Why Obama, And Democrats, Won The Debate

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:51:35 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Speaking for me only.

Because he put the Democratic Party first. In really laying the race brouhaha to rest, Senator Obama went beyond what was politically expedient for his campaign - which was to of course appear to disclaim any desire for the dispute - to go above and beyond that. He expressly and emphatically cleared the Clinton campaign of engaging in racial politics AND he took some responsibility for the controversy. He was the biggest person in the room - for the benefit of the Democratic Party. No Obama for Obama, as I have often accused him of, this was Obama for the Democratic Party. Some examples:

SEN. OBAMA: Well, I think Hillary said it well. . . . Now, race has always been an issue in our politics and in this country, but one of the premises of my campaign and, I think, of the Democratic Party -- and I know that John and Hillary have always been committed to racial equality -- is that we can't solve these challenges unless we can come together as a people and we're not resorting to the same -- or falling into the same traps of division that we have in the past.

More . . .

MR. RUSSERT: In terms of accountability, Senator Obama, Senator Clinton on Sunday told me that the Obama campaign had been pushing this storyline. And true enough, your press secretary in South Carolina -- four pages of alleged comments made by the Clinton people about the issue of race. In hindsight, do you regret pushing this story?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, not only in hindsight but going forward.

I think that as Hillary said, our supporters, our staff get overzealous. They start saying things that I would not say, and it is my responsibility to make sure that we're setting a clear tone in our campaign. And I take that responsibility very seriously, which is why I spoke yesterday and sent a message, in case people were not clear, that what we want to do is make sure that we focus on the issues.

Now, there are going to be significant issues that we debate and some serious differences that we have, and I'm sure those will be on display today. What I am absolutely convinced of is that everybody here is committed to racial equality . . .

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe this is a deliberate attempt to marginalize you as the black candidate?

SEN. OBAMA: No. As I said, you know, I think that if you look not just at this campaign, but at my history -- my belief is that race is a factor in our society.

But I think what happened in Iowa is a testimony to the fact that the American public is willing to judge people on the basis of who can best deliver the kinds of changes that they're so desperately looking for, and that's the kind of movement that we want to build all across the country. And that, I think, is the legacy of Dr. King that we need to build on.

MR. RUSSERT: In New Hampshire your polling was much higher than the actual vote result. Do you believe in the privacy of the voting booth that people used race as an issue?

SEN. OBAMA: No. I think what happened was that Senator Clinton ran a good campaign up in New Hampshire. And, you know, I think that people recognize we've got some terrific candidates who are running vigorous campaigns. It's going to be close everywhere we go. It's close here in Nevada. It's going to be close in South Carolina. And, you know, at any given moment people are going to be making judgments based on who they think is best speaking to them about the urgent problems that they're facing in this country. . . .

This was a Democratic politician, in the best sense, but also a Democratic statesman.

I believe it was his finest moment of this campaign.

< Hearing Thursday on Nevada Teachers' Union Suit | CNN's John King Gets Upset >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Why Obama, And Democrats, Won The Debate | 59 comments (59 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

If that is the case then Obama is indeed ruthless (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Molly Bloom on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:54:57 AM EST

enough. As one who has questioned whether Obama can fight, your position answers the question with a yes.

The contra to your position is that the Clinton's manipulated it to change Obama from a candidate who is black to the "Black Candidiate" and by declaring a truce are having their cake and eat it too.

I don't really care. 2008 is too important.

Kennedy Johnson had a shotgun marriage. Maybe another shotgun marriage is in order.They looked like they could work well together. If that is what it takes to beat the GOP into submission, I am for it- their individual supporters and detractors be d@mned.

Not enough (none / 0) (#5)
by koshembos on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 08:34:37 AM EST

About 4-5 months ago, I realized that Obama's campaign is an intentional copy of Bush's 2000 campaign. I also realized about the same time that Obama is the most right wing Democratic candidate. I am scared of empty slogans be they "uniter not divider" and "compansionate conservative" on one hand or hope and change on the other. Dangerous candidates should be stopped as early as possible before they cause irreparable damage.

Claiming that "fairy tale" implies racism is a Rovian act; it was initiate by Obama.


If you can't tell the difference (5.00 / 3) (#11)
by kovie on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:04:12 AM EST

between an obvious sociopath and a man who foresook a lucrative law career to work as a community organizer, just because the latter has engaged in the sort of rhetorical flourish that all successful politicians engage in from time to time, then you really are an idiot.

Sorry, but anyone who accuses ANY of these candidates (including my very non-favorite one, Hillary) of being another Bush, gets called an idiot by me.

Go spread your concern troll crap elsewhere.


I thought (none / 0) (#26)
by Judith on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:16:33 AM EST

he was a community organizer and gave it up to be a lawyer.


True (none / 0) (#39)
by kovie on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:31:55 PM EST

I keep forgetting the chronology of his career:

College (Occidental/Columbia)
Corporate consulting (BIC)
Public advocacy (NYPIRG)
Community organizer (Chicago inner city)
Law school (Harvard)
Lawyer for community-advocacy law firm (Miner, Barnhill & Galland)
Constitutional law lecturer (U of Chicago Law School)
State senator (IL)
US senator (IL)

So he worked as a community organizer before, not after law school, but worked to advance similar goals as a lawyer for a community-advocacy law firm afterwards. Same difference IMO. He didn't "give up" being a community organizer to be a lawyer, but to do what he did on a more sophisticated and influential level that probably better matched his talents.

What I find most perplexing about him is that his rhetoric falls short of his record, when it's often the other way around. He's got nothing to be ashamed of that he needs to cover up with rhetoric. Perhaps, as a black man with a Muslim father, he fears that if he's too openly progressive, it will hurt him electorally.


that is what I heard him say (none / 0) (#42)
by Judith on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:46:18 PM EST

"So he worked as a community organizer before, not after law school, but worked to advance similar goals as a lawyer for a community-advocacy law firm afterwards. Same difference IMO. He didn't "give up" being a community organizer to be a lawyer, but to do what he did on a more sophisticated and influential level that probably better matched his talents."

after people accused him of selling out to go make money instead of staying and helping out as he had been.

I'm confused as to what point you're making here (none / 0) (#45)
by kovie on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:55:32 PM EST

That you buy this explanation, or are mocking it?


wasnt (none / 0) (#48)
by Judith on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:06:10 PM EST

making a point so now you have confused me.

I was looking to confirm what I had heard (or read) that he had said in reseponse to a question.


Ok, fair enough (none / 0) (#50)
by kovie on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:16:29 PM EST

It's just that I've become hyper-sensitive to unfair and untrue accusations made by partisans against ANY of the candidates (as opposed to fair ones, although I suppose that I've sometimes overreacted to those as well--it's primary season and we all go a little nuts sometimes). E.g. Obama is a sellout, Hillary is Bush Lite, Edwards is insincere. It's all unacceptable, and ultimately damaging.

So, no harm meant.


no harm taken (none / 0) (#51)
by Judith on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:26:35 PM EST

take care -


hey (none / 0) (#52)
by Judith on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:46:00 PM EST

I just reread what I wrote and I can see what happened - I was paraphrasing a question put to Obama which was indeed negative - the implication being he bailed on the community. That want my opinion, just where I got my timeline from. perhaps I did not need to add that bit in my post.

It's sometimes hard to (none / 0) (#53)
by kovie on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:10:58 PM EST

tell the difference online, especially during primary season. Many a flame war began over crossed signals and mistaken meanings. I have been on both the initiating and receiving end of such faux disagreements, so no problem.

:-)


: depends on what (none / 0) (#55)
by Judith on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:46:44 PM EST

your goal is here (your in general - not you personally)
I come with the intent of asking people questions. Sometimes just asking a question freaks people out - like I must have some evil intent simply by asking why somebody says something or what they mean by something or why they believe something. I find that somewhat self-limiting. I like to hear what people have to say if they arent yelling at me - that makes me just go do something else...so thanks for listening to my response.
Anyway - have fun and dont burn out too soon...the election isnt until November.
Cheers!

This briefly occured to me last night (none / 0) (#12)
by kovie on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:09:27 AM EST

Until it also occured to me that Hillary likely either asked for the "truce", or else willingly agreed to it when Obama proposed it, and that in either case this indicates to me that she believes that this idiotic gambit backfired and that it was time to reel it in before it really hurts her. In which case making Obama VP is smart--silence him by buying him out. Except, I believe that he's smarter, and would interpret this to mean that they're scared of him, and that he has a real shot at winning. So while he might pretend to be thinking about it, to placate them, he'd have no real intention of accepting (at THIS point at least). And since it appears that Edwards is eventually going to throw his support to Obama (provided that Obama move to the left first, which he slowly appears to be doing), it makes even less sense for Obama to want the VP slot under Hillary. Much more sense is an Obama/Edwards ticket (or vice-versa--but the rank and file won't like that since it would be a repudiation of their will).


I don't much care who is on top of the ticket (none / 0) (#16)
by Molly Bloom on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:33:37 AM EST

and the VP slot isn't decided until the the number one position is.

the rank and file pushed Edwards on Kerry and it made sense at the time. It may not be totally in the nominee's hands, if s/he wants to unify the party and Obama may not have a choice, if he wants a future in the party and the VP is a better spot to be in than it was in 1960. Clinton would have a better shot at declining the VP and I don't know that it is a given under the circumstances.


My point (none / 0) (#22)
by kovie on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:30:16 AM EST

wasn't that he should refuse the VP slot if it's offered and he has no chance of getting the top spot, just that he should refuse it UNLESS that is the case. And Clinton will be no one's VP. Of that I have no doubt.


Better to offer it and have her decline (none / 0) (#25)
by Molly Bloom on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:55:25 AM EST

It would be a unifying gesture. On the other hand, that is what JFK did, thinking the same thing you are- LBJ will never be anyone's VP. OOPS!


Somewhat before my time (none / 0) (#33)
by kovie on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:15:03 PM EST

Or, more accurately, an era that I'm still not very well versed in. I know that LBJ, senate majority at the time and known for his huge ego, didn't much like the young priviledged upstart JFK, so the parallels to the present situation are obvious. Still, from what I know of LBJ, he was a committed New Dealer who put party above ego, and I imagine chose to suck it up and be JFK's VP, for the good of the party and country. I just don't see Hillary possessing such selfless humility. I may be wrong, and would love to be proven to be so. Plus, people do change. Not often, but it happens. But I just don't see it with Hillary.

Here's wishing that I'm wrong and you're right.


LBJ wanted it, because he saw it as his best (none / 0) (#41)
by Molly Bloom on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:41:48 PM EST

chance to become president. There are disputes about the "OOPS" version, but it is clear the two were rivals who represented different wings of the party. Enjoy

Johnson was a committed New Dealer, but he didn't accept it "for the good of the party".

I'd argue HRC is more likely to accept it "for the good of the party than Johnson" though I think it more likely she would decline. We will never know unless it is offered.

Ford, I understand, didn't want it in 1980 so he made demands he knew the Reagan people would reject.


In certain ways (none / 0) (#49)
by kovie on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:12:42 PM EST

LBJ is one of my favorite Dems. Hugely flawed, in many of the ways that Bill Clinton is flawed (huge ego, self-indulgent, thin-skinned, given to untoward dalliances, undisciplined), but despite this (and of course the tragedy and travesty that was his foreign policy), he managed to push through some of the most progressive policies in our country's history in all of 5 years. And he knew how to fight the other side and stick it to them when it needed to be done. Probably the last of the big New Deal fighting Dems and in many (but not all) ways a model for the new breed of post-New Deal fighting Dems.

Sadly, I do not (yet) see such qualities in Obama. Nor am I yet convinced that Edwards has them to such an extent. Hopefully, one of them does have it, or the potential for it. Or, perhaps, other Dems, who will eventually assume the party's lead. Some immense, generational, transformational, decades-long political fights lie ahead, and we'll need such types to fight and win them.

I like what I'm seeing among some junior congressional Dems, though. E.g. Inslee, Ryan, Wexler, others whose name has slipped my mind. Hopefully, whoever wins, they'll pressure them and the leadership from below to do the right thing. I suspect that they will.


generally concur (none / 0) (#54)
by Molly Bloom on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:21:23 PM EST

Re LBJ's foreign policy: (none / 0) (#58)
by oculus on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:13:45 PM EST

Vietnam war. OF course he accomplished a lot re domestic issues.


: That's what I meant (none / 0) (#59)
by kovie on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 01:14:16 AM EST

Vietnam was obviously an extension of his foreign policy and as such was his biggest failure by far. But domestically, he was the most progressive and I think effective president in the last 45 years. Even more so than Bush II. ;-)

I think (none / 0) (#27)
by Judith on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:17:56 AM EST

you have it wrong - there was a serious fight brewing within the Black community and Obama had to chill his people out.


And how would that contradict (none / 0) (#32)
by kovie on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:10:30 PM EST

my statement that he might have proposed it himself, not because it was of his doing, but because he viewed it as damaging to the party and himself, and the "bigger man" thing to do. Clearly, Hillary's camp started this, and while me might have handled it differently, at no point was he more to blame than Hillary. If he called for this truce, more power to him for being the bigger man (or person), since he had every right to be livid about what she tried to pull.

I see absolutely no interpretation of this matter in which Hillary comes out the better person. She panicked and tried a desperate move, and it backfired, and I believe will continue to backfire. My guess is that memories are long and hard among many African-Americans. Being Jewish myself, I can certainly relate to that. By calling for a truce, though, Obama doubly benefits from her idiocy, by getting to be the victim and the better person. She handed him a gift here.


you said (none / 0) (#34)
by Judith on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:15:57 PM EST

Hillary proposed it. I disagreed.


: No, I said that (none / 0) (#40)
by kovie on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:34:22 PM EST

Hillary MIGHT have proposed it. Or he might have. I have no way of knowing who first proposed it. But if he did propose it, it was almost certainly because he wanted to be--and appear to be--the better person, and end what could only have hurt both of them and the party, and NOT because he was more to blame here. You're not actually implying that he might have been, I hope?

Good for the party, and good for him. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Geekesque on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:02:32 AM EST

He can't run as a "bring people together" candidate and then say anything that would help fomment a verbal race war.

The Dem Party won the debate (5.00 / 4) (#14)
by mtj on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:23:53 AM EST

last night because 3 intelligent grownups sat around a table and did their best to discuss the things people actually care about and draw their differences in a civil manner. The contrast between them and the Republicans is stark. Russert did his best to turn this into a circus, but the candidates didn't go along.

I've seen a little of it this morning (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by BDB on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:38:06 AM EST

and Obama did a very good thing. I've criticized him for putting himself above the Democratic party, but he didn't do that last night. Good for him, good for Democrats, good for the country.

Of course, a truce can only happen if both sides agree and I thought Clinton did a nice job as well.

Actually, from what I've seen, Democrats should be proud of the debate generally. All three showed themselves to be serious, deserving candidates. It really is too bad that we have to settle for one of the seven dwarfs from the GOP for the other general election candidate. I agree with Josh Marshall that both Clinton and Obama have the potential to be historic figures, it feels a shame that one isn't going to make it past June.

Underestimating Obama's trickery (none / 0) (#1)
by koshembos on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:17:48 AM EST

Obama introduced the race issue to guarantee him the black vote, and victory, in South Carolina and beyond. Once he accomplished that goal, he declared peace in the race war thus eating the cake and having it too. His "the party above all" is just the home stretch of this trickery.

With any kind of luck, J will (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by oculus on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:02:40 AM EST

disappear this mini-thread.


If this isn't bad snark (none / 0) (#7)
by kovie on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 08:59:14 AM EST

then you're an idiot.

Hello?

"Cocaine"
"Pot"
"Muslim"
"Madrassah"
"Shuck and Jive"
"In the neighborhood"
Etc.

So Obama made these Clinton surrogates say all these things?

Uhuh. Yeah, this is ALL his fault.


I'm no angel so my calling for civility ... (none / 0) (#17)
by Molly Bloom on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:37:48 AM EST

Guys the campaigns have called a truce. Please get in line with your candidate. What happened last night was a good thing.


Truces are meaningless (none / 0) (#21)
by kovie on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:26:23 AM EST

if someone breaks them, in which case a response is not just warranted, but required. Sorry, but while I realize that you mean well, turning the other cheek is precisely the sort of behavior that made Dems punching bags for so many years. I won't do it with the other side and I won't do it with people who pretend to be on mine. They want a truce? Fine, then don't break it.


Has anyone broke it yet (none / 0) (#24)
by Molly Bloom on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:48:48 AM EST

other than blog partisans?


It's been what, 2 days? (none / 0) (#35)
by kovie on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:17:11 PM EST

Give it time. The Clintons are not disciplined enough that if things get bad for them, they won't consider reverting to it again. Let's hope that I'm wrong.


now that is funny (none / 0) (#36)
by Judith on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:19:31 PM EST

the Clinton's arent disciplined? Good lord, you must have that bar real high...


: This whole racist gambit (none / 0) (#47)
by kovie on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:04:15 PM EST

betrayed their lack of discipline. They could have stayed on the high road (as it were) but instead sent out their surrogates to spread racist dogwhistle crap about Obama, fearing that her slide in the polls might be irreversible. That is not discipline. That is panic and lack of judgement, character and, yes, discipline.
And you call Bill's behavior as president "disciplined"? Or Hillary's mess of a health care initiative "disciplined"? Or her vote for the war "disciplined" (in terms of supposedly being a progressive)? Yeah, right, uhuh.
Sure, they do possess a certain sort of "discipline". I.e. the cynical, opportunistic, soulless kind. Not the kind that I prefer, that has more to do with sticking to your supposed principles than to advancing your career and personal agenda.

Obama did not introduce the race issue. (none / 0) (#8)
by Geekesque on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:01:28 AM EST

He didn't force Machine Gun Bob Kerrey to spout off about "secular madrassas." He didn't force Billy Shaheen to raise the drug dealer smear. Etc etc.


I think (none / 0) (#28)
by Judith on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:20:05 AM EST

you are giving him too much power here...I believe prominent Black leaders told him to tell his people to cut it out - it was making them look like they were irrational.


Cut what out? (none / 0) (#37)
by kovie on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:20:10 PM EST

He didn't throw all these racist bombs at Hillary--she threw it at him, and under the circumstances he showed incredible restraint. Why was it his to stop? This is such schoolyard crap, started by the Clintons. Good for him for being the better person by offering/agreeing to end it, but morally he is clearly in the right here. There doesn't even begin to be a case that makes Hillary look better here.


oh dear (none / 0) (#38)
by Judith on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:26:18 PM EST

you are cursing and getting upset. That is not nice and breaks the rules of engagement so I will not discourse with you on this further.


Cursing? Where have I cursed? (none / 0) (#43)
by kovie on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:53:08 PM EST

You are playing the classic "It doesn't matter who started it, you both have to cut it out" nonsense that didn't make any sense in grade school and doesn't make any sense now. Hillary got her cuts in and now just wants to pretend to want to make nice. I don't buy it. I'll play along, but I don't buy it. CLASSIC passive-aggressive tactics on your side's part and it's blatantly transparent.


You read (none / 0) (#44)
by Judith on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:55:11 PM EST

hostile to me. I dont want to deal with that.
So go yell at someone else.
Best -


Like I said, classic passive-aggression (none / 0) (#46)
by kovie on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:59:04 PM EST

I.e. Hillary's MO. Insinuate things "nicely", and then accuse others of being "not nice" when they understandably call you on your nonsense.

If you're of the impression that politics is about "being nice", then you are sorely mistaken and have a lot to learn (clue: read up on the Clintons and their brand of politics). But I suspect that you're not that naive, and that this is all an act.

But I agree with you on ending this silly subthread.


I think (none / 0) (#56)
by Judith on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:49:09 PM EST

we made peace elsewhere so this is old. Cheers!


: Agreed (none / 0) (#57)
by kovie on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 08:16:54 PM EST

Nothing like "making peace" after a mini-"battle". Makes it seem all the more real.
:-)

If that South Carolina (none / 0) (#2)
by RalphB on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:49:50 AM EST

communications director had been canned, it would be more believable. Otherwise, we have 'words without actions' again. It was the pitch perfect thing to say though. :-)

The Obama advantage... (none / 0) (#4)
by eddeevy on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 08:28:08 AM EST

I saw Obama act as a statesman who acted with integrity last night. Clearly, it would have been entirely hypocritical of him to talk about "bringing the country together" and then come on national television and smear Hillary Clinton. Having said this I would add that Hillary's appeal over Obama has to do with the fact that she offers more specifics on what she would do as President.

Obama did not "win" the debate, but (none / 0) (#6)
by oculus on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 08:50:56 AM EST

he and Clinton both reaffirmed their recent commitment to stopping the racial politics. Hope they keep their pledge. It will be difficult, as the questions last night illustrated.

: sounds right (none / 0) (#29)
by Judith on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:20:32 AM EST

to me.

I was proud of both Barack and Hillary (none / 0) (#13)
by MikeDitto on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:20:14 AM EST

At the beginning of that debate (which is all I could watch, had to get back to work) I thought they both handled that with aplomb. They both demonstrated that Democrats aren't afraid to be accountable, and that's good for all of us.

And then Edwards opened up his big mouth and essentially said Obama and Clinton couldn't possibly understand racial discrimination like Edwards did, because Edwards grew up in the south where his parents worked in the mills, blah blah blah. Made me want to go home and take a bath.

Noam Scheiber agrees with you. (none / 0) (#15)
by Geekesque on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:32:56 AM EST

The upshot: Obama wins if the question is who is more uplifting.

Two questions (none / 0) (#19)
by burnedoutdem on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:49:25 AM EST

Did anyone hear what that guy was yelling from the audience when they were trying to transition away from the race discussion? It sounded like they were throwing someone out, but it was hard to make out.
Would it kill the networks to put up two debate moderators who will actually press for answers to the questions? It seemed like Williams and Russert were more concerned with not ticking anyone off (they might need the interview later) than they were with getting a straight answer. It was embarrassing to watch the candidates walk all over them - Russert especially.

This was the first debate (none / 0) (#20)
by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:18:57 AM EST

This was my first one this cycle that I watched. I was disappointed that Kucinich wasn't there, and am still thinking what I can do to make them smart (radio host Peter B. Collins said he wouldn't buy any more nuclear reactors from them).

But I actually thought that the three attending candidates all answered questions well. As much animosity as Clinton's campaign has generated over the last week I thought she put the best spin on moving away from the fractious.

I haven't seen much response to Edwards' comments about gun control. I thought his position was the most realistic of the three and is the way for Dems to diffuse the issue.

Any bounce in Nevada this morning?

1/31 is the last debate before Tsunami Tuesday (none / 0) (#23)
by mike in dc on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:32:20 AM EST

...and I kinda want Edwards to drop out and endorse on, say, 1/30(after Florida). I know that some of his remaining voters are more likely to go to Clinton, but I think Obama really needs at least one head-to-head debate with her in order to at least neutralize her perceived "readiness" advantage. I also think that unless Edwards places in the top 2 in NV, SC or FL, there's really no meaningful shot for him to win the nomination, because his polls in the big 2/5 states will not move in his favor, he will fall far behind in the delegate count, and the media will write him off even more than they have already. So, maybe he could play kingmaker by staying in, but it's also possible that one of the other two will wrap things up(and possibly it might be the one he has less affinity for) and there will be no "deal" to be cut at the convention. Instead he should try to cut a deal for his endorsement while it will still have an impact on the race, and get out with some degree of grace. If he had the kind of money the top two have, I might also see some rationale for staying in at least to 2/5, but he doesn't.

I'm glad Obama and Clinton have put this issue to rest for the time being.

endorsement of newspaper (none / 0) (#30)
by athyrio on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:38:36 AM EST

In case anyone noticed, the newspaper in Nevada that endorsed Geo. Bush last election just endorsed Obama....Interesting....He is not a progressive candidate in my opinion....

Sen Clinton won it for me (none / 0) (#31)
by PlayInPeoria on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:52:47 PM EST

If the criteria for winning the debate is "Who was the most uplifting?", then Sen Obama won (maybe). However, if the criteria for winning was answers to the big issues... then Sen Clinton won HANDS DOWN. She knew her policy for the issues that matter.

And I'm not the only one.

Clinton has no problem delving into her policies. Not only does she understand the problems behind the economy, she also feels comfortable explaining her entire solution and providing detail on her plan to stimulate the economy. For example, she argued that her plan to freeze interest rates on subprime loans actually works in concert with the Federal Reserves policy to lower rates. This level of detail stood out.

From Clinton Shines In Vegas
By John Fout
TheStreet.com Political Correspondent

I could not figure out how to get the link inset?

It goes on with Foreign Policy

Obama clearly enjoys the high ground on foreign policy. He deserves credit for being the only one of the three candidates who clearly opposed the war in 2002 before it began. It was a great judgment call on Iraq. My concern about him stems from his failure to follow up with leadership and continue his opposition

... and ....

But he and Edwards both lose sight, to a similar degree, at times of something important to the American people. One must be ready to handle crisis and be willing to protect our country from threats. Clinton grasps this importance best amongst Democrats. Lofty ideas on diplomacy have to be seconded by strong measures of preparedness.

But this I love...

But Clinton scored the most memorable quote: "President Bush is over in the Gulf now, begging the Saudis and others to drop the price of oil. How pathetic! We should have an energy policy right now."

Great Article. Google it.