Debate: A hard night for the frontrunner
Attacks can backfire so there was no consensus about who won last night's debate, but the frontrunner was called out as she hadn't been before on inconsistencies in her stances on Iraq, Iran, Social Security, releasing records of her White House years, torture and Spitzer's plan to issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens.
The Times lede: Clinton faced "withering attack" to "challenge her candor and electability and to portray her as enabling President Bush to prepare for an invasion of Iran." And she "was attacked at one moment as being disingenuous, the next as a symbol of tired Washington establishment and the next for being unelectable."
MSNBC political analyst Chuck Todd said -- especially in her effort to avoid taking a stance or to take both stances on the Spitzer license plan -- she trapped herself in the effort to keep getting pinned down on details. Todd's blog: "At times, she seemed on her game but she did 'let 'em see her sweat' at other times."
The Fix was more impressed, finding that -- while "off her game" on the licenses question -- Clinton emerged "largely unscathed despite the near-relentless focus on her during the two-hour long debate."
Over at the Atlantic, Ambinder thought Clinton played defense for most of the night without seeming defensive, but then hurt herself worst by straddling the licenses for illegals question: "The debate was not supposed to end this way! Strategic ambiguity in this case may have provided the media with the anti-Clinton sound-bite it has long been craving."
Also at the Atlantic, Andrew Sullivan found Clinton full of "constant calculation, careful parsing." He thought Obama, even on the attack, looked like easy pickin's for Rudy, and said Edwards was the winner with sharpness and toughness of his attacks. Verdict: "Clinton's profound weakness as a general election candidate was pretty badly exposed."
But Cooper and Calmes at the Wall Street Journal seemed to be watching a different debate. They said Clinton's "dominance of the Democratic presidential field was on display" as she "sloughed off pointed criticism from rivals and aimed most of her fire at the Bush administration." Didn't even mention the spat over Spitzer. Go figure.
And on the right, the bloggers at American Spectator didn't see any Dem who can beat Hillary, but thought she showed some vulnerabilities. Philip Klein: "Not only did she come across as angry, shrill, secretive... and incumbent-like in a change election cycle, but was completely afraid to stake out a clear position on anything."
E-mail
Facebook
Digg
Delicious
Comments (22)
Hey. I thought it was pretty clear that John Edwards won the debate, by a mile. It is also pretty clear that it won't do him any good, because the media still wants an Obama-Clinton fight. I thought Obama fell way short of the bar he set for himself and that John Edwards surpassed it. I wish you guys in the media would write Obama off, because he is either too afraid to battle it out with Hillary or he is now playing for VP. The real fight should be Clinton Vs. Edwards, but I guess that isn't good enough for you guys.
Attacking Clinton on the source of her contributions is exposing everyone to the same charge: guilt by association. This was the best debate because of the intensity but they should stay focused on the real enemy and quit trying to form the old Democratic circular firing squad. Picking on Clinton is a double edged sword, 54% of all voters are women and having a bunch of middle aged men beating her up could come back to haunt those guys.
This debate was a little ridiculous. Everyone piled on Hillary, so no one really stood out...except her. It looked like she was just being bullied by a bunch of guys who couldn't wait to point at her and say, "see, see, look what she just did!" Instead, it would have been more productive for them to focus on showing off their own records and qualifications for the job. I think Hillary won this one because she didn't make any big mistakes, Obama underperformed, and Edwards started the pile on in the first place. That may look good for Edwards supporters, but I think that this constant hammering of her will turn many voters off. Look what happened to her since the 90's...everyone gangs up on her and she just gets stronger and stronger.
I think that most everyone who was leaning towards her before the debate is surely in her corner now, for that reason if nothing else.
All last night did was make Hillary seem stronger. Bad decision by the Obama/Edwards camp.
I found the debate very enlightening. While I have long known both clintons are bad for democrats and are not what our party needs, it was good for those still living in a koolaid haze of romanticizing the 90s, forgetting all the bad Bill did to our party.
Last night Obama did some real damage to Hillary on the white house papers and on her ducking and dodging, ect. Edwards was very good in his attacks but, too much in some ways. Obama chose his attacks and did it in her lack of truthfulness, her secretiveness and not answering the questions directly. Her lack of giving real answers was exhibited as well by Tim russert who has been frustrated by this.
It was obvious she knew she was exposed and this gives the people a better opportunity to mull over whether they want another Bush like term or move away from her. that it is time to close the book on a very bad era for the US
The winner by a mile was Hillary. Edwards and Obama (can we all agree he is not ready for prime time yet and move on?) took any and every question and slapped at Hillary. She on the other hand took their shots, shrugged them off like water flowing off a duck's back, and aimed her desire for good at middle America (and really all Americans) and focused her ire at Bush's and the republican's imcompetence.
She is running away from the field and they all know. Hillary is by no means a media darling candidate. She cut this path on her own and she is not looking back.
They made Hillary into a victim... not good. As this debate's questions didn't seem to make it past her vetting team, I expect behind the scenes she's a woman scorned. Woe to them.
You have to admit it looked like a set up one way or the other.
.
We'll see by the dirt that leaks out on the other candidates now.
Does anyone here think Hillary will settle for VP?
I've heard so often the Clinton stratagey is talk like a Progressive and govern like a conservative. Edwards in my view has proved by his actions he cares for the American worker and is willing to confront special interests in DC. I want a President who will stand up for me and people like me. I not sure how much of his agenda for our Country he can accomplish but I'm willimg to give him the chance. I didn't benefit from the dotcom boom of the 90's or NAFTA or Media Consolidation and I am not interested in any more conversation about Bill's sexcapades.Hillary is an enabler regardless of her public face.The other candidates were right to point that out.
Hillary was off the mark with her comments about licenses for illegal aliens. She was caught speaking with fork tongue by Chris Dodd and the others. Most Americans and citizens of NY state do not want illegal aliens with drivers licenses. We don't care about the 3 tier system that stupid Spitzer suggests as he changes his position. She would not support english as our official language either. I'm a disappointed democrat and undecided at this point. Obama needs to make his move soon!
I felt badly for Hillary last nite as they all with the exception of Joe Biden hit on her for one thing or the other. Biden knows his stuff and she should choose him as her VP if she gets the nomination! Obama hasn't got it all together and he thinks hes a big shot because he represented Chicago IL a couple of years. Cris Dodd is a good man, but he has a long way to go. Bill Richardson made a few stupid remarks like he was the only one to have Foreign Policy experience. In the end I hope Hillary beats them all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I use to be torn between support for Edwards or Obama but after last night I'm all in Hillary's camp. I guess I'm one of the many that can't stand to see someone piled on like they did Hillary.
We have a joke for a president and all the ammunition that that offers for debate and only Hillary makes the points against him. If the rest of the Democrats can only run as the "anti Hillary candidate" and not offer anything positive they are showing how desperate they are and she's a shoo in.
Obama was painfull to watch. I sincerely hope the lavish attention being paid him ends. He's not qualified.
Clinton couldn't give one single straight answer. She came across as calculating and dishonest. Her justification of her Kyl/Lieberman vote was truly frightening. She wont get my vote in the primary or the general election.
Too bad the media has decided that Chris Dodd and Joe Biden aren't worth an ounce of attention. both have strong ideas and the kind of real experience to back them up. Unfortunately, its been decided this is the Clinton/Obama show, and those two shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the White House.
........angry, shrill, and secretive???? Only a man would make that comment! She needs to come to a stand on the immigration question (driver's licenses in NY), but otherwise she came out a true winner!
"But Cooper and Calmes at the Wall Street Journal seemed to be watching a different debate. They said Clinton's "dominance of the Democratic presidential field was on display" as she "sloughed off pointed criticism from rivals and aimed most of her fire at the Bush administration." Didn't even mention the spat over Spitzer. Go figure."
Can we all admit that Clinton is the GOP's dream candidate? When 45% of the electorate is already saying they will not vote for her, it's time to find someone new. And do we really want Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton? Wake up, Dems!
Obama in 2008
The way they threw that UFO question at Dennis was completely unfair and just one more way they try to keep him marginalized.
I agree that it largely looked like a total attack Hillary night. With few exceptions, my female friends didn't appreciate it. It did not help that Matthews in particular and Tim Russert seemed to be egging on the attack and after the debate, throwing their own punches.
Clinton is brilliant. I am surprised to see how she is still underestimated. She seems to be a step ahead of everyone else.
Her position or lack of opposition, one might say, to driver licenses for illegal immigrants was no mistake.
Have you any idea how many latino voters she will win with that? If one does not get that, then you may be one of those underestimating her.
Please notice Senator Clinton was the only Democratic candidate who publicly said that the surge aws working. She was roundly criticized for that. Interestingly, what are the news today on the surge?
Also note that she is the only one who voted for the resolution regarding IraN. I don't believe that to be a mistake either bur rather a well calculated risk based on information I am certain the other candidates are not privy to. Her husband, a former President with less than ten years out of office, is a brilliant politician as well with deep contacts and her closest advisor.
I thought Senator Clinton's body language towards her attackers worked to establish her not as a woman, but a contender who will not face away from challenges. She turned to face Obama and Edwards. Notice that the men could not seem to look her in the eye.
Human beings react to body language. Remember her opponent for the Senate?
For these reasons, I believe Clinton won the debate.
The sight of Edwards and Obama ganging up on Hillary was disgusting. It reeked of desperation and showed them to be a couple of bullies.
If Edwards was so great, why did he lose in 2004? If he would've been half as tough on Cheney as he was last night, maybe Kerry could've won. But he knows it's about over for him.
And Obama...whatever fire the guy has in his belly by nature, I don't know. But you could tell his performance was all adviser-driven. He seems about as sincere as junk mail.
I tuned in being for Hillary. And I thought she handled two hours of relentless attacks about as well as anyone can. Including attacks from that scum-of-the-earth "moderator," Tim Russert.
GO HILLARY!
Poor Hilary!!! so you cannot take the heat? wait until republican gang up against you, what then will you cry about or your supporter?
if you want to be the president you must make us believe in you, right now you are turning us away ..
l used to be a supporter but now l am for Obama. He has more truth in his mouth than you who speaks with both sides of your mouth. goodbye hilary, you should go home and satify that your sex-addicted hubby Bill..........
I mised the debate last night, but have read and viewed the coverage. I find it outrageous that once again all the focus is on 3 candidates. Joe Biden consistantly shows he is worty of inclusion in the press coverage of the campaign, but is all but ignored by the media. The man is brilliant and would blow away any of the Republian candidates in a general election.
I find Obama too green to be a serious candidate. maybe in 4 years, definitely in 8, but not now.
I find the Edwards show rediculous as he constantly potrys himelf as a Washington outsider. Has he forgotten he was te Democratic nominee for VIe President in 2004?
Hilly is good, and I like her ideas. The attacks on her are unfair. It's not her fault Spitzer is an idiot. He should have framed his license plan better ainstead of muddling it and leaving Hillary to have to defend it for him.
What I saw last night:
5 Male candidates attacking, in pure desperation, the lone woman who can propel Democrats to victory in November 2008. I saw, a 6th man, stating the truth that the rest of the field had sunk to personal attacks against the lady senator.
What else did I see?
Hillary stood her ground- tough stuff that most of the candidates on stage could not have done in her position. She will wear well in the general election against the slimball politicians of the right wing.
As much as they deny it, every Republican you can think of is salivating to put up their candidate against Hillary; that's the only fight they can possibly win...and they know it.
Edwards has the most clearly defined policies, which are closest to the Democratic base; and if the party faithful really looked at the election in clear policy terms, it would be Edwards hands down, since Obama is starting to look a little out of his depth.
If the Democratic party doesn't stop fantacizing about putting a Clinton back in the White House and start crunching the numbers on electoral demographics, taking into account Hillary's persistently strong negative numbers and considering the risk in fielding a candidate who can be hung by a chronicled past. The Democrats risk losing the presidential election to a Republican Party that is basically on life support showing barely a pulse.
It was obvious, the debate should have been between Hillary, Bidden and Dodd. The rest of them are light weight -- most especially Obama.