Hillary won the New Hampshire debate clearly

[Tactical Progressive]

She did what she had to do: made her case for the reality of the hard work that actually effects change - not speechifying about change - and made the case that she's not just the candidate that 'will' change things, but has been working to change things all along. And she made it well.

I thought Edwards did very well tonight too. He was attacking Hillary a fair amount, but I didn't sense any cheap shots. I like his message. I think he improved his stock with his performance. Obama, who hasn't done exceptionally well in any of these debates so far, was weaker tonight than usual, though still not bad in any sense. I think he diminished himself, especially coming off of Iowa and his NH crowds and the big expectations that came out of them. High expectations, which is its own pitfall, combined with middling performance, makes a negative. Richardson, a nice guy, was still pretty boring, not that that has anything to do with the ability to run a country. I was getting a little tired of his 'Now, now kids, let's behave.' routine, but his Wizzer White answer was a nice, self-deprecating touch of humor to end the debate. Overall it was a good debate all around, made poignantly moreso following the mindless Publican snot-fest.

Back to Hillary.

Her specific answers were notably more comprehensive and clear, revealing a broader and more nuanced understanding of both the issues and the mechanics of governance than either of the others, starting right off with the al Qaeda / Pakistan question. Don't get me wrong, both Obama and Edwards had good answers too, as did Richardson. Hillary was just so much better. Her job was to show that she isn't the, as John Edwards is now trying to paint her, 'status quo' candidate. How absurd she made that seem with every answer she gave. She got the message right tonight, though she knows she's probably not going to win New Hampshire no matter what she does.

Understand this: her job wasn't to convince the Hillary haters on the net, like those here on DU that were rabidly dissing everything she said and did tonight, from her voice to her looks to anything else they could spew about nearly nonstop. Nor, as surprisingly as it sounds, did she need to convince New Hampshire 'independents'. They are, more than not, 'libertarian' right-wingers who weren't going to like anything a Clinton was saying. Libertarians often call themselves "Independents", like when they call into C-SPAN, but they're not far from Publicans in most of the important areas. NH is a notoriously libertarian state, trying to become blue. But they're not there yet, and Hillary probably won't be the one to win them over. That's not her target audience.

Hillary is playing to a national audience - appropriate for a national candidate don't you think - about what she stands for and what she brings to the table. She was smart, sharp, tough, feisty, even a little combative against Edwards' attacks. Funny too when put on the spot about likeability. And she made "change", as Obama and Edwards use it, look like empty rhetoric. There probably isn't a single word that politicians have used since the Roman Empire to get elected more than "change". For Obama and now Edwards to think they've coined the word is an absurdity. Hillary made that clear tonight, turning the word into deeds and leaving them with empty labels twisting in the wind.

Hillary is our girl, and I believe she's going to win this election, as she has earned and as we deserve. Obama's rhetoric and Edward's righteous anger are already starting to wear thin for all but the partisans. It's ironic, but John Edwards' largely unworkable threats to destroy corporate power will probably be better done by Hillary bending corporations to their responsibilities with deft use of political power, and Obama's aspirations to a 'new politics of hope' and a promise of a broader society will almost certainly be done better when a representative of the most politically disenfranchised constituency in America, the woman, is elected to the Presidency. Hillary will, ironically, bring to America the things which both Obama and Edwards talk about.

Hillary remained the center of attention tonight, even after all of the overdone hullabaloo out of Iowa over a few extra points for Obama. And she'll remain the one to beat even after New Hampshire voters have their say, whether they follow in Iowan's footsteps or not. This remains national politics, even as it starts off in small states.

[billybob537]

1. tuesday will decide who won

[Tactical Progressive]

2. No it won't

[Alexander]

85. The voters of New Hampshire matter more than you on Tuesday.

So, yes it will.

[Tactical Progressive]

86. The voters of the United States matter more than those in New Hampshire

So, no it won't.

I explained this in my post. Why bother to comment on a post if you're not going to read it?

[rodeodance]

3. She had a deep sense of what it will take to actually pull out our troops and I do think

she is committed to doing so.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

4. ANY of the Democratic contenders.... backed by the present day

Dem majority..... WILL be able to be true to their word. It's just that simple. Do you realize that if she does get in, and does manage to get reelected, that it will be TWENTY FOUR YEARS of the same two families running things in DC??? I find that offensive, not that I hate Hillary, dislike Hillary etc, but I find it somewhat peculiar that this would be the outcome.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I truly am READY for a change.

[Tactical Progressive]

10. Don't saddle Hillary with the Bushes

It's unfair and incorrect. A foolish argument at best, resorted to by people who'll take any hook they can find to hang their dislike of the Clintons on.

We've had eight years of Bill Clinton running things in DC.
We've had two-hundred and twenty years of men running things in DC, uninterrupted.

And you find Hillary Clinton's candidacy more offensive than that?

You should be ashamed of yourself for such a petty, contrived argument.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

24. I like the Clintons, I think they are good people and I believe they have

done good things. I don't care for Bill hanging out with Poppy with his track record. I am sure Hillary would make a fine president. What I said was I am ready for a change, take that any way you want.

[Tactical Progressive]

28. That's fine

Bill's continually trying to bring people together sometimes annoys me too, but 1) he does it for the right reasons 2) I'm probably too much of a hardass and unforgiving so it's good that not everybody else is to, and 3) might actually do some real good in the world, like flood victims, but also set an example of comity that can at least be attempted in national politics.

Bill started his tenure off wanting to forgive Iran-Contra and set a clean slate for the country. I don't think he had any more idea than the rest of us had how utterly rabid and rancorous Publicans would turn. I'd like to just put them all away for about ten years in some form of class-action criminal suit. But like I said, I'm unforgiving that way.

Sorry if I seem harsh about the whole Dynasty argument, but it really ticks me off for the reasons I stated.

Nice picture of Barack btw.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

37. I understand you.... and I have been accused and rightly so of playing

the devil's advocated in some instances. This is not one of those instances. I appreciate your response, and I would like to say right here and now, that if it weren't for DU, I would be a political vegetable. You people have made me mentally strong and politically savvy and I thank you from the bottom of my heart.

[Tactical Progressive]

39. Oh, see now

you're being all nice after I castigated you over the 'dynasty' thing and it's making me feel like a heel. I don't know how to deal with that. Call me a fucking idiot or something so I know how to respond. This is DU. Please act like a Roman when in Rome.

Thanks.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

40. If I were in Rome (back then) I would be drinking water that was

ferried by lead pipes.... and because of that, my responses would most likely take on an aggressive, belligerent tone. I feel none of that since I have been a drinkin' Evian water at two dollars a bottle... which spelt backwards is NAIVE. I lie, I don't drink Evian but I did want to get that joke in there....


1: J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2002 Feb;23(1 Suppl):S13-22.Click here to read Links
In harm's way: toxic threats to child development.
Stein J, Schettler T, Wallinga D, Valenti M.

Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. [e-mail]

Developmental disabilities result from complex interactions of genetic, toxicologic (chemical), and social factors. Among these various causes, toxicologic exposures deserve special scrutiny because they are readily preventable. This article provides an introduction to some of the literature addressing the effects of these toxicologic exposures on the developing brain.

This body of research demonstrates cause for serious concern that commonly encountered household and environmental chemicals contribute to developmental disabilities. The developing brain is uniquely susceptible to permanent impairment by exposure to environmental substances during time windows of vulnerability.

Lead, mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) have been extensively studied and found to impair development at levels of exposure currently experienced by significant portions of the general population. High-dose exposures to each of these chemicals cause catastrophic developmental effects. More recent research has revealed toxicity at progressively lower exposures, illustrating a "declining threshold of harm" commonly observed with improved understanding of developmental toxicants.

For lead, mercury, and PCBs, recent studies reveal that background-population exposures contribute to a wide variety of problems, including impairments in attention, memory, learning, social behavior, and IQ. Unfortunately, for most chemicals there is little data with which to evaluate potential risks to neurodevelopment.

Among the 3000 chemicals produced in highest volume (over 1 million lbs/yr), only 12 have been adequately tested for their effects on the developing brain. This is a matter of concern because the fetus and child are exposed to untold numbers, quantities, and combinations of substances whose safety has not been established. Child development can be better protected by more precautionary regulation of household and environmental chemicals. Meanwhile, health care providers and parents can play an important role in reducing exposures to a wide variety of known and suspected neurodevelopmental toxicants that are widely present in consumer products, food, the home, and wider community.

PMID: 11875286

[BeyondGeography]

51. Bill is the one who has saddled the Clintons with the Bushes

[Tactical Progressive]

53. Wow, a non-sequitor with a picture

But shouldn't you have at least found a picture of them riding horses, or at least saddling them, if you wanted an accurate non-sequitor?

Nice pic though. Bill doing his bit for political civility.

[BeyondGeography]

55. I thought it would be easier on you than Bill's idea to travel the world with Poppy

after Hillary's election to say the U.S. is open for business again.

But you done went and forced me to remind everyone.

[Tactical Progressive]

58. You set me up

You dirty rat. - Cue Edward G Robinson voice, or was that James Cagney?

[BeyondGeography]

63. Cagney

[HysteryDiagnosis]

67. Thank you... thank you very much. Now on to the next hole!! n/t

[enough already]

72. Bill has spent the last 8 years globetrotting with Bushco Sr.

Why is it unfair?

[Labors of Hercules]

66. We are in a constitutional crisis because of the Bush-Clinton Oligarchy...

Please let it not continue.

[Tactical Progressive]

78. What a ridiculous statement

What oligarchy? What Constitutional Crisis? What because of Clinton?

[Labors of Hercules]

91. A relative few wealthy and powerful people holding the reigns of government= oligarchy

An oligarchy that has modified the legal parameters around which our government functions to exceed or more often ignore the constitution for their own benefit = A Constitutional Crisis

Three Presidents and a candidate who have allowed the economic interests of the system (and vicariously the governing parties of that system) to gain an unprecedented level of control over the interests of the people = The Bushes and The Clintons

I will not present the myriad of detailed evidence that accounts for this claim, as it would require a post that exceeds my space and time constraints by miles of scroll and years of typing.

[indimuse]

5. kick!

I watched her on C-Span yesterday taking questions from NH voters...She has ABSOLUTE command of ALL issues..It was amazing to listen to (as you said)the understanding of the mechanical intracasies...Domestic and Foreign her experience and passion shows.

I also agree about JE attacking Hillary.

[cali]

6. nonsense.

you discredited yourself with this:

"Obama's rhetoric and Edward's righteous anger are already starting to wear thin for all but the partisans"

Not hardly, all the reports and polls show that Obama is just beginning to take off. As for wearing thin with all but the partisans? That's so much wishful thinking. He's doing extremely well with democrats and indies.

[indimuse]

7. after last night..

I think Obama will level out.

[cali]

16. more wishful thinking.

He did what he needed to do- not blow it. And all the MSM is covering it that way.

[indimuse]

38. yeah..

how about that MSM and Obama?

[Tactical Progressive]

11. We could disagree on that

and we do.

It certainly doesn't discredit anything about the rest of my post.

[Meshuga]

93. It seems Obama is stronger than ever

And I have a gut feeling he is it. As a person who does not have a preference (I'd be happy with either Obama or Clinton or Edwards winning the nomination) Edwards did seem self-righteous in the debates and kind of a dick. He would be better served staying on message rather than playing politics. He made me feel bad for Clinton and my perception was that she handled the attacks pretty well. But nothing seems to matter now with the apparent Obama momentum. He is the guy to beat.

[BlueManDude]

8. Hillary Clinton will sink this party in November

not only will she get creamed by McCain but she'll cost us House and Senate seats on the federal and state level.

The woman is poison.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. George McGovern Lost Forty Nine States And The Pop Vote 61-38%

But the Dems picked up two Senate seats that election...

What Senate and House seats does Hillary Clinton put in jeopardy?

[BlueManDude]

42. There will be many Dems who will suddenly develop "scheduling conflicts"

when Hillary comes to town in the fall. Do you think this is helpful? Ask them if they fear a negative drag from the top of the ticket.

Back in 72 the Dems were still in the last vestiges of their Southern dominance (in state houses and in congress) so I don't think the analogy apllies. Many is the south were voting for their local Dem but pulling the the lever for the GOP in prez elections. The parties are much more in parity now.

[Tactical Progressive]

14. Not just this party, but the whole nation

There will be starvation and murder in the streets. Not just some streets, but every street. All because of her.

I think 'poison' is too kind a term. I'd say more like radioactive nerve gas.

[Herman Munster]

9. recommended

very well thought out and perceptive post.

[Tactical Progressive]

15. Thanks Herman

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. We All See These Debates Through Our Own Prism And The Frame The Media Created

~

[Tactical Progressive]

17. Absolutely

I tried to be honest across the board, but as you say we all have our own frame of reference.

Every time I think about qualifying what I say with 'In my opinion', IMHO, etc I realize that everything we say on this board is pretty much 'in my opinion'. Which makes it moot and kind of boilerplate. And annoying if done everywhere.

I didn't think I needed to make the disclaimer that I'm a Hillary supporter both because everybody here realizes that since we're in the minority and already stick out, and because of the fairly obvious cues I put in the post.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. To Me The Greatest Character Flaw Is To Have A Bias And Not Reveal It

That's why I despise some members of the media...

[shayes51]

19. She clearly was the smartest person on stage.

[opihimoimoi]

27. K&R....she got meat

[End Of The Road]

20. Until last night, I was strongly for Edwards

But I was very, very impressed with Hillary's debate performance. I agree with you that her answers were more comprehensive and she conveyed an understanding of the complexities of the issues that Edwards and Obama did not.

I'm going to have to re-think my support.

[rodeodance]

26. it has always been a toss up between edwards and clinton for me--still is.

[Native]

21. KICK

[Sparkly]

22. It was the first time I really saw a difference among them.

The format of this debate was a good one for her, or she just used it to better effect. Given the time to speak without worrying about a timer, she worked to be concise on very specific policy details -- I got the feeling she had a lot more to say.

She was answering questions very specifically, often repeating the questions when others had taken it off to someplace else. Her answers were putting together information in a spontaneous and thoughtful way, not a rehearsed one. I don't know if I'm making my point well, but I think the others -- despite this format -- continued with their campaign speeches and slogans. They didn't respond to new questions with new answers. (And I think the emphasis on "That's why people like US and not YOU" came off as cocky.)

So the difference I saw was actually her intellect. I know the others are extraordinarily smart, too, with impressive backgrounds. But I got the feeling she's been grappling with these issues for a long time -- she's turned them around and considered them from every angle, she's had a long time for studying all the facts in detail, she's beyond being briefed on any of it. That's what I liked about her husband, that's what I liked about General Clark, and that's what I like about her. She's tough as nails, but last night (and in yesterday's Q/A session) I saw that she's remarkably knowledgeable on the intricacies of the issues.

I confess I've spent more time writing this than reading your post but I have to run -- will read more carefully later.

[Tactical Progressive]

32. Very well said Sparkly

I especially liked your "beyond being briefed" phrase. That gets to a sense I've not been able to put into words. It's like she's so immersed in so very much of this that it isn't just clinical, objective, policy-paper awareness. It's like she lives there, in many of these issues. What conversations Bill and Hillary must have, and must have been having for decades.

I also like how you put Wesley Clark in there with Bill and Hillary. All three are infused with the nuances of this stuff, and they all speak well, with Bill being the supreme talent in that regard. I hope they have a big part for Wesley in a Hillary administration.

Thanks.

[DemCam]

82. I love this post, Sparkly.

I hope many others came to the same conclusion and resisted
getting on the Obama train. You framed so well what I love
about Hillary Clinton. Coincidentally, I worked my tail off
for Wesley Clark, too.

[RBInMaine]

23. A few errors in your analysis.

First, I'm from Maine, have family in NH, and NOT all Independents in New Hampshire are "libertarians." MANY are very moderate, or even left-of-center. New Hampshire is tracking more and more blue: popular Dem governor, two new Dem congress members, many more Dems in the legislature, voted for Kerry last time, many people have come into NH from the bluer states of Mass. and VT, ... As she always does, Hillary sounded smart and sharp last night. But here's the conundrum she's in: when she goes negative, which she basically has to do now, she starts showing those teeth and claws that serve to reinforce the negative images people already have of her. She did that last night: looked downright nasty after Edwards called her "the status quo." Hillary's negatives remain high, and she'd have a damn hard time overcoming them in the general election. She is by far the most electorally risky of the top Dem candidates, and that may have even worsened last night. Hillary showed once again that she smart as a tack and well-qualified, but what she also did last night was to solidify her position in the overarching narrative of this election: change vs. experience/Washington establishment. Yes, she tried hard to bridge the two, but her emphasis, as it has been, was on her "experience." The reinforcement of that narrative combined with the claws that came out last night pin her further into the negative image that, fair or unfair, too many people have of her. Obama and Richardson held their own last night (both looked tired which is understandable give the grueling schedule), but Edwards stood out and did very well. Very arguably, it was Edwards (who ideally remains my first choice with Obama a close second), not Hillary, won the debate. He was very focused and on-message, and he successfully drew out that "nasty" response from Hillary. Obama has shown that he can draw support fom across the political divide in a way that Hillary so far has not. If he wins NH, and especially if Edwards comes in second or even a close third, Hillary will be in real trouble because Obama will then go on to win SC. It is tough to recover from too may early state losses even with the money and organization of the Clinton machine. I would like to this, more objectively. The amount of "change" that Hillary has actually affective could, arguably, be described as minimal. She failed on healthcare during Bill's presidency, from what I understand she has but a modest Senate record (much credit though for her big election win in NY), apparently she did some good work in education back in Arkansas but can only so much credit. Obama has already done some good things in the Senate, did many good things in the Illinois legislature, and was a community organizer in Chicago who certainly created "change" for people on the front lines. Edwards has some Senate accomplishments, ran a poverty center, started afterschool programs, beat down big corporations in court time and again, has started the One-Corps organization, has been an active union organizer, and done other things affect real "change" for people. Also, Hillary has taken A LOT of corporate money. She virtually defended that corrupt system last summer. How can she create "change" when she takes the money of those who purpose in life it is to block change??? THAT was the BEST point made all night, and EDWARDS made. it. In the last analysis, Edwards and Obama have the best chances of defeating the R's in the general election. If trends remain, Obama could prove to be a bonafide RFK type political phenomenon. Don't get me wrong, I like Hillary and would work like hell for her if she were nominated, but she would have a VERY tough time overcoming her negatives in the general election.
People are HUNGRY for change, whether or not that term seems like something of a political cliche'.
They want something new, something exciting, something different. The presidential vote is the most personal vote, for better or worse. People are excited and juiced up about Obama. He has a magic that Hillary just doesn't have, and if he can continue to build the kind of coalition he won with in Iowa and show that he is credible on the issues, Christ help the R's come November.

[klook]

34. Most perceptive post in this thread.

I would also point out that Obama is not far behind Clinton in receiving campaign funding from corporations: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=H04

[ellisonz]

35. Dude, great post!

Helpful Hint: Break it into paragraphs by using the enter key.

Ribbie!

[jerryster]

46. Didn't see the debate last night

I'll have to read the analyses and wait for Tuesday. Good post,though. I will vote for the Democratic candidate in November no matter who it is. Can't have 4 more years of the Presidency in Republican hands.

Your last line does concern me. I know I can get pessimistic at times, but the fact is that November 2008 is not locked up for us. The big story this Tuesday may be on the Repub side re: McCain. He was already measured and buried in a political coffin. Now it looks as if he could win in NH Tuesday. That may be enough to resurrect him. Let's be very careful on the Dem side to not be dismissive of his chances in November. Complacency kills.

[Tactical Progressive]

50. The one guy I've been worried about all along

is McCain. I don't underestimate him, and others on here don't either.

And yes, New Hampshire will kick him back up. That's why he was so smiley and snide during the Publican debate. He knows New Hampshire is his town. That sort of tells you what Hillary is up against in NH too.

[Tactical Progressive]

48. I see opinions not errors

RB, I appreciate your detailed analysis, but if you're referring in some way to "NOT all Independents in New Hampshire are 'libertarians'" as an error, I didn't say that. In fact, it looks like everything you say about NH libertarians backs up what I said.

I've got to go RB, but I'll respond more later. Try to do something with that Borg ship-like block of text if it's not too late.

[creeksneakers2]

73. Edwards was the nasty one. He just gets away with it.

Consider these statements from Edwards:

"The forces of status quo are going to attack every single time," he said after Clinton criticized Obama. "We need an unfiltered debate between the agents of change about how to bring about that change."
"He believes deeply in change and I believe deeply in change," Edwards said. "I didn't hear these kind of attacks from Sen. Clinton when she was ahead, and any time you speak out for change that’s what happens."

That's mudslinging character assassination and a total lie. Hillary is not a force of the status quo. Hillary is as far from the status quo as one can get. The MSM trashes her every chance she gets. The GOP thinks she's a socialist. She shakes things up all the time.

She's for basically the same objectives as Edwards is. She isn't spinning fairy tales about how she's some kind of superhero who will get money out of politics. She isn't defending undue corporate influence either. She only has a different idea about how to achieve change, not whether there should be change.

Edwards goes on to say "We need an unfiltered debate." There he attacked Hillary's right to be on the stage at all. Who the hell does Edwards think he is? He's the one who has no chance to win and ought to quit and let the real contenders fight it out. Hillary is not a "filter." She's not preventing him from saying anything he wants to say. Edwards just wants to create that mis-impression so he can pretend he's heroically standing up to imaginary injustice.

Edwards blasted out, "I didn't hear these kinds of attacks when she was ahead..." Hillary started out talking about her experience. When Obama's change message caught on, Hillary adopted it and argued she's the better agent. That was back while Hillary was ahead. Hillary didn't change after the Iowa Caucus. She's saying the same things as before. The differences she pointed out with Obama last night were substantive.

Edwards said "anytime you speak out for change that's what happens." The status quo does defend its turf but Hillary isn't part of that. Edwards's claim that she is is unsupported.

Why does the mudslinging Edwards get a free pass while Hillary is criticized just for defending herself? She's human and has emotions. When she's lied about and slandered she feels upset. Why shouldn't she be? Its all a double standard promoted by the media and the real defenders of the status quo, who don't want change at all.

[Tactical Progressive]

79. You break that down well

I don't disagree with any of your analysis. I just think that John was within the bounds of civil debate in trying to paint Hillary as the 'status quo'. That's politics. She's not by any means, in fact to my mind John Edwards was more of a go-along with the status quo in the Senate than Hillary has been, though of course they both, and Obama too, often do that. That's part of how the Senate works.

I thought Hillary countered that well throughout, especially as she pointed out that nothing could be less status quo than the first woman President in American history. She should keep doing that, and take the horrified media reaction to her "playing the gender card". Let them; they're not going to treat her fairly anyway. I think it will backfire on the media, or at the very least they will lose traction against Hillary.

Look at the double standard. Hillary or her supporters can't even so much as infer that her being the first woman President in American history has any place in this debate. Contrast that with the media continually going on about what an historical event, what a turning point in America, nay, the world, it is for Obama to possibly be elected President. But the first woman, which I view as an even greater event? We don't talk about that and don't you dare either.

Fuck that, and fuck them. Keep doing it Hillary. Let women everywhere see how pissy they get over it.

The point you bring up about Edwards being untrue in saying "I didn't hear these kinds of attacks when she was ahead..." is correct. That's just a mistake on his part. I wouldn't quite call it a lie until he is called on it and decides to continue, but either way it's not hard to refute. All Hillary has to say is what you've said - 'I've been saying this all along, John. ...'

I think Edwards is on the verge of taking his attack dog role too far. In fact he may have just passed over the top. It's starting to look like he's Obama's little attack dog after the Nashua debate.

And it's starting to look like the boys keeping the girl out of the treehouse. 'It's you and me Obama, right? We're the 'Agents of Change' and she's not. She's a 'status-quo'. She can't say she's for change, right?' Obama - 'Uh, what?' 'See, you can't say you're an 'Agent of Change', that's just me and Obama!'

When they, and even more especially the media, grow up, they'll let the girl in the treehouse. After which traumatic event they'll probably have more fun than they ever did before. Hillary is the kind of girl that's just going to climb up into the treehouse whether they want her to or not. How's that for breaking the 'status quo'?

[Apollo11]

80. I agreed with your analysis of the debate

... right up until the part where you said that Christ would help the Republicans.

Even if some kind of immortal half-divine half-human being exists (which I personally find impossible to believe), there's no way he would help the Republicans. ;-)

[Tactical Progressive]

89. Ok, I'm back

I'll try to address that iceberg of text!

First off, you seem to confirm my take on NH and libertarianism pretty much down the line.

I agree that when Hillary has to go negative it reinforces the stereotypes put on her. The media has played a big part in this, allowing and even promoting Edwards and Obama to attack Hillary as much as they can, then sneering with contempt when Hillary hits back. I don't think she looked "downright nasty" in responding to Edwards painting her with his latest label. She looked like she was fighting back, though I think she should learn to tone it down some when she does it. Overall, I'm glad she hits back and I'm sure alot of others are too. I guess we sort of agree on that, but to a large difference in degree.

I can see feeling that Edwards won that debate since he did do well, but I believe Hillary was clearly better. That's a matter of opinion I suppose. Obama was hardly inspiring in that debate, which after his rock star entrance to New Hampshire looked weak.

Hillary was pointing out how much change she had done, and tried, and stands for. Trying and failing to drastically upgrade healthcare in the 1990s is anything but a negative. It's a huge positive. She wasn't trying to prove that she was better than the others on that count nor does she need to.

Obama, from what I've heard, never tried a case. Maybe that's wrong. I think Obama's career ought to be vetted more thoroughly. I'm guessing there's alot less there than meets the eye.

Corporate money, uhh. Edwards is just flat wrong in principle. And naive in practicality. And hypocritical. I don't want to get into that here.

As far as 'magic' I realize that the conventional wisdom is that Obama is the rock star. I don't buy it at all other than in the minds of political kids. He's just a poser to me; a guy that's learned to play a poltician on TV. All politicians are like that so some degree. I'd rather spend an hour talking with Hillary than Obama. She has more magic to my eyes and ears than just reading lofty speeches. And beyond that, we don't need magic, whether someone likes Obama or Hillary. You going to choose a heart surgeon because people think he's charismatic? This is a real tough job. George W. has charisma. Boy howdee. Let's leave attraction to charisma for movie stars and sports legends.

Lastly, the early state losses don't worry me tactically. They just seem important from this early perspective. How often have we heard in the last week that because Hillary lost a caucus by a few percentage points over expected that she might as well pack in the entire country. It's ridculous, and neither New Hampshire nor South Carolina are cause to bail.

[juajen]

25. I appreciate your post and have recommended it.

Thank you for that succinct defense of Hill. I thought she was great last night and am glad a lot of people agree with me. I know I am biased on her behalf; but, with this bias, comes an awful lot of soul searching and researching the issues. I will miss Biden and Dodd; but I feel I now know two very good Senators much better. Last night was just not the same without their wit, expertise and opinions. Of course, all of us who love Dennis missed him and Elizabeth last night. It's an uphill battle to get a true blue progressive in the limelight. We must keep trying. He has a lot to offer this country. All of these wonderful people make up our great Democratic Party, and I am so proud of all of them. Needless to say, that includes Edwards and Obama, great Americans all.

[RBInMaine]

31. Lincoln and "experience".

Interestingly, there was another politician from Illinois who did not have a whole lot of Washington "experience" before assuming the presidency, yet he is regarded as one of our greatest.
Abe Lincoln had served but a single term in the US House. Aside from that he'd been a lawyer and an Illinois legislator. Damn smart guy though worked like hell, won the civil war, and freed the slaves, among other accomplishments. Washington experience needed to be successful? Hmmmmm????

[Donnachaidh]

29. some people have liquid breakfasts

Hillary won -- :rofl:

Don't.Think.So. :rofl:

[JTFrog]

30. LOL! n/t

[Tactical Progressive]

33. Spoken with all the eloquence of

whatever.

Even the time spent reading a three letter word from you is a waste JT.

[JTFrog]

36. ROFLMAO!!!!!

Cognitive Dissonance - It's not just for Republicans anymore!!!

[ToeBot]

41. Yeah, but not a big a waste as reading your analysis! I've scraped less offensive BS off my shoes.

Welcome to the pile.

[Tactical Progressive]

43. I have no doubt you spend alot of time scraping shit

off your shoes.

[ananda]

44. Actually..

I thought Hillary did well .. probably
as well as she could do considering her
record. As far as I'm concerned, Edwards
came out best on issues that affect real
people as opposed to corporations and
regressive rightwing social issues (which
Obama has embraced).

However, this debate is turning out to
be completely meaningless.

Big mo is with Obama. It's going to be his
nomination.

Even though I hate Obama's senate record and
his shift to the right and his corporatism,
I think I will have to hold my nose and vote
for him.

I just pray.. and I mean really pray and hope..
that there will be liberal, moderating forces
putting pressure on Obama to do the right thing
once he's in office.

[Clanfear]

45. I'm still trying to understand 35 years experience.

Where is she getting this figure?

[Azathoth]

49. That's right around the time she started dating Bill in law school

Coincidence?

[Tactical Progressive]

52. She's pulling it

out of thin air. I have as much experience as Hillary's twelve years in the governor's mansion, eight years in the White House, and eight years in the Senate. Oh, and working on Watergate in DC as a young lawyer too - big deal. Like I said, I have just as much national and executive political experience as she does. She was in the kitchen baking cookies like Tammy Wynette. She has thirty-five years experience baking cookies. Ha-ha.

[Big Blue Marble]

68. what makes it more confusing

is that she claims 35 years of change. She goes back to her years in law school. Yet she wants
to claim that Obama is inexperienced at 46. As if everything he has done in the last 21 years is
meaningless. She wants it both ways. How Clinton of her.

[Lucinda]

84. Maybe this link can help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton

[Apollo11]

81. "35 years of change" has a certain truthiness to it.

As far as I am aware, Hillary has been in the US Senate for the past 7 years.

She was the spouse of the US President for another 8 years.

So even if you include the First Lady thing, you only get to a total of 15 years.

So we are looking for another 20 years of change to make up the numbers.

Is this 20 years of change she delivered for the people of Arkansas? :eyes:

[Sparkly]

92. Read the link wlucinda posted.

She had amazing accomplishments before even getting married, and continued from there.

[Colobo]

47. Very passionate defense of your candidate's perfomance.

Your post is sincere, as your support is, and for that reason I respect it.

Obama will win in NH and it WILL matter, and Hillary might wind up 3rd again. That would simply be... devastating for her aspirations.

[Tactical Progressive]

56. I don't believe so

I don't think another 'third' would hurt her in New Hampshire, or even through South Carolina.

Question for you Katz since you bring up third. Do you think the media would be portraying Edwards in third if he was behind Hillary by a quarter of a percentage point, or do you think they would be referring to the Iowa caucus results, and by that I mean all the time as their standard interpretation, as a 'virtual tie for second'?

You can guess what I think.

Gotta go for now.

[Colobo]

60. The media would have written Edward's obituary

right at the moment he was announced third.

[Tactical Progressive]

61. Could be, but don't think so

They would have kept him alive, and minimized Hillary, with 'a virtual tie for second with Hillary' interpretation.

After all, how could you be done if you tied with the presumptive nominee?

Anyway, I think the virtual tie for second is accurate and would have thought so in either orientation.

[Colobo]

62. Tactical, the only reason why Edwards is still around

is because he managed to get a couple more votes than Hillary. He has spinned this as a victory over the "establishment" candidate.

[zulchzulu]

54. Hillary came in third again

Obama stayed above the fray and didn't stay off message. He won.

Edwards did very well and slammed major chinks in Hillary's rusty armor and even perhaps got Hillary to do her version of the "Dean Scream". It's a close second.

Hillary looked tense and uptight, and but focus groups and other indications, appeared to be desperate and flailing. She is a tight third with Richardson close behind.

You can think she won, just like perhaps you can think it's no big deal she lost badly in Iowa. It's over for her. She will do nothing but fade at this point as she gets even more negative.

Put a fork in the Clinton Machine.

[blondeatlast]

57. (Pardon the shout but) CAN I PLEASE DECIDE FOR MYSELF WHO WON?

Do you honestly believe your saying it convinces me when I watched it myself?

Thank you, DU Pundit. :eyes:

[Tactical Progressive]

59. Oh, I'm sorry.

We're not allowed to post our opinions on DU anymore?

Or is that unless they agree with yours, then it's OK?

[I was just saying...]

70. Like you decided on which thread to pontificate in - oy veh. (nt).

[GalleryGod]

64. I Heard this empty Echo before. Where?

[Cameron27]

65. Very good analysis TP

I only disagree with you about Edwards. I have no idea how he benefits by cozying up to Obama the way he did, unless he's running for the VP spot already. His attempts to shut Clinton out and make this into a 2 man race ended up making him look like a lacky, if that's the right word.

[Tactical Progressive]

87. It is starting to look a little strange

I thought Edwards would come out against Obama in Nashua, since he's the front-runner now with the momentum and the media love and all, but it's still the boys against Hillary, which incidentally shows who's still at the center of it all.

Check post #79 for my take on how John is starting to come off.

[itsrobert]

69. Only in Hillary math is finishing third is really finishing first

She also finish third in Iowa.

[Evergreen Emerald]

71. I agree completely. Too bad she doesn't have a dick.

she would be blowing away the competition. Instead we witness the masses succumb (again) to what they are fed from TV.

She is nuanced and detailed and has a deep fundamental grasp of the issues that no one else on that stage had. Richardson may have had it, but he did not articulate it like Clinton did.

She is just amazing.

[Tactical Progressive]

77. If Hillary were a man

The media wouldn't be lying in wait for her to attack so they could point out how disgusting it is when she does. They'd be applauding it.

I don't think I'll ever forget how they pushed and prodded and demanded both Obama and Edwards attack her in the first debate - they practically had no choice but to do at least some of it. And then how pedestrian those attacks were while she kept her cool and did by far the best on the issues AND hitting Publicans while defending herself from her fellow Dems and Russert. Then when she attacked back in self-defense in one of the succeeding debates they were horrified, nasty and ugly to her. Hillary has the option with the media to sit and take it and nothing more.

I too believe it is simply because she is a woman, and that is the exact point in time when I realized that the mysogny of the power structure in America isn't just casually applied, but will go to lengths of ugliness and vindictiveness that I would have only imagined out of deep-red enclaves, when challenged.

It was an eye-opener. I don't know if women will respond, or if it will be a 'she shouldn't be dressing so provocatively' attitude towards her even running for the office. I certainly didn't hear much outrage from women afterwards, but then again the media shows what it wants to show.

[Hatchling]

74. I'm an undecided.

I wave in the wind as to who I am going to vote for.

I love Kucinich and his platform and hope he can continue to get his message out there, but I know he has no chance.

When the Pakistani crisis blew up, Biden looked very attractive to me.

After Iowa it's obvious that there is a three way race and Edwards message in his after election speech excited me. I leaned toward him until the NH debate. At which point I felt that he had abrogated his own personal fight to being the second on a tag team with Obama to get Hillary. It's obvious to me that he has hitched his boat to Obama's. I'm disappointed.

Obama is a very inspiring speaker, his speeches leave me feeling elated, but I feel in the debates he comes off wooden to me and I have never been impressed.

Keep in mind I am still undecided, but Hillary's "Dean Scream" had me sit up and take notice of her. I liked her in that moment. I was impressed with her. I paid more attention to what she had to say in the rest of the debate.

And the rhetoric against that moment on this forum and in the MSM is pissing me off.

So I continue to research the candidates, their stances, their backgrounds and their history. I continue to listen to their speeches and the debates. My primary is isn't til Feb 5th, but the MSM and the nasty rhetoric isn't going to make up my mind for me.

[Faryn Balyncd]

75. Only if you believe that being FINANCED by & CAVING IN to BIG PHARM on health care. . . . . . . . .

Only if you believe that being FINANCED by & CAVING IN to BIG PHARM on health care - - - and then revising your health care plan so that it tops the Republican Medicare Drug plan as a source of CORPORATE WELFARE is equivalent to "standing up to the drug companies" (that's her evidence of "change" as touted by HRC in the debate) . . . . . . . only then can you believe that Hillary Clinton won this debate.


Certainly you have company in your assessment . . . . . all of Hillary's financial backers from BIG PHARM (not to mention Mr. Murdock) think she is exactly the one to "stand up to the drug companies".


Do your fellow Clinton backers make you at all nervous?


Do you think that the corporate media blackout of John Edwards is a service to our democracy?







:dem:






:kick:

[Forkboy]

76. It's always shocking to see someone declare their candidate won a debate.

Amazing.

[DemCam]

83. Then who decides?

The pollsters? the pundits? Certainly not the voters because they never really just vote on a debate performance in
a very meaninful way...only in a statistical sort of way.

Besides, how many of the posts since last night have been just that. Guess this has been a trully shocking day. :)

[Arugula Latte]

88. I thought the debate only served to highlight her extreme unlikability. nt

[Tactical Progressive]

90. Since when do you need a debate to hilight your Hillary-hatred?