by Todd Beeton, Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 05:05:13 PM EDT
This page has a link to live video of the debate.
Consider this a debate open thread.
Update [2007-9-26 21:15:21 by Todd Beeton]: Dodd debate talk clock!
Tags: Debate, Democrats, Open Thread (all tags)
Obama's really blowing his chance to contrast himself with hillary on Iraq
Gravel yells a lot about the Iran resolution. His gesturing nearly hits Hillary in the face. She's given an opportunity to respond and ... cackles...
The laugh is calculated. Watch the daily show clip. She's been using the same laugh as a first response to every attack or criticism of her. It's the exact same laugh with the exact same tone.
This is a calculated move and it's disgusting. Someone needs to call her out on it. I just lost a lot more respect for her.
What the heck? Oh my gawd, Hillary's laughing on purpose, alert the Internets!
Every single politician worth a damn has techniques like that to seem natural, give off a certain aura or give him/herself time to prepare a response. It's not some super evil secret plan, it's plain common sense.
It's really annoying because it's so blatant. And she hasn't done this before. It's a new tactic and typifies a poll-driven and focus-group driven campaign whose goal is power. Not a campaign where the person is driven by a desire to make the country a better place.
The problem is not Hillary, the problem is people who have an irresistible urge to psychoanalyze her.
It's awesome that you can tell all that from a laugh. Remember how Gore's earth tones in 2000 proved he wasn't comfortable in his own skin? Keep pushing these childish narratives against Dems, guys, it couldn't possibly end up hurting us!
Just watch the Jon Stewart video.
Also, you might try blaming a poll-driven consultant driven campaign. Which actually was the reason Gore "lost". And would likely be the reason Hillary would lose were she to get the nomination.
Hillary laughs when confronted about war votes. What a joke.
It's a strategy. She's laughing on purpose. Jon Stewart blew her cover.
Can Dodd filibuster the next funding resolution if he's on such a trip about using the power of the purse and leadership in the Senate?
Huckabee's diet. The Richardson plan for fighting the Battle of the Bulge doesn't seem to be working.
Tell me that Russert didn't just ask Obama's question for him...
Russert just questioned Clinton's judgment better than Obama or Edwards ever has.
She really echoed my thoughts on sanctuary cities. Good for her.
Edwards in 2004 is different from 2008. That is coming back to haunt him now.
I don't think it haunts him, I think he's grown into a leader. He seems willing to force the important issues to the front and he's now willing to back them up this time and bring others to his point of view. I call that leadership. It seems to me that Hillary wants to dictate to people rather than lead them.
Yeah, but I don't think his answer was quite right. The American people haven't changed that much on health care since 2004. What's changed is that he found the courage to ignore the cautious consultants and take the position now.
3 years ago he said "We can't afford UHC," called it wrong for our country. Now he is all for it? Changing your mind is good, but if you go through the 2003/2004 comments you'll see a lot of changes to today. The rub is that of political expediency here. The way Edwards answered the UHC switch question seemed weak, not sincere.
But Edwards also has suggested that we don't have universal health care today because Hillary blew it in 1993. It's difficult to have it both ways -- to imply that the country wasn't ready for universal health care in 2004, but that it was so ready in 1993 that we would have achieved it then if only Hillary were a better leader.
My thought exactly. How could we not have been "ready" for UHC in 2004?
Edwards is a desperate candidate. The reason that the Healthcare Plan of 93 did not work is that it insisted on a single payer system. This plan includes insurance companies and does not put forward another huge government program which will make it an easier sell.
The problem is worse now then in 93 because we now realize that globalization has cost the USA because we cannot compete as long as the cost of healthcare is a part of every product we produce.
Kerry didn't lose because of his healthcare plan he lost because Bush used terror and even brought out a new Osama tape 3 days before the election. Actually, Kerry didn't really lose at all.
I don't think the other candidates are being accurate about why health care failed the first time. Hillary told the truth, the Republicans made a calculated decision that they would gain politically if they blocked the health care plan regardless of its content. The idea that there was a way to find a middle ground is just not correct.
The only thing Clinton could have done better is get the message out about the Republican obstructionism, so that the right people got blamed in the end. That's a talent he developed later on, but it would have served us well back then so history didn't get written the wrong way.
Didn't the vote on healthcare occur in 1994, before the Republican takeover? How do we know that it won't happen again with the Republicans again in the minority? Will Hillary againt be a catalyst for a Republican takeover?
I think we should expect the worst from the Republicans no matter what. All we can do is continue to elect more Democrats until they perceive a mandate on the issue, or until they become such a minority that no one cares about them any longer.
What happened in 1993 is that William Krystol and Newt Gingrich devised the Republican strategy of blocking EVERY compromise on health care and to use the defeat of ALL health care votes as a springboard to the 1994 election.
The Clintons were accepting compromises from the Republicans (for example, from Lincoln Chaffee) and then the Republicans were saying "forget it, now we won't agree to the compromise".
Here's a good history from a Professor of Public Policy at Princeton who had a ring side seat in Bill Clinton's inner circle of advisors on health care that was meeting privately in the Roosevelt Room of the White House during the whole process:
The Hillarycare Mythology
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?arti
cle=the_hillarycare_mythology
This is a fantastic article. I hightly recommend it as background reading for this year's election.
Nonsense
The democrats controlled the congress in 1993-94.
Their majority was bigger in 1993-94 THAN IT IS TODAY.
They never got her plan out of committee.
The Democrats controlled congress when Social Security and Medicare were passed. They gave us Unemployment Insurance, Welfare, Food Safety, etc. I am proud of the Democrats record. If you aren't, then vote for Republicans and get all healthcare privatized. All 300 million Americans will have to go out and find their own health insurance if any Republican Candidate gets in. This is Bush's plan and every Republican candidate supports it.
Gravel just had a break-down- the others aren't fairing so well when they get a tough question about themselves. Gravel literally flipped out.
I missed exactly what he said (something about credit cards), but the audience sure got upset.
The candidates seem to be having trouble with these tough questions - my question is when anyone will ever ask this type of question of the Republican candidates. Their debates are like "tell us all about your plan to win the war on terror and lower taxes!"
Russert brought Gravel's personal bankcrupcy history to light, which he perhaps never prepared for. LOL.
It was like he started foaming at the mouth and then he just started making nasty remarks about everyone on stage. I bet almost everyone watching had the same thought that he should not be on that stage.
None of the other candidates bankrupted their own business. That's embarrassing for someone who wants to be President.
Gravel has good ideas and has done some good things, but he would be a really terrible President that wouldn't be able to get anything done.
The credit card answer was horrible. You knowingly run up credit cards, invest it in whatever you think you need to invest it in, then just say "screw you"? People go bankrupt all the time, but not because they gleefully thumb their nose at the credit card companies and "beat the system." Doesn't Gravel's reasoning behind his declaring bankruptcy (specifically to screw the credit card companies over) constitute a crime?
Was that a swing at Edwards? "I may not be the perfect consultant blow-dried candidate..."
Okay- Obama made me laugh with his "60 years ago ...." remark and he did have a good comment about Hillary's "lonely" remark.
Wasn't very impressed with his foreign policy answers, but he's on much firmer footing when he's talking about bringing people together and teaching his kids not to fear people who are different. etc. Good stuff.
Why not apply the tax to all income and then decrease the rate?????
I'm for Hillary. Look at my diary and track record here.
However, she (other than that fabulous outfit) is doing TERRIBLY. Contrary to people who can never criticize their chosen candidate, I will.
I am still for HRC, but Gravel's comment to her vis-a-vis the vote today about Iran was her very worst moment (IMO), of the entire campaign.
Also, her UHC talk wasn't as sharp as this past Sunday and the comment she just made on Social Security was terrible. I am VER disappointed in her performance so far. Edwards is doing the best BY FAR.
I agree- so far she seems off tonight which is disappointing to me. I hope she doesn't get hit by it in the polls.
I don't think she is doing that bad- I am and Edwards voter
It's all about expectations. She almost always stood out in past debates, that's why her supporters would expect the same every time. She's not really standing out tonight, but nobody has. Everybody is given roughly the same time slot.
Nobody's looking good in this debate. All the questions are 'gotcha' questions, so nobody's answering.
I think she told the truth about Social Security, I think it's to our discredit that the public doesn't understand this already.
Clinton left office with a plan that would have strengthened Social Security and kept it safe for many years. Al Gore ran on that plan; you might recall something about a lockbox. Well, guess what, we elected Bush (sorta) and he ran up a huge deficit, and now Social Security is in worse shape.
I actually think Hillary's answer was extremely important in terms of making the point that Democrats are better stewards of the economy, and laying the blame squarely on the Republicans for messing things up in the past. The next President will have to make some tough decisions regarding the budget, and if we don't make clear whose fault it is that we have to make those tough decisions, we're going to end up carrying the blame for the Republicans' bad policies yet again.
He was almost invisible. And when he WAS visible, he was milquetoast.
Edwards shined. Then Dodd, then Biden, then HRC. Richardson, for some reason, never impresses me.
the comment she just made on Social Security was terrible.
Actually, it was right on the money. The scare tactic about Social Security being bankrupt is a Republican narrative because they want to privatize it.
Social Security is on shaky footing for one reason and one reason alone: George Bush has been stealing from the Social Securty trust fund to pay for the deficits.
At the end of the Clinton administration, there was a budget surplus which was being used to pay down the national debt (i.e. put the money back into the Social Security trust fund). Alan Greenspan said that the federal reserve's forecasts showed that, if Bush had continued with the Clinton budgets, the entire national debt would have be paid off in six years! The Social Security trust fund would have been stabilized.
What Clinton is saying is that the real problem is the deficit spending robbing the Social Security trust fund and that she is not about to advocate a tax increase or a benefit reduction until the goddamn government shows a little fiscal discipline and stops robbing Social Security to pay for the deficit spending. She is absolutely right.
I don't think Edwards has mentioned being in the picket line today so I guess I was wrong about that- though I'm still not his biggest fan.
The strike finished... unless he picketed prior to 4 am.
and put him out of his misery.
russert is calling him on his Funny Money...
Yikes! Edwards is from NC for goodness sakes, bad move on supporting a smoking ban if he wants to win his home state.
Foolish answers on drinking age. National healthcare = health police? Booo.
You must not be from North Carolina. We almost passed a statewide smoking ban this year. Obviously people are concerned about the shrinking tobacco industry, but we don't smoke anymore than any other state.
Really? I'm in South Carolina and everybody smokes. That's interesting.
I agree with Gravel and Kucinich that we should lower the drinking age to 18.
I don't like all this regulation of smoking either. How many people are unintentionally affected by second-hand smoke in public places in the America of today? Doesn't the government have better things to do than regulate behavior?
Bush/Clinton dynastic question is a concern of mine.
If she's running on her own, she can't claim to have White House experience as First Lady.
With Bush as President, lucky is the only way we get the #3 guy...
Other countries use nuclear power very extensively, why not the U.S.? I honestly don't understand why some people are so afraid of nuclear, we're never going to get off oil if we don't expand it.
I like Biden's answer on torture--never under any circumstances. Obama shouldn't start talking about hypotheticals, that's Hillary territory. There shouldn't be any hypotheticals on torture. And what do you know Hillary starts talking about dangerous paths.
Oh, looks like Russert just came up with a really sneaky question. Bill Clinton is wrong too.
Yeah, but that was Clinton's home run tonight. She and Bill have both been dealing with the question of whether she's her own person politically. She knocked that out of the ballpark, "Well, I'll just have to talk to him later...." which every woman (and husband) in America understands!
Yeah, but Russert emphasized the torture aspect of the hypo and not the pardon portion. After he had identified Bill Clinton as the source of the hypo, he then threw in the option of pardoning someone to get the info. This leads me to believe that the hypo in its original form involved different ways of interrogating a suspect when time is of the essence and what has the possibility of producing the most accurate information. Biden then said he'd do the pardon, but not torture.
You know, I really haven't listened to him much before and heard him a lot today and I was shocked about how he kept concentrating on the fact she's a "woman." His manner was very disparaging about it- he came across as a misogynist to me.
Not the best performance by Clinton. I think Edwards did good, but Clinton did not hurt herself. Obama...eh.
But she got the best moment when Russert tried to ambush her. It again demonstrates she's tough and independent-minded.
I agree she did not really stand out. The entire debate was actually pretty boring. Edwards had some sharp moments, but he also got rattled by Tim Russert's aggressiveness in the end.
Obama was just so long-winded, boring. Everything he said was about hope.
It was a boring debate and Clinton's "Bill is not standing here," line was excellent. If I had to choose a winner, Edwards will be it, but as Buchanan said, Clinton won because she did not lose.
Let me be the first to say that I have always despised Pat Buchanan. I voted for him in the Mass. primary one year when Dukakis was a foregone conclusion and I figured I'd try to do some damage to the Republicans.
Having said that, he's the only person on MSNBC who really understands politics and the things that would KILL a Democratic candidate in the general election.
Even a conservative Republican like Buchanan knows that a Democrat can't reach down and grab the third rail of American politics (Social Security benefits) without getting electrocuted.
Edwards got very frazzled about the hedge fund question- he can dish it out but it doesn't look like he can take it.
Interesting debate. Very tough on all.
I thought Clinton's answers were too evasive at times, but other times she had the best answers. Mixed bag tonight.
Obama was off his game. They said he had a cold earlier today, so maybe that was the reason, but I think he did not help himself.
Edwards was sharp on some answers, but he also had weak moments, first when he was asked about his 2004 total rejection of UHC's viability, then when he was asked about his financial dealings (Fortress - "I am not apologizing".) Two moments that cancelled each other out: "What was the question?" - weak ---- he went over to Kucinich to bonk him over the head in jest - warm and funny. Mixed bag.
Richardson -- better than I had seen him before. No gaffes, good answers generally.
Dodd -- not too impressed with him tonight. Too wonky.
Biden -- weak performance overall.
Kucinich -- pretty forceful. Better than his position in the race would suggest.
Gravel -- comical relief.
To be fair on a few things:
Clinton got the most attacks lobbed against her, the focus was mostly on her. As the clear frontrunner in the race, perhaps not surprising.
Also, Gravel, Edwards, Richardson and Kucinich had highly personal attack questions lobbed at them, but not so Obama, Biden and Dodd. All Obama got was a rather mild question on "experience." That was weird. Why not all with the same type of highly personal digs?
---------------------------------------
The race has not changed after this debate.
Tonight, John had more good moments than Hillary. Hillary was attacked some tonight, which is to be expected as the general election favorite at this time. Obama really blew it for his campaign tonight, and Hillary did not help her case at all. Tonight New Hampshire was totally tuned in. If John Edwards has become the second place candidate in New Hampshire, then the dynamics of this race will really change from this point forward. You can already see this in the post debate analysis. John is and has been strong in Iowa. If he is strong in New Hampshire, the internal Democratic party dynamics will shift to entirely new scenarios. The scenario of John Edwards being a distant third was shattered tonight.
That is doubtful for NH. I guess we'll know soon enough, but I doubt that Edwards suddenly vaulted into second place, especially in NH where he has been dismal in the polls. He was ok, but had several awkward moments as well. He had to attack, and did so. I just thought the delivery was somewhat off. I guess we'll see within the next 14 days.
Every question Russert asked of every candidate was a variation of "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
It made for a horrible forum because of the nature of the questions.
I watched Edwards closely, to see if he has #2 potential, and was struck at his body language. He seemed too nervous, too "not at ease."
He has a big problem that is part his fault, part undeserved, and that was somewhat reinforced today. His answers on the "haircut/hedgefund/taking money from a bundler who you knew was in legal trouble" was very defensive, not at all satisfying. He ended it with "I won't apologize for that," not a good thing.
But perhaps more damaging was that after he reinforced the idea that he felt that in 1993 we could have had UHC if all had worked together on it, the majority of the audience found out for the first time tonight that he actually opposed UHC in 2004, spoke out against it. So, Edwards was for UHC in 1993, before he was against it in 2004, before he was for it again in 2007. That sequence had the makings of reinforcing some of the feelings that exist about him to a skeptical New Hampshire audience.
Edwards' conversion:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/ 2007/09/edwards-healthc.html
Okay so I just finished the debates and there is one thing that just really got on my nerves. Someone needs to clue Edwards in that HE IS A POLITICIAN and saying things like the Americans people don't trust a bunch of politicians to do healthcare undermines his argument that he can get it done. Further, there are only so many things that you can do via executive order and healthcare is NOT one of them. He will not be able to cut off the Congress' healthcare in six months via exec order, HELLO, those 535/100 POLITICIANS are going to be the ones who determine what happens with his healthcare plans. Some of them have been in Washington forever, and he will have to deal with them. Pretending that you are going to pass healthcare without the imput of lobbyists, who may not have donated to you, but certainly donated to those members of Congress does't make sense. These people will have a seat at the table regardless of the posturing, through their lobbying of those in the Congress. It's one thing to play the outsider, but to act like you will be able to take unilateral action against the Congress and still get it done is not being honest, and he is big on being honest.
Okay, so that was my rant, and now my impression of the debate. I missed the first 30 mins, but it was clearly get Hillary night. I thought Tim Russert asked tough(gotcha questions) but sometimes didn't give the candidates a chance to rebut issues. Hillary held her own, Dodd did well selling his 26yrs of experience. Favorite part of the night was when Biden said Giudy had not clue about foreign policy. Edwards was really doing well for himself(rant above aside) until the end when he was very defensive in answering the haircut, hedge-fund, $800,000 Murdoch question. When Tim asked reiterated his point on the Hedge-fund about whether Edwards would do it again, there was total silence in the audience, as he talked about looking at his life and not just a single issue. I truly don't remember anything memorable about Obama tonight, other than his point of not being in favor of the war and challenging Richardson's position on withdrawal at the end.
Remember, Hillary disappeared from the news when she was doing the health care reform for Bill in what, 1992? I mean,...she literally dropped off of the TV during those negotiations and disappeared into some corner when it became clear she was defeated. She did not try to rally the American public that even then was overwhelmingly in favor of health care, and she did nothing serious to parry the attacks by the AMA, AARP, big pharma, ect. She has the scars alright, and since then, she has become very friendly with those very same thugs/lobbies. What kind of reform do you think we will get? Granted, if Hillary wins, she would offer a much better scenario than any Repug, but...what would Hillary health care really look like, aside from the fact that her plan is somewhat antagonistic in appearance against the insurance industry?
What universe were you in during 1993? Hillary Clinton was tesifying before Congressional committees and hosting a series of major televised health care forums around the country with Senators from both parties.
C-SPAN recently aired a number of historical programs with her congressional testimony and these regional forums.
The notion that this was a closed process is also absurd. Over 500 people were invited to attend breakout sessions to give their input.
These repuplican pundits seem to be doing their damnest to stop Hillary- so much for them wanting her to get the nomination.
Edwards, Clinton and Obama were terrible on the key question of the campaign.
Why should any Dem support them when they can't promise to get our troops out of Iraq by 2013?
That's pathetic.
We voted in 2006 to end the war.
We aren't voting in 2008 to continue it for another five years. We have the right to have a President who can look us in the eye and say the war is coming to an end, our troops are coming home.
Richardson won the debate. He was crystal clear on the most critical issue facing our nation.
I heard Edwards say he would get all combat troops out in just a few months, then leave embassy troops (SOP) and guards for humanitarian workers (that's SOP for UN peacekeepers, for Bosnia). I know Timmeh is repeating all ove the waves that Edwards won't primise to get troops out by 2013 - but that's typical of him - he's so into the gotcha. This is the guy who had to testify in the Scooter Libby trial but didn't mention for months and years in his program that he himself! was one of the journalists with first hand info. Jerk.
Edwards is being seen as the winner not on his own merit or amazing speeches on policy but because he was the one who attacked Hillary the most- if he needs to do that to get attention, that's pretty sad.
I liked Obama tonight but I am being told he didn't do well from many commentators but I'm not going to let someone tell me how to think so I will still say he was very good. If people were not so obsessed with demanding he attack Hillary, people might see that.
As a huge Hillary supporter I have to say that I am disappointed in one of her answers. I am a rabid Cubs Fan and I cannot believe the apocolipse will come before the Cubs win the World Series. We are leading in the National League Central and 99 years is long enough to wait to win the World Series. Come on Hill you know growing up in Chicago you were a Cubs Fan. Once a Cubs Fan always a Cubs Fan. There has to be a picture out there of Hill in a Cubs hat or at a Cubs game -- in the interest of truth we need to find out the truth about Hillary's Baseball allegiance.
Anyone who brags about stiffing credit card companies shouldn't be running for president.
I hate credit card companies too, but I pay my debts and I wouldn't brag about not being able to.
-----------
myDD - skin
-----------
141 Comments