Senator Obama is clearly the winner of the New Hampshire debates.

He remained above the fray and smartly avoided Senator Clinton's invitation to a mud fight which we the public did not want to see.

I'm curious as to why Senator Clinton thinks that she has been "changing" for 35 years. All I remember during the 8 years of Clinton in the White House is the sex scandals. Will that change?

Attempting to step aside all subjective flack, I saw/see it this way:

Hillary is very knowledgeable on the issues and strong. I respect her intellect and her backbone. But there is something about her that does NOT motivate. She has a certain quality, intangible, that turns one off, not on.

Obama is truly inspirational. His rhetoric soars. But he appears to lack depth concerning the issues. If he can surround himself with top-notch advisors (ala JFK) we would be fine.

Edwards is genuine. And would be great for the country. But the forces he wants to take on are just too powerful and will never allow him to be elected. Even if he "won", he'd lose (remember the election of 2000 ?).

I don't think Richardson should have been there...

On the Republican side:

Though I disagree with him on some MAJOR points (Iraq and health care), I respect John McCain. He is as genuine as Edwards and McCain is not afraid to speak politically unpopular truths. He is no sound-bite candidate.

Glad they are ganging-up to kick the chameleon Mit Romney's a**. I pray he does not win the nomination, 'cause ya never know, he could get elected. And if you think the past 7 years have been a disaster for America's long-term interests, a Romney Administration could be even worse.

Why is Thompson still in the race?

Guiliani looked way better than I would have liked. He didn't sound too bad. But why he thinks he could be president is beyond me. What does he have besides 9/11?

Huckabee sounded like, well... Huckabee. Despite Iowa, I think he is an extraordinarily long, long-shot. But it would be good if he won, because the Dem candiate would soundly defeat him in the general election. I'm thinking landslide on the order of LBJ versus Goldwater.

So, there it is. If Obama gets the nod, and hires the right people, then we're in good shape. If HRC wins the nomination, it will be an extremely tight race in the general election regardless of who the Repubs put up.

Edwards, though he would be great, doesn't have a prayer.

Romney is the dream candidate of Big Money, whose interest is very short term, geo-politically-arrogant and detrimental to America's long term well-being. Watch out for him... he's dangerous.

Huckabee would have a devout core of support -- not exceeding 35 % of the populace.

Thompson and Guiliani should just stop. C'Mon!

McCain would probably make a good president, but I'd rather see Obama or Edwards (dream on!).

Nevadadandy - you have spelled out a good reason to elect Bill Clinton if we could! This "real life" experience stuff is just as amorphous as "change." Who has not had a real life experience. Hillary went to college and law school just like Obama. Hillary is well traveled and any moron at this point knows how troubling our image is in the rest of the world. Frankly, I do not care that Obama has lived abroad. We can have a statesman/stateswoman as president who lived his/her life domestically. The question is not whether you have lived abroad, but whether you are versed sufficiently in world affairs to understand the importance of the global context of our economic and political reality. I understand this, and I have not lived abroad. I think that is a weak criterion for selecting a president.

As for the health care issues, most people the age of these candidates (and Obama is among the youngest) have lost a parent. I know that Hillary's father is deceased. So I imagine that all of them have encountered the costs of healthcare. But let's not deceive ourselves -- that Obama and Hillary have lost parents does not make their experiences with the health care system similar to the "common people." Both are Ivy League law graduates with substantial resources available to take care of their families medical needs. So I found this part of your analysis troubling.

In any event, I believe we have a long race ahead of us. I would love to hear a concrete message from all of the candidates -- one that is based on substance, not feel-good platitudes. If I want emotional inspiration, I will listen to some jazz or read Maya Angelou. I expect substantive policy statements from my presidential candidates.

American voters who are looking for real change must become a part of the change process by ignoring the negative ads, looking at the candidate who pracice what he/she preaches, and looking at the candidates real life practical experiences, not so much as their political experience.

I believe practical real life experience arms a person with a better perspective on the problems and issues facing Americans. Obama has real life experiences that make him better able to deal with our real life issues. He spent several years living in a foreign country as a child. He knows Americans are viewed by foreigners as being arrogant. He was raised by a single parent and elderly grandparents. He knows the problems they faced. This is very similar to the situation faced by many children in America today. He lost his mother to cancer and he knows of her concerns for paying for health care during her battle. All of this has given him a better understanding of the real life problems many Americans are facing today. We need a President who has shared many of the experiences most Americans face on a daily basis. He was able to change his circumstances and better his life and I believe armed with that experience, he will help to change and better the lives of all Americans.

Political experience is meaningless. We have candidates who have years of political experience but have not demonstrated good sound judgment and a true understanding of the problems facing Americans. They are so wrapped up in making political deals to "enhance" their personal power at the expense of Americans. Only a person who has not been tainted by the established way of doing business can bring about true change.

Thanks Lylepink. I appreciate the comment. I think this will be a long race, and that Hillary will not drop out anytime soon. Edwards is doing what he does best -- kissing up for a VP pick. Hillary is in it for the leading role. I totally admire Obama, and will support him if he gets the nod. I just think Dems need to ask themselves why they keep doing the unexpected and LOSING the election year after year. Dean had galvanized the party, but he was too chummy. Clinton galvanized the party, but she's too stiff. Jackson galvanized the party, but we needed Dukakis. There are so many losers who have been given the nomination in my lifetime that I can only expect the worst from the party at this point. Change looks remarkably like the past.

I am also amazed how gender has fallen out of the equation. I do not recall a woman ever winning a presidential primary. Jesse Jackson won 13 during his two runs. So that history has already been made. I think on some level, Americans are uncomfortable with the notion of a woman president which is quite pathetic. A lot of "guys" on here have subtly called Hillary the "b-word" in describing her performance. When the guys go after Hillary, they are vigorously taking her to task....When she does it, she is "mean." Earth to men: Hillary is not your mother or other adult caretaker you had as a kid. Get over your childhood issues with "bossy" women and act soberly.

Obama theme song?

http://xpatriatealanjlipman.blogspot.com/

Here's the first Republican attack ad out of the gate. Distraught Latin/ American families talking about how many loved ones they lost to drug wars. Then the caption, "Obama calls it "scoring some blow", we call it supporting drug cartels"

That's just the start! Here's the next ad, "Barack Obma lives in a 1.9 million dollar house. His grandmother lives in this hut with no medical care, no water and no electricity. If Obama wont get these things for his own grandmather, why would he get them for you?"

Obama is suicide by independents and 17 year olds for the Democratic Party. He is the least electable candidate in any of the fields.

darren12000: It is nice to see a thoughtful and reasoned comment such as yours. The "Hillary Haters" along with the "Nuts and Wackos" are plentiful on this blog as you will soon see. I have taken the time to learn everything I could find about Hillary since childhood, and it is amazing at the constant effort to help the less fortunate.

This may have been Gov. Bill Richardson's (N.M.) best debate.

Damning with faint praise.

From the WPost

N.H. women are not amused:

"In a striking demographic development for Obama, he now runs evenly with Clinton among women for the first time (Clinton 33 percent, Obama 32); a week ago Clinton had an 11-point edge among women."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/05/AR2008010502732.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008010502800

Well, welcome to the Spin Room! By that, I mean this comments section contains more than the usual number folks advocating for their candidates without regard of what actually happened during the debate.

My observation is that not much really happened. I liked the format in that it allowed a little more extended discussion and gave me a better feel for the candidates (I agree the video vignettes didn't add anything--more network self- promotion than anything else).

Richardson did a little better than past, Edwards a little worse (he's become a one-note performer: "I'll fight the evil corporations for the the little guy).

Clinton and Obama didn't change anything, and that's probably a loss for Clinton because she needs something to change.

Nothing's settled. Obama is on the rise but things can still change greatly in a month. Feb 5 should settle it on the Dem side (either Obama or Clinton) but could go longer for the Rs (come on brokered convention--I want the entertainment!)

America and the world hungers for a leader who inspires. After eight years of cringe inducing and incoherent White House communication, Obama is THE change that people can sense the most.

As a Republican voter, I respect Obama and will consider casting my vote for him.

bokonon13 02:55 AM,

Friend, that is a gem.

Thanks, you have made my day!

We desperately need a Democrat for president..did you listen to those Republicans?? We need a strong, experienced candidate at this time, not a nice young black man who has hope. This is not a time to promote civil rights...Oprah can put her money into that whenever she wants. This is an exercise in retrieving our country from economic disaster. Words and hope won't do it. We need the terror war funding to upgrade our infastructure and quality of living here in the US--not in other countries. For John Edwards...go back to being an attorney representing the middle class against corporations.

I came in to the debate with a Richardson bias. Why? I've always appreciated his experience, without the negatives that HRC brings. I'm more sold after this debate because the real, genuine man came through. He's a "Guy" that you'd probably like to have a beer with, like Reagan. But he's not the best communicator in the world.

Bill, stop with the laundry lists of what you'd propose. Just state "Gee that's a good question, because I DID "this" in NM to improve this situation.

If you look at what he has ACCOMPLISHED, there would be a run towards his camp.

Words are great and OB make s great use of them. Yes, they are inspirational...that's why we're Democrts. But results trump words.

I would call the Democratic debate a draw. I would rather that Clinton had come out a very clear winner.

I am from Illinois and have voted for Obama as often as I could because I think he is a tremendously capable person. STILL, I have supported and continue to support Hillary Clinton because I believe that experience in Washington politics will be a requirement in order to clean up the mess created by the Bush/Cheney administration and the Republican rubber-stamp congress.

Charisma,gifted rhetoric, and celebrity status will go only so far. It seems pretty obvious that DC politics are polarized and extremely partisan.

That leads me to the conviction that skillful negotiations at the national and international level will be the real stuff of life for the next president. I see Clinton as better suited from that standpoint.

How does putting the Clintons back in the WH with all of the usual suspects(Albright, Clark, etc:) represent change? Been there, done that.

I'm afraid that Hillary has had her "Howard Dean moment". Tonight she showed the nation how angry and frustrated she can get when she feels things are not going her way. This feeds into her percieved weakness among the electoriate. Her temperment does not seem Presidential to me. Obama on the other hand, appears calm cool and collected and in control...

I love Obama and Mr Slip-n-fall teaming up to put it to the wicked witch. And the bit about Richardson being rumored to have thrown his people to Obama in Iowa means he's officially off the Clinton reservation, now he's officially running for Obama's vice.

He better stay away from Ft Marcy Park though, the Clintons play for keeps.

Senator Clinton's response was appropriate and effective. She was strong and pointed out how she has actually effected change (e.g., through healthcare legislation for veterans and children) rather than just talking about hoping for change like Obama.

If Obama is elected, God forbid, we are most likely going to have an ineffectual Democratic president like Jimmy Carter (who is a great citizen but was a lousy president). Then the Democratic party will be saddled with the failure of the Obama presidency and take another 12 years or more to gain back the White House.
Senator Clinton has already learned from mistakes made in the first Clinton Administration. And although the Clintons were attacked for 8 years, we still had 8 years of peace, prosperity, and a budget surplus.

sniang: what "new breed of politics" are you talking about? This is very vague...it may give tingles to new voters but in the end, it means nothing. It sounds like language from a campgaign ad or bumper sticker...."compassionate conservativism" was another goosebump thing with no meaning. So, do you care to elaborate on this "new breed of politics"? And how is it different from the "old breed," whatever that is. And why do we even need the "new breed."

Three three major candidates each came across very well.

HRC was quite good in elaborating on the problems of any military intervention in Pakistan -- e.g. the fact that the military situation in Afghanistan is weakening and the "blow back" to be anticipated on top of the Iraq fiasco.

Edwards was quite persuasive about the need for personal commitment and the depth of his.

Obama was good in explaining that his true preference was for a single payer system (it's about time someone said this) and his plan was designed to deal with the reality of the built-up employer/private insurer situation (which is true of all three plans). He was also persuasive on the need for coalition building.

The fact is that all three candidates are in substantial agreement on every major issue.

The real questions are (1) can he/she be elected and (2) win a way that increases the Democratic majorities in Congress and allows these ideas to actually happen. If you look at American history, significant change is always associated with one party having the Presidency AND significant majorities in both houses of Congress.

Clinton's campaign cracks me up. She is essentially saying everything she did from the age of 25 counts as "experience."

For heaven's sake, why doesn't anyone point out that Obama has held elected office longer than she has? Fair enough, she has FOUR more years when it comes to the US Senate.

The rest of her experience came as a PRIVATE CITIZEN who was married to a governor and then to a president. Her experience will not lead to change because it is precisely her experience in the White House that will be the source of acrimony, gridlock, and continue to perpetuate the status quo.

You've had your turn, give the new generation and new breed of politics a chance.

Elroy: I am not a Hillarybot. Apparently lacking any substantive response to my arguments, you have now called me a Hillarybot and wingnut. Great. I guess this is what changes we will get -- empty phrases that mean very little. I have my own mind. I went to an even better law school than Obama. I have been involved with politics for over 20 years. I am hardly anyone's "bot" or "nut." Unless you have a substantive comment, please keep your empty musings to yourself.

Um, Elroy1, you call me a "wingnut" who is making the case for a democrat. I think you need to read my posts more carefully. First of all, I am not a "wingnut," especially if you meant "rightwingnut." Some of my friends my call me a leftwingnut, but I doubt that's what you had in mind. In any event, I have only voted for democrats and will do so again.

I have called the dems losers, and I stick with this, because they are very skillful losers. In my 39 years, I have only been blessed with 12 years of democrats as president. Just two men. This doesnt sound successful from my perspective. The dems know how to mess things up. They allow remote and demographically irrelevant states to get rid of people who could win the broader contest. Dukakis was a mess. Gore and Kerry were not the stronghold candidates going in, but good old cornfield and ski slope voters propelled them to their ultimate losses. Nice.

Now we are taking the wildly popular candidate and ripping her to shreds while the newly popular candidate gets to run on a vague message of change. Sounds like a pep rally not sober thinking about what direction our country needs to take. Obama supporters booing Hillary scares me even more.

Change should be a part of any election not involving an incumbent. They will all bring about change. We need specfics though. Otherwise, and I stick to my prior posts: "change" will become the new "fuzzy math" and "inexperience" will become the new "inability to fight terror." We are setting ourselves up for failure if we go with "feel-good" messages. We need substance and experience. I do not care if Hillary is dry. I am not having coffee with her. Bush is chummy but look what got us. I want someone who is bright, engaged and concerned about doint the most for the country. Hillary is criticized as "ambitious." That is exactly what we want - - someone so concerned with getting stuff done and advancing her stature that she will work to do the best at her position.

What meltdown? There was no meltdown. Sen Clinton was firm and definitive. * She was clear in what she wants to do and how to do it.

Geesh, we need someone who actually knows how to govern and is interested in it. We've had almost 8 years of the Republicans saying "Washington is the problem" then going to Washington and proving it (if you catch my drift).

Words are wonderful things, but as a citizen, I want action to back them up.

* complete side note: Women's and men's voices are very different. Without going into a dissertation, here's some homework. Listen to commercials and often you will find a female voiceover talking about the product, ending with a male voice telling you to "buy it". Unless the ad is for any kind of financial thing (bank, credit crd) and it's all voiced by men. Iy's a trick of biology with some sociology thrown in.

While it's fun in an odd way to go through the litany: men are shrewd, women are calculating; men are authoritative, women are hysterical; etc. Think some about it.

What a fantastic group - what a choice.

from the New Yorker:

"At the top of a column abutting the stage were the words 'witness to change.' 'Change,' as just about everyone in Iowa understood, had become the most important word in this Presidential campaign.
Rather than 'demanding it,' like John Edwards, or 'hoping for it,'like Barack Obama, Hillary told Iowans, 'I believe you bring about change by working really, really hard.' So it seemed rather lucky that her campaign had found an event space with a version of that slogan inscribed in the architecture. But, on closer inspection, it turned out that the phrase was part of an exhibit for the mammoths, long extinct, that once roamed what is now Iowa. The skeleton of one of the beasts loomed ominously a few yards from the Clintons, and the museum's exhibit explained that the mammoths were witnesses to change because they 'watched as their world disappeared and their dominance was usurped.' "

Other way around -- an Edwards/Obama ticket would be very tough. Edwards has the long distance legs to get it done, while Obama has good charisma and ideas, but just doesn't feel like someone who can weather the long election cycle storm. Hilary, shrill and queenly as ever, probably put the dagger in herself tonight...just so far from a 'team player' and leader that you wonder if anyone close to her really imagined her a president. Edwards won another debate, hands down, and will school any Republican he faces.

I was not a fan of HRC, but I think tonight, that has changed. She has shown courage and intellect to outsmart the Edwards-Obama tag team. I have liked Edwards before, but I think he sank to a new low with how he is playing is cards. Obama is so-so, neither here nor there on the debate. I think he was trying to have that "above-the-fray" look. If the basis of the vote for NH is tonight's debate, I think HRC wins hands down.

I don't think Obama can take up Edwards as VP. He needs someone on his ticket with "experience" and preferably some real foreign policy cred. (from the candidate field I would think Biden or Richardson might be good choices, though Biden might be better for Sec. of State). I wouldn't mind having Edwards heading up the Department of Labor or something like that, though.

Obama is an inspiring speaker but watching him in these debates, I feel like when it comes to confronting issues and answering tough questions, he seems flimsy and shaky. HRC, despite all that is said about her, is clearly very knowledgeable and instills a sense of confidence in her ability to lead this country. Obama is a nice guy and seems to energize the youths of this country, but I am not sure if he has what it takes to be president right now.

I definitely think Obama won the debate. He looked and sounded calm, thoughtful, and intelligent, as well as his trademark inspirational.

Clinton looked and sounded desperate. She IS part of the status quo and cannot effectively claim to be an agent of change using her husband's accomplishments as her own examples of change.

Edwards is obviously running for VP. How would you feel about an Obama/Edwards ticket this fall? Could be powerful.

January 5, 2008, 11:39 pm
New Hampshire and Those Labor Ads
By Kate Phillips

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- As we've been driving around New Hampshire this week, we can't help but hear the radio ads playing repeatedly. We've heard Ron Paul ads, John McCain ads and then ads that just stopped us -- those for Hillary Rodham Clinton and against Senator Barack Obama.
We had to listen hard (and not veer off the road) to hear AFSCME as the sponsor at the end of one of the messages. And while we've been paying attention tonight to the debates, Mark Halperin's item over at The Page caught our eye, and we thought we should share it with you.

As Mr. Halperin reported, several members of the International Executive Board protested loudly in a letter to AFSCME president Gerald McEntee that an independent expenditure unit run by two people had been using funds solely to attack Senator Obama (and no other Democratic candidate). Keep reading this letter, posted on The Page, and keep in mind that it comes at a time when Senator Obama has emerged victorious out of Iowa and is in a very tight race here in New Hampshire.
We are writing to protest in the strongest terms the negative campaign that AFSCME is conducting against Barack Obama. We do not believe that such a wholesale assault on one of the great friends of our union was ever contemplated when the International Executive Board (IEB) made its decision to endorse Hillary Clinton.
In fact, when the vote to make a primary endorsement was taken by the IEB, there appeared to be widespread agreement that we had a strong field of Democratic candidates all of whom had made a very positive impression on the IEB Screening Committee. The argument for endorsing Hillary Clinton was not that her positions were better than those of the other candidates or that she would be the better president for working families, but rather that she was the clear frontrunner, the most likely primary victor, and the strongest general election candidate.
......
We were therefore shocked and appalled to learn that our union-through "independent expenditures"-is squandering precious resources to wage a costly and deceptive campaign to oppose Barack Obama. As Barack's standing in the polls has soared, according to numerous press reports AFSCME has spent untold dollars in Iowa and New Hampshire to send out mailings and run radio ads whose sole purpose is to undercut his candidacy. And now AFSCME has even registered a website with the explicit purpose of "opposing Barack Obama."
It is also worth noting that the campaign that AFSCME is waging against Senator Obama is fundamentally dishonest and inconsistent with past positions of our union, i.e. attacking him for not forcing individuals to purchase health care even when they can't afford it. The ads are misleading in attempting to give the impression that they are associated with John Edwards rather than Hillary Clinton and in their claims that Sen. Obama's health care plan will exclude 15 million people when in fact every person will have the opportunity to participate. This dishonesty is giving our union a "black eye" among many in the media and the progressive community.
Earlier this week, The Concord Monitor reported that voters had received emails criticizing Mr. Obama's health care plan as "a Band-aid solution" that would leave "15 million Americans uninsured." (We are pretty sure Mrs. Clinton has used the same term -- Band-aid solution -- to refer to plans that weren't hers.) These mails included comments by John Edwards that criticized the Obama plan, The Monitor said, which residents could have inferred meant they were backed by Mr. Edwards and his supporters.
But, no, they were financed by an AFCSCME committee. The Monitor reported that AFSCME had spent nearly $80,000 on such mailings recently. And it had paid for radio ads, as we mentioned earlier.
The issue of primary endorsements has been loudly debated among labor unions. And in fact, some unions or their umbrella organizations decided not to endorse in the primaries -- sometimes citing the fact that the field was fairly strong. Others, remembering how they were stung by supporting a candidate who lost in previous cycles, were still skittish this time around.
If you read the entire letter by members of the board, you can sense their concerns about such a scenario. It's pretty palpable.

No, I am not whatever it is you label me. I think BO is a good candidate, make that great candidate. He will be a worthy adversary in the general election. But remember it is not the GOP who term him "un-electable"..you look in the mirror...it is dem operatives and the HRC machine. What is "un-electable" code for?? The GOP did not call him that. GOP candidates except Mitt seemed to be be of more respectful of him than the dem party establishment. And your point about Iowa is entirely consistent with my analysis... anti-war vote.. got BO that first victory. Politics is an emotive subject and intellectual honesty is called for not emotional honesty. I will give credit where credit is due..BO is intellectually qualified(HRC is not;she failed her first attempt at the bar exam). He is not a product of social promotion and at least GOPers respect that..and don't use code to describe him.

Just comparing the democrat debate to the republican debate, I was truly struck by how much more vicious the republican debate was. You really got the sense that everyone truly hated Romney. It seemed to me anyways that there was respect on the democrat side. One wonders what the independent voters in NH make of this, especially considering how nasty McCain came off (he was funny though).

Krux, your analysis is as bizarre as one could possibly have. First off, you're basing the outcome of the race based on your guess of some posters' loyalties in this one blog entry, and extrapolating it to the entire country on election night isn't bizarre?

Here's a thought about whether all democrats are racist - there was this caucus thing that happened in Iowa - a primarily white state. Perhaps you should look into the results.

If you're looking for a racist here, perhaps you should consider looking at your bathroom mirror.

I thought all of the Dems. had strong moments in this debate and did well overall, but I think that Clinton's "response" (as RD prefers to call it) to Edwards' attack in Obama's defense was a pretty significant overreaction. I really admired how Obama handled the healthcare discussion... calmly emphasizing that biggest difference between their plans is that his does not include a mandate and hers does, and that they should talk about the reasons for each approach rather than pretending that they are extremely far apart on the broader issue.

Edwards definitely wins the prize for "most energetic." I liked what Obama, Clinton, and Richardson had to say about energy/economy/environment/national security as interrelated issues.

ralphdaugherty cares what Democrats and independents think. I have been both (currently a registered Democrat) and I think Obama is the leader this country needs at this point in history. I believe that Hillary is not qualified, especially with her "35 years" mantra... if EVERYONE were allowed to count dirty laundry as job experience, there would be millions in this country who qualified. All she really has is the health care failure in 1993 and 1 1/2 relatively undistinguished terms in the Senate... although she DID vote for the Iraq invasion without readng the NIE. (In other words, in her judgment, the Bush / Cheney argument was plausible.)

But Ralph deserves some credit for partisan loyalty. Way to go there, Ralphie Boy!

My analysis is not so bizzare. Let me explain it.Dem play book for 2008 was to get anti-war vote, welfare state(poor whites, blacks and hispanics) and "illegal immigrants" code for latinos. But they did not contemplate that some candidate who was anti-dem party/clinton establishment would rock the boat.. So, many dems, who cannot stomacha BO presidency..see posts byRD, bonnieswain railing against products of the public school system(code for what??) turn around and leave the dem party en-mass like happened with southerners in the 60s and 70s. GOP stays in WH another 8 years, It analysis that is intellectually honest. Dem party has ridden on the backs of hapless individuals. Has it improved their lot..No!

krux wrote:I really do think that HRC cut a sad figure with that meltdown. It was hard to watch. I am sorry, you do not agree RD.

That's fair, but that wasn't a meltdown. It's a response. What do you want, robots? I hope she doesn't respond like Obama so people like you can't say she's in a shrill metdown. Then you'd say something else else hateful, like she's too controlled and calculating.

Oh wait, you guys say that anyway.

Well, let's face it. She never had your vote to start with. What I care about is what Democrats and independents think.

rd

Krux, you win my vote for the most bizarre analysis yet. Democrats are closet racists so they'll all vote for McCain????

Wow, just wow.

Prediction: McCain over Oh-bah-mah in general election. Reasons: 1) National security credentials. E.g. Profile in courage, supporting surge when conventional wisdom as to run away from it. 2) Many dems as shown in posts here are closet racists and who would rather McCain won regardless of what Oh-bah-mah says. If Oh-bah-mah were white, he'd win in a landslide and be called the second coming of JFK. No wonder the GOP rocks. They at least call it as they see it and are not cynical and state heir position on race clearly with their southern strategy. Dems..well they lose Florida, scream "yeeeaaaaaaaah, get swift-boated and tonight, we saw another product of the dem hype machine lose it under pressure.

Another general comment:
I must reject Hillary's contention that her being the first woman president is a huge change because she is a member of the Clinton dynasty. It's clear that without Bill, she would not even be in this race at all. In that sense its a continuation of the status quo as we all know. Really, its much more like Christina Kirschner succeeding her husband as President of Argentina than anything else. Whatever you want to say about Obama, he has earned everything he's gained in his life.

I thought this was Senator Clinton's best debate. If Senator Edwards thinks his best shot is to team with Obama, fine (although I question the logic). But he really needs to tone it down. When Charlie Gibson is basically mocking his "eliminating Lobbyist meals" comment, he needs to keep quiet. But Edwards tone when talking about lobbyists vs. his working father was effective. Senator Obama did exactly what he needed to do. Best debate by Richardson by far. He's clearly trying to clip Edwards...nice try.

Here's the trouble for Hillary: How to refute Obama's mantra that he can work most effectively across the aisle to solve problems.

While she claims she's the best change agent in the room as evidenced by her record in congress (and it's worth noting she has won a number of admirers amongst the NY Republican establishment), she is inextricably tied to the Clinton era partisan warfare, which will lead many to despise her no matter what...

Edwards: Great attorney move. HRC expected him to join in her attacking Oh-bah-mah. Edwards is sharp and instntly saw an opportunity to wipe out HRC without appearing to have started it.Great strategy! Obama: Appeared fatigued, sometimes articulate, but in general tried to stay positive until he could not take HRC's sniping and sounded off. Concerning moment about his temperament ? Sure, but many of us would react similarly if attacked persistently. Therefore, he gets benefit of doubt.
HRC: What was that? Her I had a scream moment came in NH..not Iowa

And to the HRC apologists railing about other posters being products of the public school system... HRC failed her first attempt at the bar exam.. hidden gem!. BO JD magna cum laude. You are the crass one with your comments about public schooling.

The only person who really left me with a negative impression was HRC.

I found her assertion regarding 35 years of experience to stretch the bounds of credulity. I thought she worked for the Rose Law Firm in Arkansas, and it was my understanding that she was not a department head, and did not have a direct role in the creation of policy while First Lady.

What relevant legislative or executive experience is she referring too over that 35 year period?

Additionally, her assertions regarding the Clinton economic policy were just bizarre. She needs to state more clearly exactly what her role was -- and to provide supporting documentation.

Was she involved directly in policy negotiations and policy-making? Did she sit in on meetings with Clinton's economic advisers?

Which of the Clinton economic issues would she like to claim as her signature? Which one did she develop and negotiate? Please more specifics HRC.

The statement about campaign lobbyists was equally bizarre in light of the fact that Mark Penn (Rove 2.0) -- who heads her national campaign -- was a lobbyist affiliated with union-busters before he was brought on board.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2008/01/04/iowa/

Not exactly a great statement about HRC's hiring standards. As an ordinary American who can't buy off politicians with loose change, it is disconcerting to think that Penn might actually get a job in an HRC White House.

Not having yet read any comments, I have to say that my husband and I both agree. These debates had a structure which helped us to compare and contrast the positions of the candidates better than any previous debates held to date.
They were truly informative.
It is our earnest hope that the commission designing the fall debates will take this construct into consideration.
Perhaps they can hold each fall debate on a specific topic, with all the various subjects relating to it and allow the candidates to explain their positions in the kind of depth this format engendered.
Thanks, ABC. This was a vast improvement!
Judith Allen, Beaumont, TX (KBMT-TV, Ch. 12)

I thought Richardson had a great debate, but I don't know what he was seeking to accomplish politically. If he's looking to actually get back in this thing, he had to pull out the heavy guns and he didn't.

Was he trying to make amends to the Clinton campaign for the deal he made in Iowa?

Senator Clinton did well tonight.
Firm and composed.

And there does seem to be some amnesia
about the 1993 budget votes (passed with zero GOP votes) that put the US on track to erase what was a perpetual budget deficit.

Edwards is a lightweight if not an
outright phony. Gov Richardson politely dismissed the angry young
man naivete of the Edwards attempt at populism. I remember how easily the nation's Don Corleone brushed off Edwards during the 2004 Vice Presidential debate.

The Roosevelts accomplished great deeds by using Presidential power as a check on concentrated financial power. However, each of them was
already in office before their intentions were publicly revealed.

Edwards must have been the grade school bully and tattletale. The way he took up for Obama was so small, and Obama looked equally small for not speaking up that he could fight his own battles. Tired of the way MSM keeps glorifying Obama - when he starts slipping into his ghetto speech (like Oprah did with him) it is not at all Presidential. Really don't care about watching the dancing onstage either. Folks, this is just way too relaxed. Our nation is going down the tubes. Allowing his supporters to boo her and cause disruptions when she speaks shows exactly what values he holds. But then, we're really talking about fundamental differences in the way people are reared and acceptable ways of acting - there is a huge double standard. Class (Clinton) vs. Crass (Obama). And yes, you know what I mean. Isn't our society uncivilized enough? Stunned that our entire country is being hijacked by a bunch of clueless kids and star-struck lighweights. Where is the common sense that will keep this country afloat? Change isn't always for the good. We found that out eight years ago. There's alot more at stake here that Hillary losing. This entire scenario that is playing out is the product of the public school system that dumbed down the curriculum resulting in the mentality that Obama is the answer. Oh. My. God.

An exciting debate. They are all very sharp and any will give hope to the country. Edwards shone tonight. He has the best combination of passion, smarts, and committment to changing the power structure in the country. It is amazing that he has stayed as viable as he has, with the media virtually shutting him out of the election by giving him almost no press coverage. Obama is pleasant, but I agree with Edwards that you can't "nice" your way to change. And why is his health care plan not stronger? I found Hilary very smart, more herself, and more appealing than she has been before. Why shouldn't she duke it out with the guys? Complaining about her getting loud and arguing toughly is pure sexism. (Is it not ladylike for a woman to get loud?) If you measured decibels, Edwards was probably just as loud. Is it fair to call his volume passion and call hers shrillness? On the other hand, Obama needed to be louder. He was a bit faded and boring compared to the others. I guess trying to be presidential and act like the leader can tone a person down a lot. Richardson is likeable and smart and I wouldn't be upset if he won either, however unlikely that appears.

Senator Clinton did well tonight.
Firm and composed.

And there does seem to be some amnesia
about the 1993 budget votes (passed with zero GOP votes) that put the US on track to erase what was a perpetual budget deficit.

Edwards is a lightweight if not an
outright phony. Gov Richardson politely dismissed the angry young
man naivete of the Edwards attempt at populism. I remember how easily the nation's Don Corleone brushed off Edwards during the 2004 Vice Presidential debate.

The Roosevelts accomplished great deeds by using Presidential power as a check on concentrated financial power. However, each of them was
already in office before their intentions were publicly revealed.

Wow, I'm sort of amazed at some folks here proclaiming Hillary the clear winner. Are ya workin for the campaign? As an Obama supporter, I freely admit that Obama and Hillary both looked dog-tired from the beginning. They both should have taken time off for this.

Edwards had more energy and clarity than the rest of the field combined. He both sounded and looked like the winner. Obama on the other hand looked in danger of checking out his watch. And I don't think Hillary would have lost her cool like she did if she wasn't operating on 2-3 hours sleep and having massive campaign stops.

Oh--even better, darren12000 is a hillarybot.

Jeez, still a little upset over Iowa, I guess.

Edwards must have been the grade school bully and tattletale. The way he took up for Obama was so small, and Obama looked equally small for not speaking up that he could fight his own battles. Tired of the way MSM keeps glorifying Obama - when he starts slipping into his ghetto speech (like Oprah did with him) it is not at all Presidential. Really don't care about watching the dancing onstage either. Folks, this is just way too relaxed. Our nation is going down the tubes. Allowing his supporters to boo her and cause disruptions when she speaks shows exactly what values he holds. But then, we're really talking about fundamental differences in the way people are reared and acceptable ways of acting - there is a huge double standard. Class (Clinton) vs. Crass (Obama). And yes, you know what I mean. Isn't our society uncivilized enough? Stunned that our entire country is being hijacked by a bunch of clueless kids and star-struck lighweights. Where is the common sense that will keep this country afloat? Change isn't always for the good. We found that out eight years ago. There's alot more at stake here that Hillary losing. This entire scenario that is playing out is the product of the public school system that dumbed down the curriculum resulting in the mentality that Obama is the answer. Oh. My. God.

Senator Clinton did well tonight.
Firm and composed.

And there does seem to be some amnesia
about the 1993 budget votes (passed with zero GOP votes) that put the US on track to erase what was a perpetual budget deficit.

Edwards is a lightweight if not an
outright phony. Gov Richardson politely dismissed the angry young
man naivete of the Edwards attempt at populism. I remember how easily the nation's Don Corleone brushed off Edwards during the 2004 Vice Presidential debate.

The Roosevelts accomplished great deeds by using Presidential power as a check on concentrated financial power. However, each of them was
already in office before their intentions were publicly revealed.

I love it when moronic wingnuts like "darren12000" show up. They make the case for a Dem president better than almost any of the actual candidates can.

Clinton focused more on the economy, since it was in shambles, just like today, after a Bush presidency. I have nothing against change. My problem is what change as an end to itself. Bush was a dramatic "change" over Clinton and on some level he ran on that ("restoring dignity to the White House"). As long as you are not the incumbent, your candidacy should emphasize changes you want to bring in. So we get it: "change" is a value. I want to see substance. Obama cannot get away running on words. Words inspire -- yes, that's why I listen to Sara Vaughan and read poetry. I want a president with proposals, experience, and political skills to get the job done. Save the words for his or her press secretary.

I really do think that HRC cut a sad figure with that meltdown. It was hard to watch. I am sorry, you do not agree!

There is an enormous amount of confusion about this snippet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07u6uffKvpA . people are accusing folks of being sexist for posting this, others are defending Hillary for reacting in a way that they consider forth right and strong. Well, which one is it? You can not have it both ways, duh. First off, this was one of the few "real" moments in the debate where we got to see something outside the normal talking points. Isn't that the whole point of these debates. We hope to some how glean something revelatory about the candidates. This clip is very revelatory. Hillary overreacted. Yes, she did. (If you do not believe me, look at how Mitt Romney kept his kool during the republican debate. He was also attacked but he was cool as a cucumber. Kudos to him, even though I do not support him for President).

Now back to Hillary. Her overreaction is fair game. She is pissed because she came in third in Iowa after spending lots of money, time and brain power. She is also pissed because she did not anticipate that Edwards would attack her (by the way, kudos to Edwards, this is why he must have been an excellent attorney. He had a strategic decision to make, and if you study the board you will realize his was a wise decision all around. Clearly he wants to continue to come in second and then make it a two way race. Smart move. Very smart).

anyway, my point is that being pissed is OK. She was pissed about Iowa, she failed to anticipate Edwards flank attack, and in general she seemed pissed about not connecting with voters in NH. Under those circumstances her angry reaction was understandable, but it was not OK. This type of reaction is not good for a leader. This is exactly what leaders, particularly experienced ones, should not do. (Think Don Corleone or a serious chess master).

so, the bottomline: Is posting this clip sexist: No. Does it reveal something important about the candidate: Yes. what does it reveal: She ain't kool under pressure. Moreover: if her whole argument is I am experienced and therefore you can trust that I will be kool under pressure and make the right decisions, well, this clip reveals otherwise.

So, I don't think her experience argument holds water. Clearly she lacks key leadership qualities. When attacked, she appears petulant and non-reflective and that ain''t good.

Cheers,

John

I really do think that HRC cut a sad figure with that meltdown. It was hard to watch. I am sorry, you do not agree RD.

Keniosso-

How old are you? Do you remember the Clinton election? I do. I recall that it was mostly about who could best eliminate the deficit (believe it or not). I don't remember any general talk of "change".

You know, you Obama folk seem have the wheel to the Democratic party. You can make up the rules and suspend reality all you want. Just don't screw it up. There is an awful lot at stake.

Hillary has rebounded. She was her usual self tonight - cool, collected, and intelligent. She had the most current facts at her fingertips - and if one actually listened, she was able to expound on facts that were overlooked or glossed over by the others. I've often tried to imagine what a woman president would actually look like for us Americans - Hillary looks just right for the role, and tonight she came across as presidential.

Hillary has rebounded. She was her usual self tonight - cool, collected, and intelligent. She had the most current facts at her fingertips - and if one actually listened, she was able to expound on facts that were overlooked or glossed over by the others. I've often tried to imagine what a woman president would actually look like for us Americans - Hillary looks just right for the role, and tonight she came across as presidential.

Edwards: To borrow a line from Senator Biden, the only three words that come out of his mouth are a noun, a verb and a mill. Give me a break! I am so tired of hearing about Rich versus Poor, the fight against corporations when obviously we need them since the economy is slowing down. Have a backbone and try to make a distinction between you and Obama rather than trying to ride his coatails.

Obama: Sometimes, I dont understand what is wrong with my party in trying to elect people who will lose a general election. Inexperienced president make bad president, look at Bush. These lofty "words" of "hope" and "change" mean nothing if you cant demostrate past how you plan to bring change. I would rather vote for McCain because I know he can deliver despite me not agreeing with some of his issues.

Clinton: The only real democrat capable of taking on the republicans in a general election and winning. I am so tired of failed attempts such as Gore and loser Kerry. Elections that they should have won but rolled over when the republican attacks came.

Go Clinton!

Obamaa/Edwards: yeah, Edwards looked like his was doing his favorite role -- running for VP yet again. This would solidy yet another Republican victory.

Regarding Obama's choice of a running mate if he wins, no way is it going to be Edwards. It will be someone like a Joe Biden who has rock solid foreign policy creds. I would see Edwards as Attorney General though - that is very plausible.

Regarding the possibility of the Dems losing, while they had to work hard in 2004 to pull defeat out of the hands of victory (and work hard they did!), I think it would be close to impossible for them to do it this time. Regardless who is chosen, I think it would be insanely difficult for the Dems to lose, no matter how hard they tried.

From the NH article on the WA Post front page:

"Mary Louise Hancock, the 87-year-old grande dame of the state's Democrats, said she "resented" that independent voters were poised to influence the outcome of the Democratic primary, saying it turned the vote into a "personal-liking affair" dominated by "students and the trendies."

Jeeze. No wonder the Democratic party is such a mess if this is the attitude. Sorry we can't just hand the nomination to your candidate of choice. Just because independents and students are voting doesn't mean it's a popularity contest. I think tonight's debate showed that the party has four very viable candidates.

Chris obviously wasn't watching the same debate I saw.

Edwards attacked and Clinton responded defensively.

Obama stayed above the fray.

Actually, someone did get elected by almost repeating the word "change" over and over again. I think his name was Bill Clinton - and it was a great strategy.

Edwards is trying a very high risk strategy of trying to run one on one with Obama. He has a fraction of Obama's $. Obama seems likely to win the first three states and I don't see how he can attack Obama directly and not turn off more democrats. But maybe it's the only route he can see to the nomination.

I've read a number of posters suggesting an Obama/Edwards ticket. It seems really implausible given that Edwards ran for VP last time. Has that ever happened in the 20th century - the same VP candidate in two straight cycles with different P candidates?

Actually, someone did get elected by almost repeating the word "change" over and over again. I think his name was Bill Clinton - and it was a great strategy.

Edwards is trying a very high risk strategy of trying to run one on one with Obama. He has a fraction of Obama's $. Obama seems likely to win the first three states and I don't see how he can attack Obama directly and not turn off more democrats. But maybe it's the only route he can see to the nomination.

I've read a number of posters suggesting an Obama/Edwards ticket. It seems really implausible given that Edwards ran for VP last time. Has that ever happened in the 20th century - the same VP candidate in two straight cycles with different P candidates?

The Democrats love to lose. I've lived nearly forty years -- with only 12 years with a dem as president. So, they are well on their way to being the leaders among losers again. "Change" will be the "fuzzy math" of 2008. "Inexperienced" will be the new "inability to fight terror." Go Democrats. I have to give it to you: you are the party of losers! Dean was the only candidate who could not be labeled a "waffler" and who opposed the war, but democrats, fearing a victory, concocted the "scream" and chased him out of the race. So many other potential victors have lost the nomination that it is mind-boggling. Well, at least we have the 14th time in history that a black candidate won a primary, running on a campaign of change. Yay!!!

Hillary was passionate and reasoned and strong, not mean and shrill.

Your post, on the other hand, is mean and shrill.

rd

The Democrats love to lose. I've lived nearly forty years -- with only 12 years with a dem as president. So, they are well on their way to being the leaders among losers again. "Change" will be the "fuzzy math" of 2008. "Inexperienced" will be the new "inability to fight terror." Go Democrats. I have to give it to you: you are the party of losers! Dean was the only candidate who could not be labeled a "waffler" and who opposed the war, but democrats, fearing a victory, concocted the "scream" and chased him out of the race. So many other potential victors have lost the nomination that it is mind-boggling. Well, at least we have the 14th time in history that a black candidate won a primary, running on a campaign of change. Yay!!!

The Democrats love to lose. I've lived nearly forty years -- with only 12 years with a dem as president. So, they are well on their way to being the leaders among losers again. "Change" will be the "fuzzy math" of 2008. "Inexperienced" will be the new "inability to fight terror." Go Democrats. I have to give it to you: you are the party of losers! Dean was the only candidate who could not be labeled a "waffler" and who opposed the war, but democrats, fearing a victory, concocted the "scream" and chased him out of the race. So many other potential victors have lost the nomination that it is mind-boggling. Well, at least we have the 14th time in history that a black candidate won a primary, running on a campaign of change. Yay!!!

How would HRC react if difficult negotiations weren't going her way? Well tonight we got a preview. She loses her composure! That was a painfully sad spectacle...err.. meltdown. Her temperament is definitely not presidential.
Losers lose their temper..Even Mitt did not lose his cool despite sustaining serious body blows during the GOP's debate.. HRC is going down like Howard Dean...and unlike Dean's moment, her's was not spontaneous combustion, but her underlying personality finally coming out. Mean, calculating, and shrill does not do it for President.

Our family's ratings for the democratic debate:
the winner: Hillary Clinton who came off more likeable and made her case for looking at specific actions. Her phrase "delivering change" helped to make the distinction she's been looking for.
#2 Bill Richardson - knowledgeable, likeable, presidential and smart. His piece on what's wrong with experience helped to support HC's position
#3 Obama- didn't do anthing unpresidential but clearly the most exhausted
#4 - and here I know it's different from others - Edwards. He came off angry and contrived. Siding with Obama seems strange and opportunistic. We have 3 voters in the household, if Richardson was still in it by the time Super Tuesday comes along, he'll probably get some votes. If not, the choice is still HC or Obama. But how nice that democrats have such a choice.

On another note: I thought the question to republicans about Obama was UNfair to the rest of the democratic field and I thought the ABC news vignettes before each debate questions was unnecessary self promotion for the network.

i'm not a big hillary fan, but i did love her "you hurt my feelings" response to that idiotic question about how she feels about people liking barack better.

it felt like a very sincere response. what do you say to something like that? she told the truth. that's always appreciated. and then she made a joke about it, and was actually kind of amusing. and barack knew just when to jump in.

but i continue to enjoy edwards. he can be quite the wise-ass--but a really freaking smart one. he really makes it fun to watch.

(god, i'm starting to feel like an edwards plant. i'm not, just enjoying him. and i'm still catching up on the tivo, so i have not seen it all.)

The world great depression following the large sudden fall of stock prices was caused in 1929 since the income deregulation plan decreased to 25% though it was misunderstood that the United States misunderstood the preferential treatment to the income gainer and the property owner in 1925 as a correct selection, and the tax system was irrelevant to business, and praised the boom at the high graduated income tax rate of 50-73% at that time was executed, and it continued for four years. "

It does a graduated tax increase ..the income restriction reinforced doing.. : from 25% of the top rate of income tax to 63->92% in dramatic form three years later though put on "The United States is a real ..recover completely of national revenue before burst of the economic bubble of holding off.. economic recovery orbit as for the rise in the unemployment rate in only six years". The theory of this thesis is not being recognized even by the United States, and the tax increase plan of this United States
is evaluated as the policy unavoidably taken, and is clear also in forcing a large tax cut policy of Reagan Administration that generates large-scale fiscal deficit after 50 years and present child Bush administration.

However, it splendidly made it big to real economic growth and the achievement of the fiscal reconstruction simultaneously in the tax increase policy of the criticized graduated income tax etc. according to this analysis when Clinton administration after the political power of Reagan failed claptrap.

As an Objective Obama fan, I can say the candidate that did themselves the most good was Edwards, but he is not a front runner, so he had the most to gain. As for who won, it was probably Obama. Hillary did not win at all, she was constantly either on the attack, or defending herself, one or the other, never straight policy. Whenever she attempted to be straight policy, it was always about her as opposed to benefiting the country, like Obama and Edwards have conveyed. Richardson too has this problem, he could be a lot better if it wasn't always about him and what he's done "as governor."

To be fair, I wish Obama would show a little more energy, but he didn't need to - he won. He was reasoned, calm even when being attacked, and this debate was by far his most effective policy presentation to date.

As I stated Edwards did himself the most good. His zingers on Hillary will be replayed until the primary, although he lacked policy specifics, he stuck to his main labor/middle class issues and the worked.

Great debate set-up, the chairs suited their fatigue well, and the interaction between Republicans and Democrats was historic, and will be talked about for some time.

Oh My God!!! Someone actually said 'Camelot'???!!!??? First point, it was never attached to the JFK until a year or so after he died. Secondly, and much more importantly, THE CLINTONS ARE NOT THE KENNEDYS!!!

Obama's droll "I think your likable enough" appeared to come from an exhaustion with being sniped at. She's lucky he didn't take her on directly as she certainly left many opportunities. Obama doesn't have to like her, nor does he have to pretend to like her to appear presidential. Particularly when her subordinates are pulling the very Swiftboat crap that she and Bill whine about.

BTW - I loved Bill but he single-handedly ruined Al Gore's nomination with his recklessness. Bill and Hill represent the machine that must be dismantled once and for all.

I can understand why people are talking about Edwards hitting Clinton, because he did, but he also drew many distinctions between himself and Obama too. He consistently stressed that you can't play nice with the entrenched interests.

Edwards won that debate, hands down. Obama did well, but the fatigue showed on