Live Blog Of MSNBC Democratic Debate In Cleveland, Ohio (February 26, 2008)
February 26, 2008 | Permalink
8:19: Underlying themes aplenty. Will Hillary Clinton continue her harsh attacks from the weekend on Barack Obama? Will Obama maintain his cool presence he’s worked hard to maintain in these debates? Will Tim Russert admit he attended law school at Cleveland State on national television? Will Clinton fight back against MSNBC, or have those battles passed? Will Obama keep up his attacks on Clinton? Will Brian Williams ask more or fewer than 4 pointless questions?
We have the answers for you, here, tonight. Live!
8:40: And, we’re up. As you can see, the site has a new layout. It’ll take a few days for us to get everything in order, but if you notice a problem, please let us know.
8:58: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama enter the stage as Keith Olbermann finishes his interview with Chuck Todd. The genius is overwhelming.
9:00: Here we go. It’s a special day - exactly 10 months ago the Democratic primary contenders met for the first debate. The announcer notes that 8 presidents came from Ohio. Of course, they don’t name those presidents given that among them are: Howard Taft, Rutherford B. Hayes and Warren Harding (not exactly what you’d consider presidential exemplars).
9:03: The first question is about the anger expressed by Hillary Clinton over the weekend. She explains that she is upset because she believes that Obama is distorting her record and the facts; also says that she wants to have a real debate grounded on true statements. Williams follows up with a question about the now infamous photo of Obama in Somalian elder clothes that appeared on Drudge. She states that to the best of her knowledge she is not aware of it coming from her campaign.
9:06: Sen. Obama states that he’ll take Sen. Clinton at her word on the subject and then wisely moves on to dealing with the health care issue. Obama states that there are legitimate differences between them on the health care issue and that the major difference is with respect to mandates - Clinton’s plans has mandates and Obama’s doesn’t rely on them in the same way. He goes on to argue that Clinton has consistently said that his plan will leave out $15 million people, when he doesn’t believe it to be true.
9:10: Clinton responds by saying that Obama’s plan does have some types of mandates; most notably, one that requires parents to purchase health care for their children. She asks: if mandates are required in that instance, why are they not required across the board? Then, she goes on to note that the issue of mandates is really about providing universal health care.
9:11: Obama again takes issue with the idea that his plan will not cover some people. Then, extends the discussion by saying that we’re still not sure how Hillary Clinton will enforce her mandates.
9:13: Clinton will not let this discussion go. She contends that at the point that Obama’s plan has mandates, he recognizes the necessity of them and argues that it’s simply bad policy for him to leave them out in the broader sense.
9:15: Obama retorts that the type of mandates that Clinton calls for will ultimately end up punishing people that cannot afford it. Suggests that they get together and try and work out the details. Obama also draws an analogy to Medicaid in order to demonstrate why people will opt into the system.
9:16: Brian Williams tries to shift the topic, but Clinton is not having any of that. She talks right over him until she’s able to make her point. This is a big issue for Sen. Clinton and she rightfully has an interest in engaging Obama on this topic for as long as possible. Finally, Williams changes topics to NAFTA, but not before complaining about the 16-minute discussion on health care.
9:18: Clinton asks why Obama never gets the first question on these tough topics and ties it into a skit from the most recent Saturday Night Live. She contends that from the beginning (as in when she started running for the Senate in 2000), she has been a critic of NAFTA. She states that she recognizes that it hasn’t worked in some places, but also realizes that it has worked in other places.
9:21: Obama notes that Clinton said in 2004 that NAFTA ‘was good for New York and on balance was good for America.’ He states that he doesn’t believe this to be the case, not only because of trade and employment issues, but also because of labor and safety issues.
9:23: Tim Russert confirms that Sen. Clinton indeed said the quote that Obama attributed to her. He says that during the ’90s, Al Gore said that the president can withdraw from NAFTA within six months and asks Clinton if she’s elected, will she notify Canada and Mexico that she’ll withdraw from NAFTA.
9:25: Clinton says she will notify Canada and Mexico that we will opt out, unless we renegotiate some of the core components of the agreement.
9:26: Noting Obama’s equivocation/ambivalence on the issue of NAFTA, Russert asks him the same question about withdrawing from NAFTA. Obama seconded Clinton’s answer. Basically, he played it safe.
9:31: Russert asks Clinton if her promise to create 5 million jobs back in 2000 was a bit too exuberant (yea, Tim would use this word in this context). Clinton says no because she was expecting a Democratic president and a Democratic congress. Russert is already starting to show signs of frustration. GRRRR…
9:34: Brian Williams asks Obama about his foreign policy experience and how that will stack up to a general election opponent who has a significant amount of experience. Obama makes the standard ‘my judgment was better than Clinton’s’ judgment argument regarding the decision to go into Iraq. Obama then argues that on critical issues, his judgment has been superior to both Clinton’s and McCain’s. Obama surely has his primary argument articulated, however, it’s clear from his response that he and his campaign either haven’t developed or don’t want to reveal yet a strong a strong response to McCain’s foreign policy credentials. I wrote a post on this very subject earlier today.
9:36: Clinton is asked if Obama is prepared to be Commander-In-Chief. Clinton dodges. What else can she do? It’s just not politically feasible for her to call him incapable in this capacity, because it would not be well received by the Democratic party at large, since that kind of statement could come back and haunt Obama in the general election should he be the Democratic nominee. She notes that Obama’s speech was a speech and he wasn’t in a position at the time to really deal with these issues. She then references Obama’s indication that he would meet with some particularly dangerous foreign leaders without preconditions. (I’m not sure this is the most accurate characterization of Obama’s argument, I’ll have to follow up on this when I have some more time).
9:43: Russert wants to know what Obama will do if Iraq tells the next president not to leave a residual force, but instead to just leave Iraq immediately. Obama says that he would respect a sovereign government.
9:44: Clinton will respect Iraq’s sovereign wishes too. Then, takes issue with Obama’s argument about his judgment on Pakistan and Afghanistan by stating that he’s the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Affairs and hasn’t had any oversight hearings yet on issues related to Afghanistan and Pakistan.
9:47: Obama concedes that he hasn’t had oversight hearings yet. He states that he became chairman of that subcommittee when the campaign began and then seems to suggest that oversight hearings wouldn’t have really mattered much anyway because of the Bush Administration. Uhm, I’m not sure this is a particular good response. I mean, I understand, but he’s going to have to get a stronger response in case this issue gets raised again after the debate.
9:49: And it’s break time! So far, both candidates have been debating well and seem to have found the right tone - one that allows them each to be critical without stepping over the line.
9:52: And we’re back. The debate re-opens with the clip of Hillary Clinton being sarcastic this weekend (aka: “Hillary’s celestial choir challenge”). Williams asks Obama for a response (doesn’t it just warm your heart that the moderators care so much about the candidates that they’ll waste time on dumb topics like this just so they can let the candidates discuss their feelings). Obama says that he is not just talk, references some legislation that he helped pass that helps veterans at Walter Reed and also talks about the people who support him in this campaign.
9:55: Williams asks for Clinton’s response. She states that she was just having a bit of fun.
9:58: Now, it’s Obama’s turn to explain away a video clip of him saying something critical about Clinton (I’m really confused as to why candidates are asked to explain clips of them criticizing each other. Isn’t that the point of an election?) The clip showed Obama referencing Hillary’s attempt to paint herself as a co-president during the Clinton years so that she can take credit for the good things. His answer turns more into a discussion about how he’s not naive.
10:02: Uh-oh, time for Russert. He prefaces his question by saying that keeping one’s word is very important, then asks why Obama, despite indicating in writing that he would opt into the public finance system, has now stated that he would not.
10:03: Obama says that he’s not yet the nominee and if he is, he will sit down with McCain and work out some type of fair agreement. He’s a big fan of these “let’s sit down and work this out” responses. Earlier in the debate, it was about health care and now it’s about public financing. Part of me thinks this is a genuine offer to work things out and the other part realizes that it’s also very politically beneficial to keep making these offers since they make him look like he’s willing to work with others and because it tables the issue. He notes the deficiencies in the public finance system and then touts his massive grassroots organization.
10:05: Now, Russert turns his Sauron-like eye to Hillary. He asks why she won’t release her tax returns and prefaces the question by noting that a chief supporter of Clinton, Ohio Governor Ted Strickland made the release of his opponents tax returns a big issue during the 2006 election because not releasing them indicates that you could be hiding something.
10:06: Clinton is definitely stunned by the question and offers a meandering response that eventually sounds as though she agreed to release them…soon. I should note that despite his best efforts and angry faces Russert didn’t really get a concession out of Sen. Clinton, because, she has maintained all along that she would release them eventually. Russert follows up and asks her about her public schedule as first lady and when she’ll release that.
10:07: Clinton’s answer: soon
10:09: ROAR! No, it’s not a monster; it’s another Russert question. He asks if Obama will reject Louis Farrakhan’s support. Obama says that he doesn’t condone some of Farrakhan’s remarks, but isn’t really sure what else to say on the subject. Russert wants to know what Obama will say to the Jewish community to reassure them that he doesn’t support/agree with the antisemitic remarks that Farrakhan has made. *sigh* Really? Is it really necessary to ask Obama to say that he’s not antisemitic? I could understand if he was having high-tea and pork with Farrakhan on a regular basis, but, they don’t even deal with each other. As you can imagine, Obama says he’s not antisemitic. *shock* I guess these are the kinds of lawyering skills Russert learned in law school (and may also explain why he’s not a lawyer).
10:11: Clinton follows up by noting that in New York she rejected the Independence Party because of antisemitic statements that they have made in the past and adds that she did so despite political risk. As a New Yorker, I can confidently say that there is no political risk in New York for not associating yourself with someone that is even remotely antisemitic. However, rejecting the independence party’s support as a whole could certainly cost some votes. Regardless, she was only saying this to draw a contrast between her and Obama on the issue and Obama gave in and said he’d reject Farrakhan. Okay…
10:21: Russert asks about the election of Putin’s successor in Russia and wants to know what the candidates can say about this individual. Oooo, a cryptic question.
10:22: Clinton’s answer sounds similar to the way a mobster would speak in a telephone conversation - in other words: vague. I’m not totally faulting her though, since, again, it’s a really broad, ambiguous question and it’s not even clear what Russert is looking for. I guess that’s what happens when you ask a crummy question. She butchers the successors name, but she knew it. Gold star in foreign policy? Obama echoes Clinton’s ambiguous overview (he clearly doesn’t know much on the subject either). *sigh* Well, have no fear, Russert has a note card that some intern probably filled with all kinds of goodies from Wikipedia and he proudly informs everyone about Putin’s successor - Dmitry Medvedev.
10:24: Russert asks Obama what he would do if Medvedev sent troops into Serbia. HEY! Obama says that he’ll work with the international community to figure out a solution. What kind of answer was Russert looking for in response to his hypothetical?
10:27: Russert wants to know if either candidate would like to take back a vote or a statement they have made. Clinton won’t admit she made a mistake on Iraq, much to Tim’s chagrin, but she does state that she would like to have her vote back. Very well. Obama? Obama would like to take back his inaction on the Senate’s approval of the legislation that allowed the Federal government to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case. You see, many Senators (including Obama) were on vacation when the bill came to the floor and so it passed with little opposition. To Obama’s credit, he does answer these questions honestly. However, this Schiavo issue is something he talked about regretting back in April 2007, so it’s not like he’s saying anything novel or particularly controversial. Although, it’s probably not a good political strategy to say something unpleasant took place partly because you were on vacation.
10:31: Brian Williams offers the candidates an opportunity to close things out. These remarks were banal and so I feel confident closing out this live blog now.
10:35: And we’re done!
10:38: If you’re still watching MSNBC, change the channel immediately or risk absorbing some of the idiocy that is almost guaranteed to ensue. Matthews opens his analysis by complaining that the 16 minutes of health care policy discussion was pointless and boring; he laments the lack of fireworks. Apparently, substantive discussions are bad for Americans to listen to because it means we may learn something. Does he realize how incredibly detailed debates over policy and political discourse used to be say 60 or so years ago?
Sphere: Related Content
Just wanted to note that the new look is very cool.
amazing - why is she whining about being asked question first
Hillary looks and sounds angry and unpleasant. Obama’s cool is more effective. I like her HC plan better than his - but he inspires more confidence in his ability to get an effective plan implemented than she does. Obama is doing better with NAFTA, too. He isn’t trying to say, as she does, that he’s always right.
After Obama mentioned that he hasn’t “whined” about HRC’s negativity, I was surprised that HIllary decided to whine about something as dumb as being asked questions first…also SNL isn’t as funny as it used to be and I doubt most people know what she was talking about.
[...] from 2008Central.net] 8:19: Underlying themes aplenty. Will Hillary Clinton continue her harsh attacks from the weekend [...]
Hillary’s engaging in Rovian propaganda. She completely ignores Obama’s point that judgement and foresight are more important than experience in foreign policy. It’s fallacious to argue that Obama’s votes post-invasion are like Clinton’s because he lacks courage to be different now that he’s in the Senate. It’s because the basis of judgement changed after Iraq was invaded. Ah! Now he’s making that point and drawing the distinction. Also caught her on the “let’s bomb Pakistan” exaggeration. Smart fella.
Whether you think Obama or Clinton is winning (and I admit I think it’s Obama) - how can you dispute which one looks more presidential?
Ha! Thought Williams would dope-slap Clinton to shut her up for the commercial break. She’s not impressing me by rolling over everyone like a runaway truck.
Russert, on the other hand. almost trapped Obama into endorsing the Bush doctrine. He slipped in the all important keywords “allies” and “Sovereign Nations” just in time… though there’s nobody else to vote for but the Democrat in any case.
Thought the public financing thing was the first time Obama’s looked slightly weak tonight. But I’m guessing that’s not an issue that really matters to your average low-attention voter.
When they showed that comment of Hillary when she was being “sarcastic” and raising her hand above her head, it made me think of an episode of “The Golden Girls” I saw as a kid. It was an episode where Blanche answered a phone call and was denying she had an affair with a city councilman candidate and she said “I will tell it to a judge, I will shout it from the highest mountaintop (here is where she raised her left hand….just like Hillary), I will swear to it on a stack of bibles”. She went over and asked Rose and Dorothy “Does that sound like a liar?” To which Dorothy replied. “No….IT SOUNDED LIKE JIM AND TAMMY FAYE ON NIGHTLINE!” I remember seeing them on Nightline and laughing at how phony they seemed. Hillary sounded JUST like them.
Tony, I agree. Obama should have called Russert on the “break your word” hit. Russert misconstrued Obama’s original statement in order to get there. Obama was in the right but didn’t defend himself strongly enough. He also didn’t hit hard enough on the McCain public financing issue. How many viewers are wonky enough to closely follow the hair-splitting that McCain is doing in backing out of his public funding deal? Obama should have explained that better.
Anybody besides me long for the day when unequivocal support for Israel won’t be table stakes for American politicians? Some of my favorite husbands were Jews, but that doesn’t mean that I agree with the policies of the sovereign nation of Israel OR think the US should support them even when they’re overly cruel and aggressive. Being critical of Israel doesn’t make someone anti-Semitic.
Um.
Hillary Clinton is always asked the first question and then Obama just repeats everything she just said and then adds hope and dreams. I think it was completely valid because if you notice that then you notice he has NO substance.
And please, even when Obama is the frontrunner the media specifically picks on Hillary. It’s not even really funny anymore. It’s actually getting kind of sad.
PS: message to future presidential candidates: JEWISH AMERICANS DO NOT WANT TO HEAR ABOUT HOW YOU WILL SPECIFICALLY FIGHT ANTI-SEMITISM AND PROTECT JEWS, THEY WANT TO HEAR HOW EVERYONE WILL BE TREATED EQUALLY, ALWAYS.
mwah.
Med-ved-ev, Hill-ar-y. So much for being ready on day 1.
Horrible debate, and the media questioners are to blame. We need trial lawyers to confront the candidates and to force them, via questions, to answer questions. There were lots of opportunities to pin the candidates on certain issues, but each candidate was allowed to slip away; viewers and voters were cheated, and the debate was a prodigious waste of time. I should have watched the Tennessee/Vanderbilt game (14 vs. 2)! If one is a non-Republican, and one who absolutely cannot vote for McCain, then one learned nothing tonight to assist one in deciding whether one should supprt Clinton or Obama. In the general election, let’s let the people ask the questions–not the millionaire members of the news media who are clearly out of touch with the real people, the 75% in this country who do not have a college degree.
Once again, Senator Obama chooses to not include lesbians and gay men in his public speaking. When challenged about Farrakhan’s endorsement he spoke only of his rejection of Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism. Farrakhan’s has spoken with equal hatred of lesbians and gay men; this is just like what he did when called upon to remove an ex-gay minister from campaigning for him in South Carolina.
It makes it extremely difficult for a gay man who is an Obama supporter to continue to push him with people who think that all citizens should be treated equally under the law
Right you are, Richard. This has been an appalling spectacle of the moderators trying to rake muck and get H and B into a spitting cat fight. Neither was really stupid enough to fall into the trap, but both looked weakened by the need for caution.
Disappointed in the questions AND the answers about the Middle East and Israel. Same old same old .. Special relationship with Israel seems to be both candidates position. same old same old ….
I wasn’t impressed very muc. But if I have to call the winner, certainly Obamah came out better.
shane, he has definitely mentioned gays in speeches before, most notably in the 2004 DNC address. I think he was trying to move away from the Farrakhan issue as fast as possible.
The Flash: Are you serious?
And yeah, I agree that debates suck.
Why didn’t Russert ask Obama about his decision to attend a church
(presumaby over a number of years) that is led by an overt anti-semite and racist.? Does that not imply some degree of endorsement (considering the preacher is Obama’s chosen spiritual leader).
The blogger really was biased against Hilary. I am so sick of sarcastic 20 and 30 something white males going after hilary. What’s wrong? Didn’t Mommy toilet train you right?
I’m still liking Hillary — after all this! — and now I’m worried about Obama’s ties to the Nation of Islam — need to learn more about that.
Forgot to mention all of the mysoginistic (spelling?) tendancies still noted in and around this campaign. Guys look smart and passionate, same comment from a female is described as shrill — guys are assertive, women are aggressive… what’s up with that? Time to get over it, fellas! Hillary’s a smart, smart woman and has a lot to offer the country. Let’s take it back from the Republicans — that’s the important thing!
Hilary is done. She should save face and exit while she can. Her aggressiveness tonight just killed her. Obama was cool, collective and consistent. Exactly the CHANGE you yanks need down there.
THE CLINTONS HAD 8 YEARS TO BE “AGENTS OF CHANGE” AND ALL WE HAD WAS STATUS QUO, SCANDALS, AND NOTHING HELPFUL FOR AVERAGE PEOPLE.
PLUS, AREN’T THE CLINTONS NOW SO POLARIZING THAT HILLARY REALLY CAN’T EXPECT ANY COOPERATION TO GET THINGS DONE IN WASHINGTON? HILLARY SAYS SHE IS “EXPERIENCED.” HAVEN’T WE HAD ENOUGH OF THESE LIFE-LONG “EXPERIENCED” POLITICIANS?
BUSH, CLINTON, BUSH, CLINTON….ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! OBAMA HAS A BACKGROUND IN PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS (SOMETHING WE BADLY NEED NOW), AND HE HAS A RESPECTABLE CHARACTER FOR REPAIRING OUR TARNISHED IMAGE AROUND THE WORLD.
Is Tim Russet getting too big for his britches or hadn’t I noticed before tonight
Obama can’t change anything — he’s got no hand. Cool? Had a tough time fielding questions about Farrakan and why he just said, gee, I didn’t ask him for his compliment until pressed to RENOUNCE and REJECT on national television. Someone buy him a dictionary so he understands the meaning of the world universal. Collective? Guess you mean collected. What was with the finger waving constantly in the air? That’s collected. And interrupting constantly. Wait your turn! Consistent — yeah, he’s memorized other people’s speeches pretty well — that’ll come in handy as leader of the free world!
“…now I’m worried about Obama’s ties to the Nation of Islam — need to learn more about that.”
How can people still talk about this? There was a bogus, inflammatory email going around a while ago accusing Obama of secretly being a Muslim, but its clearly untrue and the person within the Clinton campaign responsible was fired. And the loose connection between Obama and the Nation of Islam was merely that the leader of the NoI supports Obama. I’m sure there are people supporting both candidates that the candidates do not agree with or like, but they can’t exactly sensor people.
I like when Hillary brought up Darfur and Latin America. That is what the moderators should focus on. The real world issues are glazed and marginalized over with undertones, by design insinuate and incite controversy. Kudos to Hillary for bringing up the real issues even if the media moderators ask the most mundane predictable questions. After all, it is the issues we should be voting for. Not how many people you can pack into an arena or exit polls on electability.
Bill Clinton was the best thing that happened to this country in a long, long time. Many people benefited during his administration. Scandals we can pin on the Republicans who just wanted to shut the Dems down. Ridiculous. So what if he had an affair — who cares? She wasn’t a lobbyist for crying out loud.
Don’t know about you, but I want experience. Expertise. Knowledge of the world. Compassion. I’m voting for Hillary.
I have absolutely no hard evidence for believing in Obama — he’s a motivational speaker — well, guess what, we need more than that in the world George Bush left us.
Obama said his church pastor has ties to the Nation of Islam tonight.
I agree — Bill Clinton for President! Let’s elect Bill again!
What do Canadians know about aggressiveness? Anyway, they’re for NAFTA, so scr*w them.
janey2,
I assume this is the first exposure that you’ve had to this site. Welcome!
We’re a nonpartisan organization that is primarily focused on providing reasoned and fair information and analysis. For the most part, our content is serious and heavily substantive. Live blogs are a bit more fragmented and surly, but that’s only because they are an entirely different type of post.
I understand your frustration with much of the press coverage/tone towards Sen. Clinton’s candidacy. I assume you’re a new visitor to the site, because, if you were a frequent visitor, you’d know that I am a strong critic of the some of the coverage that Clinton has received this campaign.
I reviewed my live blog and I’m honestly a bit confused as to why you suggest that I am “really biased against Hillary.” (I’ll ignore the personal attack, since, again, I understand why many supporters of Sen. Clinton feel the need to be defensive towards bloggers and press people). The only statement that I could imagine being construed as critical was when I indicated at 9:36 that I wasn’t sure Clinton’s characterization of Obama’s past statements were accurate. I can see how one could misconstrue that statement; however, it was a pretty honest statement and should be taken on its face. I could not say with confidence that her characterization of Obama’s argument was accurate. I was not saying it was wrong. I was simply saying that I wasn’t sure and that I’d have to follow up on it.
In terms of the reference to the video of Sen. Clinton’s sarcastic comments about Obama this weekend, I was pretty critical of the press for asking the question; so perhaps you should take a second look? There was nothing misogynistic about characterizing her remarks as sarcastic - they were and that’s why the audience laughed, because sarcasm done right can be entertaining.
Anyway, I just wanted to clear that up a bit. Welcome to the 2008Central.net community. We have an excellent group of readers and people that send us questions. I urge you to spend some time checking out or other content, especially if you’re mad at the current state of coverage.
Regardless, thanks for the comment.
Best,
Angelo
Carolyn,
You ask:
Answer: You just hadn’t noticed before tonight.
Maybe when Janey referred to “bloggers” she meant all of the people commenting, not you, Angelo.
Meet the Press should be called Meet Tim Russert!
FORGET ABOUT THE AFFAIRS–NO ONE CARES ABOUT THAT.
BUT HOW ABOUT “CHINAGATE,” “WHITEWATER,” “TRAVELGATE,” THE VINCE FOSTER SAGA….THE LIST GOES ON AND ON.
Lastly, let’s not forget the accusations of special interests and how connected the Clintons are rumored to be with those that have globalist agenda.
Yes, the Republicans went out of their way. BUT THE POINT IS they had a long list of scandals that rightly or wrongly plagued them, and will follow them forever.
Bill let all of his rich buddies out of prison with pardons just before leaving office. Nice touch when millions of poor Americans are languishing in our jails and prisons for victimless crimes…Oh yeah, and how about NAFTA? How about the WELFARE “REFORM?” Now Hillary is the champion for the underdog? Give me a break.
BOTTOMLINE: WE NEED A FRESH START. THIS IS NOT AN ARISTOCRACY OR A MONARCHY. WE DO NOT HAVE TO VOTE THE SAME PEOPLE IN YEAR AFTER YEAR. WE TRIED IT, IT DOESN’T WORK.
Angelo, “I understand why many supporters of Sen. Clinton feel the need to be defensive towards bloggers and press people…” Can you clarify what you mean by this? Sounds a little stereotyping, but I’m sure you didn’t mean it that way.
I haven’t heard Hillary say anything about restoring our civil rights or ending our progress toward an increasing police state.
I have heard Obama speak often of civil rights. I don’t know if he will restore our constitutional rights and end the out of control incarceration rate, but if history is any indicator, Hillary Clinton will not.
The Clintons are charming, but their beauty is only skin deep. At least we have a chance that Obama will be the first honest President!
Bonnie,
Sure thing. Some folks in the mainstream media and the blogosphere have either been unnecessarily harsh to Sen. Clinton, inflammatory, needlessly critical or just flat out wrong in their coverage. Obviously, any political candidate will be on the receiving end of this type of coverage from time to time, but, Sen. Clinton certainly gets a disproportionate amount.
Accordingly, I was saying that given the coverage, many (not all or most) Clinton supporters feel a need to be defensive about criticism. Thus, in the instance that something I wrote was ambiguous, I can totally understand why a newcomer to the site, having not read anything else by me, would assume the worst interpretation. So, I ignored the commenter’s line about potty training, because I figured that she just interpreted what I said in the worst possible light.
I wasn’t suggesting that anyone or any particular group was oversensitive.
Watched the last 3 debates. At what point is Hillary going to change her debating strategy? At some point she simply has to say, “Obama isn’t ready to be your President. In political life, he’s just a baby.” Clinton is too nice and that’s why she’s not going to gain any ground. I’m fine with that, but I’m just sayin’.
I can’t get past the fact that junior senator Obama has never really accomplished anything legislatively as a junior senator. His lack of knowledge and constantly saying it is better to be right suggests that Senator Clinton has accomplished nothing. Furthermore, Barack was not even elected to the senate when the war began so it’s easy for him to skate away. He never had to make the decision based on the information provided to the senate at the time. If I rememer correctly, over 70% of American supported the war, based on the information being provided to them at the time. And lastly, as far as ‘change’ goes, Obama would be another male president. Some change.
Keith and Chris are showing their meanness increasingly as they run out of things to say. They appparently interview and eliminate anyone with something good to say about Hillary. How can they not agree that a woman for president would be a sea-change?. After 250 years, we recognize that men in the presidency are not all wise or all able. Let’’s hope that there is a resulting backlash to their consistent negativity toward Hillary; it’s very obvious. They should simply fold their tents for tonight. Why is Andrea so submissive to their opinions? It’s beyond me…
I don’t see how anyone can say that this blog is anti-Hillary. It’s quite neutral and actually makes an effort to be nice to her. I also don’t see why so many Hillary supporters can complain about unfair media coverage or call Obama the ‘media darling’ when just a few months ago and most of last year he was most certainly *not* the media darling–and daily took hits from the media that had plenty of condescension for him and confidence in Hillary.
Recently read an old (Dec 07) article from The Atlantic that details the early days of the campaign and even before that. Very interesting to see the pattern of the media’s attitude toward Obama and Clinton then. Worth taking a look at. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/clinton-obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuBo4E77ZXo
hey, watch this video ..
l need the guy’s behind the curtains ,,in the media to
tell the america people what does this mean? . is this a
hoax.?.or the real ,,deal it’s started with nafta and
the rest is the beginning of new era in 2010.
Oh! l wish the guy’s in the media to stop picking
on hillary.. growth up people.
thank you.
cable network
About the Al Quaida takeover hypothetical question. Silly. It would be a unifying situation for the Iraqis. There are 20 thousand Al Quaida and 20 million Iraqis. They will not be too gentle with these foreign troublemakes.
Obama is so fresh and attractive. He’s going to win.
The American people and the press should not be so quick to judge Sen. Obama over the Pastor Wright issue. Sure ideally, he should’ve immediately distanced himself from such negative emotional talk, but we should take a good look at ourselves. Look how Sen. Clinton has stood at her pulpit fostering negativity and division for political gain. If Sen. Clinton’s supporters would follow the advice she gave Sen. Obama, they would walk out on her. Is it a revelation then that Sen. Obama is human?
Pretty even so far, I think….The time is ripe for someone to take the lead here…
One thing is common in politics, the candidates talk about what is needed and what we should do (we must bridge the racial divide, we must do this…) but they never say HOW they propose to do it.