All the News Fit to Spin
MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Another debate and the front runners remain the frontrunners. Barack Obama was particularly on his game, hitting back hard at John Edwards when Edwards was critical of his vote on the Iraq war funding supplemental. Obama told Edwards: “The fact is is that I opposed this war from the start. So you're about four and a half years late on leadership on this issue.” Edwards also criticized Hillary Clinton but she couldn’t be baited, demonstrating once again she is a candidate who is strong on message and discipline.
The second tier candidates of Joe Biden, Bill Richardson and Chris Dodd didn’t have any stand out moments nor did they make any mistakes. Dodd was particularly irritable about his lack of debate time, having his campaign send out releases which contained the amount of talk time each candidate received. By their count, Obama got the most (followed by Clinton and Edwards) and Dodd didn’t even crack the top five.
After the debate, in the spin room, Edwards sent out his strongest surrogate, his wife Elizabeth, who was surrounded by reporters and patiently answered their questions. Obama media strategist David Axelrod was also surrounded. The only candidates to make appearances were Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Biden and Richardson. Gravel stayed the longest but Biden gave reporters a lot of his time too. Kucinich was hard to miss, mainly because of his tall, glamorous, I-could-be-on-the-cover-of-Vogue wife Elizabeth. [EMILY GOODIN]
Overall John Edwards won the debate but Obama and Hillary also had strong performances. Republicans should be scared of all three. The Dems will win easily on the issues next year and people will not buy the 3 G's rhetoric. Surprisingly all the major republicans are trying to be Bush clones and thats a disaterous strategy. As a republican leaning independent I would like republicans to be independent and not Bushies. I voted for him twice but will never do the same mistake again. All McCain, Rudy, Romney, Thomson are trying to outdo Bush and thats a big turn off.
As things stand today I will even vote for Hillary if things don't change. I would not have said that few years back. Whoever wants to stop Iraq war gets my vote.
Obama told Edwards: "The fact is is that I opposed this war from the start. So you're about four and a half years late on leadership on this issue."
Funny. Somehow Sen. Obama thinks a) he should be elected for something he did five years ago and b) hasn't exactly been a portrait in courage himself in demonstrating "leadership on this issue."
It was a very good debate and John Edwards won it on points. Edwards has been showing leadership on almost all the issues since last year, whether its war, global warming or domestic issues like health care, education Edwards has been the leader. Though Obama also has good proposals he has been too tightly controlled by his handlers.
By the way, did anyone notice how Hillary was laughing so loudly throughout the debate? It was very weird and sounded artificial.
Wolf Blitzer seemed to cut Bill Richardson short rather often, although the latter presented clear policy positions and didn't sound so much like a legislator as the others, for obvious reasons.
Well put, Corinne.
Obama wasn't even in the U.S. Senate when the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 vote took place (Oct. 11, 2002). In 2002, Obama was serving in the Illinois Senate. The only evidence of his "leadership" during his tenure was creating programs like the state Earned Income Tax Credit and an expansion of early childhood education.
Though Obama has every right to say what he said to Edwards I also think that Edwards was a clear leader and won the debate. Obama, Clinton and Edwards all looked very presidential. I will be happy to have anyone as our next president after the unconstutional dictatorship of last two terms.
My journey is coming to full circle. I voted for Dukkakis, Bush, Clinton, Perot, George W Bush twice and now I will take any democrat!
I think Barack Obama won the debate because "winning" the debate requires threee things to happen:
1.) Draw distinction -- Obama and Edwards had the strongest moments of the night.They are going to be the most memorable and lauded for not playing it safe. They also succeeded in drawing very sharp distinctions from Clinton and others.
2.) Know the issues -- Although CNN analysts suggest that "Biden's extensive experience showed," I counter that voters are being tuned in that these old, experienced sticks-in-the mud are part of an old politics that needs to be thrown out on its ear. "Obama was clear, concise on health care."
3.) Get the biggest boost from campaign -- Barack was "calm, clear communicator, knew his issues, explained his views cogently."
*******
Corrine: I would counter at you that it is funny how we should just forget how Clinton only voted for the war because:
a) Her advisers told her she is a woman and needs to look tough
b) The polls showed most Americans behind the war at the time -- hence she is a triangulating legislate-by-up-to-the-minute poll numbers
c) Barack had the COURAGE to go against something that was popular because he was smart enough to look forward and see the problems despite the popular hysteria
Hmmmm...rational thinker...or conniving triangulater? I'll get back to you on that one.
WX_Insider,
You are right, Barack was not in the Senate when the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 vote took place (Oct. 11, 2002); however, there is verifiable evidence in the form of print and video that show at or around this date, Barck Obama was adamantly against the resolution. This is important because people who were against it were being crucified at the time. But he felt show strongly about this, that he was willing to go out on a limb.
I live in Illinois -- if "Earned Income Tax Credit and an expansion of early childhood education" is all you think demonstrates Barack Obama's leadership, perhaps you should e-mail me directly and I can point you to many resources that show his leadership background while in Springfield. While I am at it, I would also be happy to point you to his record while in the U.S. Senate.
On the other hand, I do recall many empty vows by Clinton. After being elected in 2000, she said the first thing she was going to do was introduce legislation to do away with the electoral college. First of all...it would require an amendment. Second of all, it never happened. It was just typical triangulating to cater to everyone angry about what was happening to Al Gore. When the issue died, so did her "legislation."
If leadership is based on triangulating and flip-flopping, then Clinton is the winner. (Remember after the 2004 election when morals was polled as the #1 issue -- Clinton came speaking out harshly about abortion -- then when morals took a backslide -- she went back to being for abortion all the way until 17 minutes before delivery.)
Still a long way to go before the February elections, but at least the debates are finally starting to illustrate some distinctions. Having tried out their positions in the first set, the candidates are now isolating and refining their messages.
So, instead of the earlier dull, gray, undifferentiated glob of candidates, we are now seeing a few spikes and peeks of color and flash.
I'd rather vote for Elizabeth Edwards than John Edwards. His accent is just idiotic.
From an undecided voter: Clinton did very well, Obama did pretty well, and Biden surprised the heck out of a lot of people who were prepared not to like him because of his vote on the funding bill. Edwards didn't do anything wrong. Wolf Blitzer was ridiculous - how could he let 25 minutes go by before calling on Dodd? (I'm not a Dodd supporter) When are the moderators going to act like moderators, not participants?
I voted for Dukkakis, Bush, Clinton, Perot, George W Bush twice
that was a neat trick