could have said he wasn't ready to be president, and ill-prepared to be commander-in-chief. I don't think that would have given her the nomination but it may have cost him the election in November. So before anyone get's too smug let's remember that.

This is what we call the soft bigotry of low expectations. Hillary is now supposed to get kudos for not tearing down the likely Democratic candidate even though TimK acknowledges it wouldn't have done her much good. As the eminant sage Charlie Brown often said, "Good Grief".

Posted by socratic_me | February 22, 2008 12:33 AM

Kevin:

Do you even read what I write or do you just skim and attack?

I just said "...of course we know what she was imply."

Every one knows that was the argument she was making. I'm simply making the point that there is an advantage for the Obama campaign going forward in her not making the point more strongly and more directly.

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 12:33 AM

Even after Clinton's stupid attempt to go after Obama with the plagarism charge again, I actually found myself warming up to her with that last answer -- thinking it was heartfelt, genuine and spontaneous. And then I read this at TPM tonight:

THAT LINE
"I mentioned at the end of my debate blog that the pivot of Hillary's powerful concluding remarks came from Bill Clinton's 92 campaign. Clinton had various permutations to it back then. But TPM Reader CG found one example in this November 1992 article by Anna Quindlen ...

Clinton, 92: "The hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits the people of this state and this country have been taking for a long time."

Hillary Clinton, tonight: "You know, the hits I’ve taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country."

Just to be 100% clear, there's nothing in the least wrong with this. And it's a great line. But I think it shows the silliness of the 'plagiarism' charges based on a few borrowed lines. Politicians borrow good lines and catch-phrases. Happens all the time. There's nothing wrong with it."

--Josh Marshall
02.21.08 -- 8:02PM

Yeah -- nothing wrong with it unless you hurl a charge of plagarism and then minutes later do the same thing yourself. Its not plagarism -- its called hypocrisy.

Posted by donna | February 22, 2008 12:34 AM

Bill's '92 riff on "taking hits" was even famous enough to make it into Joe Klein's Primary Colors:

Y'know, I've taken some hits in this campaign. It hasn't been easy for me, or my family. It hasn't been fair, but it hasn't been anything compared to the hits a lot of you take every day. Primary Colors, p. 162 (via Dan Drezner)

After all that "xerox" crap, what the hell was she thinking?

Posted by eh | February 22, 2008 12:37 AM

SoCal:

it's the fact that you have a history of making shit up, Tim.

It's time to start giving specific examples of where I have "made shit up." Since you keep making this false accusation repeatedly.

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 12:38 AM

Wow. Apparently, this is the "I fail at tags" night in the socratic household. Apologize to all for the terrible formatting. Hopefully, the content still holds.

Posted by socratic_me | February 22, 2008 12:39 AM

Time to give specific examples? I did that yesterday.

You really want me to retrieve that for everyone here?

You asked for it.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 22, 2008 12:41 AM

Tim,

Whether or not Clinton out and out says, "Obama is unprepared to be President" is immaterial. She says it in so may ways - you admit as much in your previous posts (in fact, she was directly asked in the debate if she thought Barack was unprepared, and this in direct response to her own recent assertions). Yes, we all get the message, she thinks he's green. Then someone like MattY puts up the header, "Clinton says Obama unfit to serve" and, while you're busy posting that Matt is an asshole for pointing out the obvious, the Republicans are cutting and pasting their way to a new talking point. Same difference. And you know, I could care less. It will all come out in the end, but the original point was that Clinton will talk her smack and, when questioned about it in a debate, she defers and equivocates because her attacks are insubstantial. If you look back, that is all I was saying. She can't back up her talk because her attack line is pathetic and lacking.

Posted by TPH | February 22, 2008 12:42 AM

Here is Bill using the line Hillary used tonight:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ7Cs3QvT3U

Here are John Edwards' closing remarks from an earlier debate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAYItnI-lPo

Posted by donna | February 22, 2008 12:43 AM

Yes please and I will be happy to be given an opportunity to respond.

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 12:43 AM

SoCalJustice,

Tim K is not worth the effort.
Goodnight.

Posted by blindjoedeath | February 22, 2008 12:45 AM

TPH:

Well I totally disagree with you and would be happy to lay out my reasons for saying Obama's lacks the judgment to be prepared.

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 12:47 AM

Obama's strongest debate to date, and probably the only one where I thought he flat out won-not just in the 'Hillary didn't land any blows" sort of way.

I wasn't as impressed as others about Hillary's finish (aside from whether it was modeled on other speeches). The question of "how do you do it?" reeks of self pity to me, and the lengthy description of wounded soldiers seemed a little cheap to me-"I've got it hard, but not as hard as that brave young man in the gurney" No sh!t. So obvious it doesn't need to be said, really.

That said, I think you can look back at this debate and see that Hilary, at least, is not win at all costs. Go back and look at her face the 10-15 seconds before her xerox line-she had that awkward, inappropriate smile on her face-she knew the moment had come to deliver the line that her advisors no doubt had told her she HAD to deliver, but she really struggled with going ahead with it. Obama slapped it down and with palpable relief she got back into the issues. I think she decided that if she loses, she loses, but she's not going to go scorched earth.

Posted by Chris | February 22, 2008 12:47 AM

This is completely made up:

Although she easily dispatched Rick Lazio on election day 2000, that was considered to be a close contest all the way through.

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/rightwing_talking_points.php#comment-1386426

This is completely made up:

Just maybe she knew she wasn't ready and needed more time to become prepared. Maybe she felt 3 years in the Senate wasn't quite enough. It's at least something worth considering.

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/rightwing_talking_points.php#comment-1388319

Neither is remotely true - and this cannot be chalked up to a "difference of opinion" or "conflicting opinions."

You just made stuff up about her 2000 campaign and made up a reason why she didn't run for president in 2004.

Both are laughable.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 22, 2008 12:51 AM

HRC's wonkery...her ability to rattle off minutia about any policy qualifies her for chief of staff, not Prez.

The job of the Prez is to present the progressive agenda and then CONVINCE Congress to enact it without mangling it.

He's head and shoulders ahead of her in the convincing department.

Posted by G Davis | February 22, 2008 12:53 AM

Some of the Obama supporters are being pretty offensive and obnoxious in this thread. I'm leaning toward Obama but his internet acolytes don't help make the case. I doubt anybody here has worked as hard, as long, as well, or as successfully for change as Hillary has.

Hillary is right substantively on the health care mandate issue. Obama knows full well that he will have to find some way to do essentially the same thing through the back door, or the system will run into big difficulties as healthy young people stay out. Her connecting it to the universality of SS and Medicare was a good way to communicate the issue.

Posted by mq | February 22, 2008 12:54 AM

On second thought, Tim K, I think I'm being a little unfair on the Clinton 2000 race.

I will retract that.

I like seeing her in races against Republicans - she is really good.

Seeing her against Democrats, however, has not been her finer moment.

But she did not decide to stay out of the 2004 presidential race to get more experience.

As I said yesterday, by her accounting, she still would have had "31" years of experience by that point.

It was her well documented pledge not to run which would have instantly torpedoed her chances. She's smart enough to know that. And you can't compare it to other pledges. This one could not have been broken, as she was a first term carpetbagger.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 22, 2008 12:58 AM

TPH:

Well I totally disagree with you and would be happy to lay out my reasons for saying Obama's lacks the judgment to be prepared.

that's really super, but that's not at all what we were debating. I know you think he's ill-prepared. I've read your tripe for days. I happen to like the guy. maybe go back and see what we were discussing and then respond on that topic (hint: it has to do with Clinton not owning up to her own "implicit" comments in debates). meanwhile, I'm going to sleep.

Posted by TPH | February 22, 2008 1:02 AM

HRC's wonkery...her ability to rattle off minutia about any policy qualifies her for chief of staff, not Prez.

I think she'd be a pretty decent president. She's just clearly second best in this race.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 22, 2008 1:02 AM

I guess I was watching something else entirely at the end of the debate, because all I saw was Hillary's attempt to throw a self-pity party. What are these "hits" she has taken? Being a millionaire war-enabler who most people don't want to vote for? Really, the only thing missing was her, "I told myself I wasn't going to tear up" line. Plus, this whole mother-daughter Chelsea thing is a bit much -- it's the Hillary tear up by proxy. It is becoming Romney-esque.

Posted by jim | February 22, 2008 1:04 AM

Sorry for being off topic.
Did any one read the latest where Paul Krugman compares Obama to Carter but without naming names? He also said that this new Jimmy Carter's term will usher in the hard right. I mean I have heard this comparison before but is it really a fair thing to say?

Posted by Micheline | February 22, 2008 1:04 AM

SoCalJustice:

That's a link to a survey which showed Lazio leading Clinton by 3% in mid-September, 2000.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/13/debate.advancer/index.html

This is a link to a Quinnipiac survey that had the two dead-locked at 45% in July of 2000.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1318.xml?ReleaseID=611

A survey from October 2000 had Clinton up by 7%, a statistically slim lead.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=122798&page=1

That was just from a quick google search.

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 1:05 AM

Tim K, when the thread becomes about you and not the candidates, it means you've become tiresome and not actually saying anything. If you switched "Clinton" and "Obama" in just about any of your comments to be pro-Obama and anti-Clinton, they would have made just as little sense. It's not that you're pro-Clinton; it's that you generally don't have an argument you can make on good faith on anything and not just this primary. You just seem anti-social and don't realize it while you often fail to actually respond to people's actual arguments and instead construct strawmen to make yourself feel superior because you're knee-jerk anti-inspiration or something. You talk down to people and seem to assume you have this special insight that no one else does, but instead everything you say here has been said before many times and with much less baggage and in a way that is more likely to engage people. I kinda feel sorry for you.

Posted by Reality Man | February 22, 2008 1:06 AM

I conceded that.

Back up your 2004 contention, please.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 22, 2008 1:07 AM

What policy details did HRC talk about?

She makes grand sweeping statements that sound great on the trail...freezing interest rates for 5 years for cryin' out loud? How would that work? Freeze them where? What about new lending? Re-fi's? Business lending? How would that benefit the overall economy besides freezing money completely?

She throws junk like that out all the time...no detail, no repercussion analysis, just throws it out.

Because she talks fast and uses lots of proposals doesn't make them good or workable.

Posted by G Davis | February 22, 2008 1:07 AM

TLB, just got through reading the post you recommended on "lonewacko.com".

I find it very difficult to read more into what he says there and in the inlcuded links as being any broader than what he's been saying all along, which is that, as President, he would keep the diologue open with other countries, regardless whether the Bush administration or anyone else classifies them as enemies or friends or otherwise.

We may disagree, but I think that's the smart approach across the board. I don't think it has anything to do with pandering to lobbyists.

Posted by T.K. | February 22, 2008 1:08 AM

Kudos to moderator John King. He got the ball rolling with that question about stuff they say in speeches vs. the stuff they say in debates.

Subtext: HRC you've been saying some nasty things - are you going stick with that sh*t tonight, sitting next to him, when he's got a chance to defend himself, or are you going to quit saying it?

So she stuck with it and got creamed. On the plagiarism and on the idea that Obama's done nothing - she actually brought up that texas dude's freeze-up to make that point, as though the guy was speechless because Obama's done nothing, and not because he just froze. That gave Obama the opening - the duty - to talk and talk about what he's done. It was perfection.

Posted by Phoebe | February 22, 2008 1:11 AM

EWard, thanks, ditto.

Posted by T.K. | February 22, 2008 1:12 AM

Reality Man:

Literally nothing you had to say there was true or worth responding to.

SoCalJustice:

For 2004, I regret if I made it sound like I had some kind of inside information.

The point I was trying to make - which apparently got lost - was that Hillary Clinton served out her full term in the senate before running for president, while obama served 2 years of his term before running for president.

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 1:16 AM

TPH:

Clearly you like Obama and that's extraordinary.

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 1:19 AM

Tim K. -

There used to be a time in this country when people who ran for President did not have to be lifelong elected office-seekers. In my estimation, it would help to restore at least a bit of that freshness in the office of the President, so that he (or she) can check and balance what Congress (with no term limits in sight) has long been doing to make government an inside job, rather than an open and democratic process.

I therefore disagree with your point (and the point of Hillary's campaign generally) that political experience should be the primary determinant of eligibility for a party's presidential nomination.

Posted by T.K. | February 22, 2008 1:27 AM

The point I was trying to make - which apparently got lost - was that Hillary Clinton served out her full term in the senate before running for president, while obama served 2 years of his term before running for president.

But you said it was because she felt she didn't have the experience to run in 2004, rather than the actual reason why she didn't run.

That's making something up.

But anyway, that's neither here nor there.

Obviously she's been in the U.S. Senate for longer. That extra experience has clearly not led to her running and managing and quality campaign.

And while campaigning and governing are two different animals, both involve management and managing people.

This effort of hers has been less than inspiring, in the plain meaning of the word, not in the "cult" sense.

All I can hope is that she starts being 100% gracious at this point, to salvage a future shot at the White House if that's what she wants.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 22, 2008 1:28 AM

T.K.

Listen, we just clearly disagree on this. I know many here just think I'm some terrible person who just wants to tear down Obama for the sake of tearing him down. But this is really what I think. I respect your opinion, I wish more people here would respect mine.

I do have a question for you though:

What do you think Obama is talking about when he uses a phrase like "a different kind of politics."? And considering all we know about Washington and the political system in general, what gives you confidence he is going to be able to deliver that kind of fundamental, systemic change?

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 1:33 AM

T.K: Obama might as well as have been furiously winking as he (or his speechwriters) wrote that. He mentioned SPP meetings and used their words. It's like that SNL sotto voce character, only more obvious.

In any case, I just uploaded a video about one of the things CNN forgot to tell everyone.

Posted by TLB | February 22, 2008 1:34 AM

SoCalJustice:

Should Obama's campaign stop calling her divisive and claim she'll say anything to win?

Or is the graciousness only a one-way street?

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 1:37 AM

"Reality Man:

Literally nothing you had to say there was true or worth responding to."

You've insulted people in this thread and anytime you get called out on it, you go "that doesn't count, cultists!" At this point you're descending into self-parody.

Posted by Reality Man | February 22, 2008 1:38 AM

"I respect your opinion, I wish more people here would respect mine."

When you actually start taking people's opinions at face value, then they will return the favor. Do you see people going after Andruw so harshly? When you assume that people support the person you don't like because they are vapid and think "hope" and "change" are arguments in and of themselves and not campaign rhetoric (which of course everyone realizes, not just you), then people will actually engage you. There have been conservatives on this board people have engaged. The fact that conservatives are able to get along better here than you says a lot about you.

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

No, I just said you weren't telling the truth.

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 1:43 AM

"No, I just said you weren't telling the truth.

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 1:43 AM"

No, I called you out on your bullshit and you are so wrapped up in your own belief in your own supposed genius that you can't even realize it. You seem to have a victimization complex. I've seen plenty of people like you in my life and they all react the same way "y'all don't like me cuz you're just jealous of how much smarter I am than you!" Self-examination is hard, isn't it?

Posted by Reality Man | February 22, 2008 1:47 AM

Reality Man:

I couldn't be less interested in engaging with somebody like you.

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 1:47 AM

When have I ever made any claims about being smarter than anyone?

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 1:49 AM

"Reality Man:

I couldn't be less interested in engaging with somebody like you.

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 1:47 AM"

How did I know you were going to say that, Mr. Textbook Case?

Posted by Reality Man | February 22, 2008 1:50 AM

Reality Man:

The truth is it's a lot easier to attack people personally than deal with their substantive points. And I've made more substantive points than I can count. If you have trouble understanding them that's not my problem. But I don't think you do, I just think you like being difficult and mean-spirited.

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 1:52 AM

What do you think Obama is talking about when he uses a phrase like "a different kind of politics."?

One part of it, at least, is simply this: Obama is tapping into the mood of the country. After the incredible fuck-ups of the past 7 years, people are ready for drastic change. Hillary mainly appeals to people who want to rerun the 90's and who are looking for a (merely) competent manager.

I'm old enough to remember Bill Clinton's campaign in 92. He talked a lot about a town called "Hope." Remember that? What is ironic is that it is the people most loyal to the Clintons (not to mention the Clintons themselves) who are now attacking Obama for his hope-mongering. Of course, we are just talking about rhetoric here for the moment. But that matters. Obama is the new coke right now, just as Bill was in 92...only more so.

So if you are asking if Obama can actually change politics as we know it, yes and no. He can change it insofar as he can bring a lot of new people into the system and create new coalitions. That changes the dynamics. Can he change politics in some sort of 'lions lay down with the lambs' fashion? Of course not. Can he make the GOP less insane? Of course not.

Posted by jim | February 22, 2008 1:52 AM

Should Obama's campaign stop calling her divisive and claim she'll say anything to win?

They don't take advice from me.

I personally think she's waged - mostly via Mark Penn - an extremely divisive and insulting campaign.

And I'm not even talking about the personal attacks against Obama - but the minimizing of his victories and the sleazy Michigan/Florida about face. Amazing how all those insignificant victories add up.

If the Obama campaign wants to point that out, that's up to them. She also deserves to be called on her "Xerox" moment tonight.

But if they choose to take the high road, that's up to them as well and a fine strategy. At this point, it's probably the right thing to do - but I can't blame them for being bitter.

And despite what some people believe to be a gracious exit tonight by Hillary, we will see how this week and a half goes before voting in Texas and Ohio. I have the feeling she's not yet done with the negative attack. Maybe the fact that a Democratic crowd booed her tonight will clue in her and her advisers. One can only hope.

What do you think Obama is talking about when he uses a phrase like "a different kind of politics."?

Well, since all 5 of the viable presidential candidates (Clinton, Obama, McCain, Huckabee and Romney) have all run on a "change" theme, all of them attack lobbyists and "special interests," I think he means pretty close to the same thing as everyone else. It's just a little more credible coming from him

And considering all we know about Washington and the political system in general, what gives you confidence he is going to be able to deliver that kind of fundamental, systemic change?

I'm not sure he can. The system has been in place for years and is becoming more, not less, entrenched. I just think he has a better shot at it than any of the other candidates, for a variety of reasons. And so does a majority of the Democratic party.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 22, 2008 1:53 AM

"When have I ever made any claims about being smarter than anyone?

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 1:49 AM"

Dude, it's your attitude of superiority. People can read into that.

Also, how are we somehow the cultists when many of your arguments come straight from the Clinton campaign? It would be one thing if you were making your arguments in favor of Chris Dodd, but your arguments for your candidate just don't match her.

Posted by Reality Man | February 22, 2008 1:54 AM

"i believe **** totally won"
"then f*** you"
"no, f*** you"
"f*** you, you are below me"
"no, you are!"
"no, you are!"
"no, you are!"
etc, etc, ad nauseum.

Posted by rand | February 22, 2008 1:57 AM

Jim:

Thanks for this reply to my question.

I've also noticed the parallel between the Clinton 1992 campaign and Obama's current one, as have other observers. Bill Clinton also promised to take on powerful lobbies and not be swayed by special interests. He would be a "New Democrat".

But I think we all also remember how that turned out.

And I guess I'd just prefer the people who've been through this before and know there isn't going to be some bipartisan pep rally after this election.

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 2:00 AM

"The truth is it's a lot easier to attack people personally than deal with their substantive points. And I've made more substantive points than I can count. If you have trouble understanding them that's not my problem. But I don't think you do, I just think you like being difficult and mean-spirited.

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 1:52 AM"

Except when someone actually makes a point, you dodge it and act dumb. Do you deny attacking people on this thread? I'm calling you out for attacking people and explaining that's why people don't like you: not for being against Obama, but for how you argue.

Posted by Reality Man | February 22, 2008 2:01 AM

Reality Man:

What exactly do you think your attitude is like?

(in case it wasn't obvious, that's a rhetorical question)

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 2:03 AM

I've read all the comments and am really struck by the usual e-bombing tactic of Obama supporters who can not seem to stop themselves from resorting to right-wing Hillary Hate devices (the "Billary" slur, for example repeated again and again) and can not entertain the possibility that their candidate might have even the slightest imperfection (and now that I think about it, that DOES smack of cult behavior or at least borders on it). Their total contempt for their opponent within their own party (if they are even Democrats) and hero-worship of their candidate is extremely off-putting.

Posted by Democrat | February 22, 2008 2:05 AM

Reality Man:

I'm not going to deny attacking people's arguments. I've sometimes called people's arguments and opinions naive and unrealistic. How is that off limits?

I haven't personally insulted people. Yet, I've been called everything from a loser, unemployed, bald, fat, small, crazy, stupid, and even a hermaphrodite.

So I'm really not going to be lectured on personal attacks.

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 2:07 AM

"Reality Man:

What exactly do you think your attitude is like?

(in case it wasn't obvious, that's a rhetorical question)

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 2:03 AM"

I have a pissed off attitude because of your bullshit. I'm not trying to have a good attitude right now because we're not arguing issues, we're arguing over you. I'm not trying to be your friend or anything here. I'm just calling you on your shit. Replying "I know you are, but what am I?" is not an argument. I'm calling you out on this because of your use of strawmen, your bullshit like saying people who believe "hope" is an argument are people not worth engaging, which nobody here is doing and stuff like that. It is your own fault that you elicit this kind of reaction. This isn't about the candidates, it's about you.

Posted by Reality Man | February 22, 2008 2:09 AM

It's not as if the Xerox line was hers, was it?

But elsewhere, you did get a sense of the Hillary Clinton who has been trying to break out from her campaign, and who would be an equally inspirational figure in politics.

I'd like to see that in this campaign season, even if it doesn't change the outcome. And I'd like to see it at the end, when she gives a speech saying that Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson should take their money and fuck off.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 22, 2008 2:10 AM

I know that I were denouncing Hillary Clinton in similar terms on this blog I would not be getting this kind of reaction.

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 2:10 AM

"I've sometimes called people's arguments and opinions naive and unrealistic."

When you dismiss people because you dismiss a strawman version of their argument, then you are at the very least arguing in bad faith and not actually engaging people.

"I haven't personally insulted people. Yet, I've been called everything from a loser, unemployed, bald, fat, small, crazy, stupid, and even a hermaphrodite."

Some of them, especially the last one are out of bounds. However, they are an unsurprising result of your own attitude. If you just made your points without being a jerk, you likely would either a) not be called this or b) have some of your opponents back you up on these things being out of bounds. After all, socaljustice, who you've dismissed at least once on this thread, has backed up his opponents like this. I'm sorry you don't get it and you probably never will, but I wouldn't be surprised if this is the type of response you get from people in everyday life.

Posted by Reality Man | February 22, 2008 2:16 AM

"I know that I were denouncing Hillary Clinton in similar terms on this blog I would not be getting this kind of reaction.

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 2:10 AM"

Like I said earlier, you've just submerged yourself into a feeling of victimization and persecution. You would probably be annoying the hell out of the few Clinton supporters that are here if you making the same kind of posts, just pro-Obama. Do you notice none of them get as much vitrol directed their way as you. Repeat after me: it's not your views, it's you.

Posted by Reality Man | February 22, 2008 2:21 AM

Reality Man:

You're just being hysterical and I'm embarrassed for you.

SoCalJustice:

I personally think she's waged - mostly via Mark Penn - an extremely divisive and insulting campaign.

Many independent observers like Mark Halperin of TIME and Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post have pointed out that the Obama campaign has also practiced attack politics.

I find it offensive that the Obama campaign would attack Hillary Clinton for being polarizing when she got that image by fighting for Democratic values. Those battles of the 1990's he's always complaining about were important and were about something. We'll see if Obama can get anything accomplished in his term without making enemies or getting high negatives.

I realize the "xerox" remark fell flat, but I found it pretty funny. It's totally fair to say that if one's candidacy is going to be based on the ability to inspire with inspiration words those words ought to be one's own. That's not a radical statement.

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 2:24 AM

His plan shows trust in the people do make rational decisions if he clears the path...

Point taken, but I don't see how he clears the path to the destination, and I also don't see a belief that the destination is in itself worth reaching.

Fortunately, I think that Hillary Clinton will still be in the Senate when the legislation is written.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 22, 2008 2:32 AM

When have I ever made any claims about being smarter than anyone?
Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 1:49 AM

About two minutes before you ask the question

I couldn't be less interested in engaging with somebody like you.
Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 1:47 AM

Only people who think they're smarter would say something like that.

BTW this is my first time posting here and i did it just because i am so fed up with your ignorance and arrogance Tim.

If you're just a troll then congratulation for getting a reaction out of me.

But if you're a real Hillary supporter then your comments have done more harm to the image of your candidate.

Posted by Lee | February 22, 2008 2:40 AM

Lee, thanks for your 2 pennies.

Have you bothered reading the kind of comments other people write? Try being a little bit more balanced in subsequent posts.

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 2:44 AM

Democrat,

What is so inherently sweet about being a Democrat? That seems to be your premise: Obama "cultists" are rocking the boat of the Democratic Party.

To be fair, the Dems' philosophy is generally more palatable today than the convoluted one of the Republicans, who pander to some pretty unsavory interests and use dishonest tactics to widen their base. But another fair statement is that the Democratic Party has a terrible recent history (say, 1968 to present) of nominations.

If the new voters and independents Obama has rallied against politics as usual strike you as disrespectful of the Democratic Party and its dedication to its own insiders, you should consider that maybe they have some right to be that way. Obama's inclusiveness, reasonableness and charisma could be what finally makes YOUR party the obvious choice for intelligent non-bigots across the country.

Posted by T.K. | February 22, 2008 2:48 AM

I realize the "xerox" remark fell flat, but I found it pretty funny.

Of course you did. But you're not known for your sound judgment, are you?

If you want to think that your candidate generating the only boos, hisses and whistles of the debate is funny... This is one of the many reasons she keeps losing. You guys are tone deaf.

Now, what is actually really funny is that she then proceeded to lift lines from both her husband and Senator Edwards, minutes after making a contrived, canned, phony crack - which generated the only boos, hisses and whistles of the debate.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/179614.php

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAYItnI-lPo

More sad than funny, actually. But it's both.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 22, 2008 2:52 AM

uh, democrat. that pretty much goes for both supporters, but it's also been the MO of MY's comment section essentially forever.

my $.02 is that obama crushed tonight. Health care was a draw, but he really trounced her on the rest of the issues. Her last answer was lovely, but did sound like she was dropping out. The fact that it was borrowed from edwards makes it somewhat hilariously hypocritical.

Posted by lolwut | February 22, 2008 2:53 AM

Dear Tim K:
Hi there. I have been reading your postings, and was wondering if I might make a small, humble suggestion. Reality Man is actually correct about the tone of your posts. Perhaps because you are writing with such passion you are unaware of this, which is completely understandable. Also, you do have a tendancy to foist straw men in your arguments. I have noticed that people sometimes do this when their desire to win the argument supercedes their desire to reach a better understanding of what the truth is. With that said, my humble suggestion to you (and Reality Man and SoCaljustice, with whom you seem so often at odds) is that you approch you arguing in the spirit of inquiry rather than as a sophist. I know you have some strong opinions, but if you think about it, don't you think that others have wisdom to offer that is just as valid as your own? I have always thought that real argumentation is not for the satisfaction of one's own sense of superior knowledge but rather for the purpose of learning and gaining a clearer perception of truth. I believe that that was what Reality Man was trying to say, but you immediately cast insults at him, saying implying that he was beneath your consideration, instead of considering if there was something valuable in what he said. I'm sorry to intrude this way. I certainly do not have enough info to make these generalizations, but it is the impression I am getting. I will shut up now.

Posted by mister-b | February 22, 2008 2:55 AM

Of course you did. But you're not known for your sound judgment, are you?

Could you please cut it out with the petty remarks?

I actually suspect that remark won't hurt her as much as you may think. Since it's a memorable attack it's bound to end up in every news story about the debate, unlike any of his attacks on her. Just because the crowd didn't like it doesn't mean it won't hurt him.

I already checked out this thing about her apparently lifting these lines from John Edwards. I think we're defining down the definition of "lifting" to a whole new level. There's a difference between copying a whole section of a speech, word for word, and saying something vaguely similar to what somebody else said.

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 2:58 AM

I just want to clear up one assertion that has appeared here several times.

Obama's unity theme is not "can't we all get along." It is about *not* demonizing Republicans (or any voter who is not a registered Democrat) *and* persuading them to vote for Obama because he does not hew to some idealized Democratic line just because it is what Democrats have always supported. The idea is that that gets you a nice big majority. Obama then takes that majority into the White House and can use the tremendous power that the executive office in this country has (aborogated to itself) *because* he can go to Congress and say, "Listen, I am a wildly popular president and I have the big microphone. I'm willing to work with you but if you want to play Rove games, you're going to lose. The reason why you will lose is because I've got 60% of the people behind me and they trust what I say. You, silly Senator, simply do not have the clout to down a popular President. (See Bill Clinton v. Newt Gingrich. Who left office first?) Now, let's see if we can actually get something done. But remember, I set the agenda."

It is a smart use of the bludgeon that is the executive office, when the President has popular support. (It's what FDR used to get lots of unconstitutional legislation passed and then through the Supreme Court.) No question it's a tough thing to pull off but it's a lot more promising (has a higher ceiling, if you will) than this nonsense 50/50 split.

Extreme, blind partisanship benefits no one but the two major parties and their elected officials who can talk all this garbage and then blame the other side when things go south. Oh, and Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. It's a particularly dumb strategy for Dems since Dems actually have a vision of a place for good government. Rabid conservatives like a split because it means nothing gets done, people get disgusted and give up on our political system, leaving it to the "wise" few that the conservatives believe they are -- fewer messy opinions to have to take into account and less government overall.

Posted by Elissa | February 22, 2008 3:01 AM

And Tim K is just a troll. I don't even care if he's a GOP stooge. He's more likely a Playing Dumb Troll, who likes the fact that people respond to him.

(That his own lines are Xeroxed is amusing, though.)

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 22, 2008 3:03 AM

mister-b:

I appreciate your post. I think you have a point. I think it is fair to say that I have often been more interested in scoring debating points in these discussions than engage in meaningful inquiry. But i do not think it is fair to imply that I have somehow been exceptional in that regard. I do not think the tone of Reality Man, SoCalJustice and others have been especially inviting of disagreement. I think if he made the point as eloquently and respectfully as you have now - instead of casting aspersions on me - he would have received a far different reply.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts.

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 3:07 AM

Could you please cut it out with the petty remarks?

I don't know, Tim. I mean, you have a been dishing out insults since you came here. And when it gets thrown back at you, you try to claim some higher ground.

But I'll give it a shot. Here's Howard Wolfson on tonight:

What we saw in the final moments in that debate is why Hillary Clinton is the next President of the United States. Her strength, her life experience, her compassion. She's tested and ready. It was the moment she retook the reins of this race and showed women and men why she is the best choice

You have better judgment than Howard Wolfosn. How's that?

As for this:

actually suspect that remark won't hurt her as much as you may think. Since it's a memorable attack it's bound to end up in every news story about the debate

And every time it's mentioned, it will either be as:

1) A really negative, desperate cheap shot by her; or
2) A really negative, desparate and hypocritical (people will show the Edwards and Bill Clinton lines she "borrowed) cheap shot by her.

It's lose, lose, even if you personally enjoyed it. You are one of the very few. I guarantee you the people in her campaign who didn't want her to say that will be the few people in her inner circle saying "I told you so."

I already checked out this thing about her apparently lifting these lines from John Edwards. I think we're defining down the definition of "lifting" to a whole new level.

Hardly. It's pretty much exactly the same.

There's a difference between copying a whole section of a speech, word for word, and saying something vaguely similar to what somebody else said.

A) It wasn't vaguely similar; and
B) Whatever difference there may be, and it's tiny to begin with, if at all, shrinks to nil when you do it on the heels of a poorly received "Xerox" joke.

It was an embarrassment.

But then again, since she "is the next President of the United States" and she "retook the reins of this race," that embarrassment only comes in second place on her list for the night.

First place goes to Howard Wolfson.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 22, 2008 3:09 AM

SoCalJustice:

Do you really think the tone of your comments to me invite serious discussion? Everything you're saying is just dripping with sarcasm. And I don't really feel like playing along with it anymore.

It's really hypocritical for you to be "calling me on my (supposed) bullshit" when you write in the tone you do.

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 3:17 AM

Having just read through this whole comment thread, what I find astonishing is that the first hour of this thread, up until the point when Tim K showed up and started whining about how "ungracious" Obama supporters were being, largely consisted of, well, Obama supporters being gracious to Clinton. This wasn't without exception, but there are no clear examples of ungraciousness towards Clinton in the whole first hour of discussion in this thread.

As far as ungraciousness, up until Tim K moved the whole discussion to arguments about this, here's what I say:

1) An ungracious comment by half-robot, half-man Richard Steven Hack.
2) An ungracious comment by never before seen commenter "john o." (repeated twice)
3) a couple of somewhat combative comments from SoCalJustice and others in response to provocation from "Still Undecided"
4) Some genuinely foul commentary from "Monica's stained blue dress"
5) Perhaps a few other mildly ungracious remarks about Clinton.

At the same time, you had a lot of people commenting on, for instance a) how they liked Hillary's final remarks; b) how impressed they were by her command of policy knowledge; c) how it seemed to them that she's realized she probably can't win, and that her last remarks seemed somewhat elegiac; etc.

Obviously, this is a site where most of the people tend to be pro-Obama. And you're going to get obnoxiously anti-Clinton people appearing here and there. But the real obnoxiousness started when Tim came on and called out the thread for what was essentially non-existent ungraciousness.

Posted by John | February 22, 2008 3:28 AM

Thanks John, really appreciate the piling on.

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 3:32 AM

Clinton passed up a big opportunity to hurt Obama for the general election. She easily could have said he wasn't ready to be president, and ill-prepared to be commander-in-chief.

Ok...and after she said that how would she answer the only necessary comeback of *and you are qualified how exactly? Care to explain your judgement lapses with Iraq, Levin, Iran, flag burning, etc.?*

Please...she is as least smart enough to not pull a stunt as stupid as you suggest.

As to Obama fans being ungracious....I truly resent the Clintons for the trash they've pulled in this race and the past. Bill's conduct, past and present, NAFTA, DOMA, DADT; her votes on Iraq, Levin, Iran, triangulating every issue at the cost of thousands of lives, and trillions of my daughters dollars.

They are power mongering hustlers. I don't owe them anything. Obama has to stay above it, I don't.

Posted by G Davis | February 22, 2008 3:38 AM

Whatever, Tim.

If you ever demonstrate in your time here that you're worthy of serious discussion, then that will happen.

But you have a lot of amends to make first.

I'm not sure what your experiences have been in other walks of life, but, as a general rule, if you go around insulting people - and it's cute to pretend now that you haven't - for multiple days, you shouldn't expect them to engage you in "serious discussion."

There is even someone showing up here today (forget a few days back when you were in major insult mode), as a case of first impression, commenting on your tone.

On a final note, it's pretty clear you don't know the meaning of the word hypocritical.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 22, 2008 3:40 AM

The Xerox remark was one of the tamer "attacks" launched in the recent history of Democratic primaries. Find your nearest Dean or Gephardt supporter and ask them about the ads (and rumors) in Iowa during the 2004 cycle. Even Gore and Bradley were harder on each other in 2000 but that race was over after New Hampshire. This is the longest (in terms of the number of states having voted) the primary has remained competitive in 20 years. People are reacting to the total volume and mistaking it for intensity. Excluding blogs and their comment sections this has been a relatively mild competition.

Posted by Obama fathered a black child | February 22, 2008 4:28 AM

I demand that all of you engage me in a serious discussion and respond properly to my previous comments, which, although they have not yet been made, would certainly have been made in a truly serious fashion worthy of respect and not comments dripping of sarcasm from your George Foreman grills of discourse.

Posted by El Cid | February 22, 2008 6:06 AM

I think it's kinda hilarious that there's a poster here who styles him/herself "Still Undecided." I bet you spend twice as long as everyone else at the supermarket, too, pondering the competing brands of toilet paper.

I think you're striking a phony, "fair and balanced" pose. If you can't make up your mind whom you prefer by this point in the campaign season, you're either an indecisive nitwit or just disingenuous, imagining that someone will be impressed by your put-on ability to "see through" both sides as you sagaciously weigh your options. Each candidate is as known a quantity as you're going to get, unless you're just waiting around for some end-game blunder.

Posted by Bill | February 22, 2008 7:30 AM

SoCalJustice: On second thought, Tim K, I think I'm being a little unfair on the Clinton 2000 race.

No, you're not. Tim K can cherrypick polls all he wants. Lazio was a fall guy--note that he left politics after he lost this race. The success of Hillary's "listening tour" upstate was well-known, and Hillary was expected to win. This was not a tough contest against a forbidable opponent, as Tim K implies.

Posted by Lucy | February 22, 2008 7:44 AM

The objective analysis is that HRC was surprisingly non-combative towards Obama last night. So you cultists can quit going batshit over one or two gentle elbows.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/179617.php

Posted by Still Undecided | February 22, 2008 7:55 AM

Ok, I take back what I said about "Still Undecided" striking a self-aggrandizing undecided pose. The "cultist" remark makes it clear he/she is just a garden variety pro-Clinton troll.

Posted by Bill | February 22, 2008 8:41 AM

Bill Clinton also promised to take on powerful lobbies and not be swayed by special interests. He would be a "New Democrat".

But I think we all also remember how that turned out.

And here you are carrying water for his wife. Huh.

But! Substance! I was watching CNN this morning and they talked about their 'undecided voters' tracking. The first thing they played was the "Xerox" comment, and they showed Hillary's numbers taking a nosedive. They were going to go to the positives after the commercial, but I had to go to work then.

Lucy: I remember Lazio going after Hillary pretty strongly in the debates and getting hammered for it too-- he basically set his own campaign on fire at that point.

Posted by Persia | February 22, 2008 9:29 AM

I have nothing to add except that I hope the Xerox(R) company goes after Clinton for attempted genericide :)

Posted by Alexis | February 22, 2008 11:13 AM

Persia:

And here you are carrying water for his wife. Huh.

My point was not that Bill Clinton failed. I think his president was quite successful my comparative standards, especially compared to the current incumbent. My point was that promises to "do politics differently" never amount to anything.

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 1:07 PM

Hillary is right substantively on the health care mandate issue. Obama knows full well that he will have to find some way to do essentially the same thing through the back door, or the system will run into big difficulties as healthy young people stay out. Her connecting it to the universality of SS and Medicare was a good way to communicate the issue.

Posted by mq | February 22, 2008 12:54 AM

mq-This just shows a basic misunderstanding of the real issue.

HRC's plan is about health INSURANCE, not health CARE.

Her plan is based on evening out risk for the existing private FOR-PROFIT health INSURANCE industry.

Her mandates are to force you to buy a product from a FOR-PROFIT company, thereby guaranteeing those companies PROFIT margin.

Medicare and Social Security (which has nothing at all to do with health care) are direct payers for health CARE, cutting out the FOR-PROFIT industry. This means whatever tax dollars are devoted to them, in this case Medicare, are devoted to actually paying for health CARE, not guaranteeing a private company profits.

Plus, Medicare already takes care of the old and sick, so the Clintons plan is forcing EVERYONE who's healthy to guarantee private insurance companies profits so they will cover those who are sick.

Why not just open up Medicare or Medicaid for those that are sick rather than this nonsensical route to include the private FOR-PROFIT insurance companies at all?

My preferred method to solving some of the basic problems of our health care system would be to open Medicare to all...it eliminates all the extraneous government systems we have today...the VA, SCHIP, Medicaid, all the various federally guaranteed state systems, etc. It would cut out the ridiculous amounts of money we all spend on INSURANCE against the costs of health CARE. I'm not sure the public is ready for such a drastic move, though.

Obama's plan is virtually the same as the Clintons with a couple of added benefits, but the glaring difference is he's not willing to force anyone to buy a private FOR-PROFIT product.

I wonder if that's even constitutional.

The Clintons plan will go nowhere in Congress. No elected official will vote to garnish wages, or even fine someone over a FOR-PROFIT product.

Obama realizes this. His plan will help more than have help now, plus it has the added benefit of standing a chance to get passed.

Would you rather get something passed that helps some or go back to the 90's and set back doing anything for another 20 years?

Posted by G Davis | February 22, 2008 2:24 PM

Hillary tried to repeat her tear-jerking "people ask me how I do it" routine, which was so successful in New Hampshire, and pointed out that the "hits" she's taken are nothing compared to those taken by the wounded soldiers she and McCain witnessed at Brooks Army Med Center in San Antonio. So true. There were amputees, soldiers with faces half blown off, etc. Hillary and McCain are showing their concern a little late inasmuch as they both voted for the 2002 Lieberman-Warner-McCain Resolution which took us into the unnecessary war with Iraq. On the other hand, Obama had the wisdom and judgment to oppose it from day one.

Posted by Tamsin Crozier | February 22, 2008 2:26 PM

Obama is only pausing because hes actually thinking about a response and trying to answer the question as opposed to Clinton who has an automatic response to every question.

Posted by martin f | February 22, 2008 2:56 PM

Wrap-Up

Comments (196)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories