ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC Political Researcher



First thoughts: Hillary gets cut

Posted: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 9:24 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under:

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Julia Steers


PHILADELPHIA, PA -- In the first question of the night, with all eyes on him especially after his recent New York Times interview, Obama had the, well, audacity to compare himself to Philly’s own Rocky Balboa. But then in Round 1, he didn’t seem to throw a punch, giving us the impression that he didn’t want to fight. We were wrong. Minutes later, Obama, Edwards, and even Dodd duked it out with the front-runner Clinton, producing the liveliest and most contentious Democratic debate so far of the cycle. How did Clinton hold up? She was strong early on, particularly over the issue that many thought would be THE issue last night -- Iran -- but she got weaker as the night went on. The exchange over driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants allowed her opponents to drive home a narrative that has begun to develop for Clinton at these debates: that she never actually answers the tough questions. Indeed, after last night, you might find a media more consistently fact-checking her on some specifics, which in turn will lead to a chorus of challengers accusing her of not taking a stand. This will be a critical test for her, and perhaps her final hurdle before the Chattering Class truly scores this primary as a unanimous decision for the front-runner.

*** Hillary gets cut: To stick with the boxing analogy, Clinton was still standing after all the punches were thrown. But she got cut, and everyone watching saw it. As one strategist for a non-frontrunner told First Read last night, this debate could end -- at least for now -- the inevitability storyline the press has been writing, which the strategist believes has fueled her rise in the polls. The best news for Clinton: Due to the debate’s late start, many might not have seen the driver’s licenses exchange. So far, in fact, that exchange hasn’t been replayed that much the day after. But look for that to change, thanks as much to Clinton's primary foes as well as the GOP candidates (minus McCain) who love an opportunity to talk about immigration.

*** Obama and Edwards: As we mentioned above, Obama didn’t seem at all interested in mixing it up early on. But then when NBC’s Tim Russert asked Clinton about why her First Lady papers in Little Rock aren’t available to the public, Obama found his opening and delivered what might have been his best line of the debates. The sky-high expectations put Obama in a difficult situation heading into last night, but despite his slow start, he seemed to meet them (although some pundits today disagree). As for Edwards, he might have provided a more consistent contrast with Clinton than Obama did, which his campaign was gunning for. To our eyes, it was Edwards’ best debate to date, making us remember why he was such a successful trial lawyer. If there was a downside to his performance, it might have been that he was too aggressive -- and therefore too negative for the Iowa nice crowd, something the Obama folks are pinning their caucus hopes on.

*** The rest: Once again, Biden had the one-liner of the night (re: Giuliani). If Biden wasn't known as a gaffe machine -- and if he had more money -- he'd be a bigger player in this race. Dodd had perhaps his best debate of the cycle. His back-and-forth with Clinton over the driver’s licenses (who knew Dodd would break with Democratic orthodoxy on the issue?)

was probably one of his best moments to date. He also got to talk issues he's made key to his campaign, like global warming. That said, he still talks WAY too much about legislation he sponsored, rather than about solutions he's proposing. Richardson did well on a few questions, but it was interesting that Biden singled him out -- as his campaign has done in recent press releases -- which tells us someone is truly playing for that close 4th place in Iowa.

*** Close encounters with Dennis: Speaking of having better nights, how about 'ol Dennis Kucinich?  He did a great job answering the UFO question (in which he confirmed he spotted an unidentified flying object), and the guy is a machine when it comes to staying on message. The bad news for Dennis: The UFO question is turning into the punchline highlight of the night, which may, at least, up his Q rating and get him a booking on Art Bell's out of this world late-night radio show.

*** One final debate thought: Consider that Clinton's primary rivals were much tougher on her viability arguments than Giuliani's primary foes have been at their debates. Will that change?

*** Trick or treat: On this Halloween Day, the Edwards family goes door-to-door in New Hampshire -- not campaigning, but trick-or-treating. The buzz is that the Obama family, in Chicago, also will be trick-or treating. What will their costumes will be? (Obama said at last night’s debate that he’d be wearing a Romney mask, with two sides to it.) The Dodd campaign, in a press release yesterday, issued suggestion: white hair, a Constitution, and "a passion for service."
 
*** On the trail: Elsewhere today, Edwards -- unmasked -- holds two town halls in New Hampshire; Giuliani also stumps in the Granite State; Huckabee is all over FOX, appearing on five shows, including O’Reilly and Hannity; McCain speaks at the Kaiser Family Foundation’s health-care forum in DC, then raises money in Virginia and New York City; and Thompson fundraises in California.

Countdown to Election Day 2007: 6 days
Countdown to Iowa: 64 days
Countdown to New Hampshire: 69 days
Countdown to Michigan: 76 days
Countdown to SC GOP primary: 80 days
Countdown to Florida: 90 days
Countdown to Tsunami Tuesday: 97 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 370 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 447 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Shame on you, MSNBC. First off - this was not a debate. This was a Michael Vick Attack Dog show with an absolutely obvious setup against Hillary Clinton. I can believe Russert would participate in such a below the belt attack, but am sorely disappointed that Brian Williams would be part of such a thing. A debate is usually started by a question on an issue to one party to get things started - this started with a setup question, specifically aimed at the respondent to attack Hillary, and so were the questions to follow. How below the belt can you get? Why call it a debate - why didn't you call it what it was - a forum designed to attack Hillary from every angle?

But you know what? It didn't matter - because Hillary kicked-ass on all of them. If she didn't prove last night after the barrage they laid on her, that she has the temperment, clear-headed, sheer courage and strength to lead when attacked by a pack of wolves, then nobody can. She even convinced my wife, who never cared for her before, that she's the one we need to fight to get our nation back.

And Obama? A mealy-mouth who stammered and spoke as if he was startled every time a question came his way.

John Edwards? Just showed how he made his milllions as a sleaze-bag lawyer.

The true winners - Hillary 1 and Joe Biden 2.

The REAL LOSERS - Brian Williams and (Fox?)MSNBC.
"But then when NBC’s Tim Russert asked Clinton about why her First Lady papers in Little Rock aren’t available to the public, Obama found his opening and delivered what might have been his best line of the debates."

Indeed it was.  This is absolutely a legitimate issue.  If Sen. Clinton's arguement is that she is the most experienced candidate, that she is ready to lead from day one, those records need to be made available to back up the claim.
They all crucified her and.... she's still standing. Shes as hard as nails, just like her husband. THE only candidate that can fight against the republican spin machine. Nobody is invinsible. This independent will still be voting for her. The other candidates from both sides are all too weak.
Hillary got her butt kicked plain and simple.....

She continues to show she does not really have any answers for the big questions like social security and the economy and such.  That stupid e-mail sent out by Mark Penn did nothing to show what kind of leader Hillary Clinton could be.

At least now she has a new theme song:
The theme song from "Flipper"
That woman could not even give a straight answer on drivers licenses.....

Once again, the Clinton's have shown that when it comes to elections, it's not about what people think, but what the Clinton's only think.

Clinton's followers are no different then Ron Paul's.
With little time, everything that Biden siad seemed to carry so much more wieght and 'gravitas' then anybody else on stage. The MSM needs to start benchmarking all other candidates against what Biden is doing. He is laying out specific, clear and responsible plans and is passionately striving to be the keader of the free world.
Mr Matthews and Mr Russert should be ashamed of themselves. They acted like two little boys picking on a girl and trying to make her cry. Two idiot men trying to get over on a woman. Pathetic!
If it is based on who delivered the cleanest shots and was most articulate in placing Hillary on the defense, I have to say Edwards did it. By far his best night.
Wow, it looks like Hillary is just human. The repubs were treating her like she was this all powerful being.
Guess what, shes human and still the best person running to be the US president.
The GOP (and Dems) have been talking about Immigration for decades. They use it as an issue to polarize the voters and garner votes. Once they get into office, the issue disappears and is swept under the rug. If you believe that any of the presidential candidates (GOP and DEMS) will do anything about immigration, I ask you to look back at all of the immigration promises that have been made over the years. Candidates should stop making promises that they clearly have no intention of delivering.    
Really MSNBC?  That is it on Biden?  You have got to be kidding me.  

Your coverage is increasingly bothering me.  

Maybe (CHUCK TODD) it isn't for you to write off Biden's campaign with one sentence.  Last night, with just 7 questions, he looked more electable, presidential, informed and unafraid than HRC, BO, and JE combined.

When will you admit that it isn't gaffes keeping him out of the top tier any longer - it is lazy reporters and analysts who don't want to have to rethink the race because they have already begun writing their copy on the upcoming "historic" election.

History will be made by the media if they ignore the best candidate of either party because they don't want to have to update FIRST READ on the weekends.
Shame on you NBC. You should get the facts right before smearing HRC down to the floor. The governor had proposed 3 different drivers licenses: 1)for id purposes like a non-drivers license is used now 2) regular drivers license 3) special license for illegals that would require them to take a test and thus be safe on the road. HRC said no to 1 & 2 but would consider 3. There was only 30 seconds to respond which wasn’t enough time to make herself clear. Chris Matthews jumped to the conclusion that she said no and yes to the same question
AHHHHHHH poor poor Hillary.....

Got picked on by a bunch of men and now everyone feels so sorry for her......

She doesn't know what a tough debate is yet....
If that was how she handles being attacked in a debate she better just take her ball and go home.

Her toughest debates are next year with the GOP.....
I'm just frothing at the mouth just thinking about that debate when she will finally have to come clean with her positions.
Jerry you obviously did not watch the debate last night. Hillary was attacked on several times, but in the end, she held her own and proved to all of the other candidates that she is not afraid of them and looked the most presidential. I can't wait until she debates Guiliani and tears that loser apart. By the time Guiliani get through his stutters, Hillary will eat this man alive. Go Hillary GO!
WOMEN,

Please stop with the "poor Hillary" or "they were picking on her". You are embarassing the women who truly believe in equality of the sexes.  She is running for President of the United States, not a sorority.  

I don't want a female president elected because MEN are labelled as "attacking" her when they demand clarity on her positions.  She can't answer anything without triangulating, evading, or promising a "commission" or "panel".

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.  







Ricardo in California,

Which was a personal attack, rather than highlighting a position or stand Sen. Clinton has taken?  

How does giving two distinct answers to the NY license issue in as many minutes qualify as "looking presidential"?
Elizabeth,
VERY WELL SAID!!!
painly obvious now that Obama is not tough enough to be prez....

edwards did well!
Here, here Elizabeth Sullivan, San Diego, I completely agree!!! If they said the same thing to a man, no one would say a peep!!
Ravine Force, Kissimmee, FL: '...If it is based on who delivered the cleanest shots and was most articulate in placing Hillary on the defense, I have to say Edwards did it. By far his best night...'

Ravine Force, Edwards was GREAT !!
I have been for Obama (with Edwards as my back up) all campaign season.
But, Edwards showed enought fight in him for me to switch my allegiance.

The last comment about Hillary's position on driver's license for illegal immigrants was perfect:

In the last two minutes we've seen Hillary take two different positions....

This has got to continue, follow up on this.

It's time to derail the Hillary Clinton 'Forked Tongue Express'

Hillary WILL LOSE !!
Her lame non-answers won't work in One On Ones.
Even in the post debate commentary, they said that when there's a smaller debate (3 or 4 people), she'll wilt. She can't hold up with her deceptive non-answers.


Hillary Clinton, the Forked Tongue Express
Obama and Edwards made damned fools out of themselves last night.
Obama did nothing but regurgitate the G.O.P. party line, and Edwards needs to be reminded that he and John Kerry were beaten in the last Predsidential Election. Maybe he forgot that.
Both of them sounded like Giuliani lite.
Oh, and Russert gets the Neo-Con Newsman of The Night award for asking about Hilary's personal papers. It's interesting that no other First Lady in history has been asked to release their personal papers.
But, as usual the CANTservatively BIASED CORPORATE MEDIA (this includes you Mark) has a different set of rules for The Clintons.
Hillary CLEARLY won that debate last night. She was attacked from all sides, showing that SHE is the candidate to beat, and she stood her ground.
Obama came off as a whiney second tier candidate. (that's code speak for SORE LOSER) who sounds more like a nuanced republiCANT than a truly Liberal Democrat. He still hasn't explained why he'd sit down and unconditionally negotiate with terrorists, and he still refuses to acknowledge that Norman Hsu fundraised for him as well.
I think Bill Richardson was right when he said Democratic Candidates need to stop ripping into each other (in particular, ripping into Hillary)and save some spitfire for the republiCANTS.
But hey, when you're LOSING and losing BIG like Obama and Edwards are; that's what you have to do. It's called desperation.
Biden came off well last night, and so did Richardson. Kucinich was his usual irelevant self.
All in all, last night was the kind of primary debate that makes someone like jerry in corpus christie happy. Democrats, tearing up other Democrats and lots of in-party bickering.
Beautiful job by Tim Russert and Brian Williams.  Finally Hillary is exposed for what she is.  The American people deserve a straightforward, honest answer, and she is unwilling to give it.

Her position on Iran was condemned by all for the disaster that it is.  Her vote on the war, and now on Lieberman-Kyl show that she does not possess the judgement to be our president.

This is the beginning of the end for Hillary, and I am breathing a sigh of relief for my democratic party and for the American people.

And bb-  If you think the moderators were tough, you haven't seen anything yet.  Hillary would be a lightening rod for the republican party.  Also, as a woman, I resent you crying foul and portraying her as a victim.  She has created this problem for herself, and has been given a pass by the other candidates.  Last night she was treated as an equal and she didn't measure up.  She can't lead us anywhere if she doesn't know where she is going.
I am an Edwards supported and I believe he won last night's debate; he was simply better on staying on message and making his case another viable democratic candidate for president. That being said, I am not sure why Hillary's driver license answer was consider a "gotcha moment".  She stated that Spitzer's idea made sense as he needed to do something with the illegals in HIS state as the federal govt failed to act. I believe does make sense for a Govenor to act for the people of his state when the federal govt fails. That's what she said! She didn't agree with the plan but agrees it makes sense for Spitzer to take some action. As Chris Rock said, "I am not saying [give licenses to illegals] but I understand!"
Molly, Neb..I could not have said it better!
I didn't get to watch the debate last night, so I can't comment.  I am interested in reading about your reactions in your posts today. I gather that Mr. Russert again was especially hard on Senator Clinton.
He did the same thing in the previous debate--maybe he isn't the best choice for moderator because I read
somewhere that in a well run debate, no one notices the moderators, the focus is all on the debate participants.  Any comments on how you think the debate went would be welcome. (I am being serious) I think this blog gives a very accurate reading and a good cross section of views of the average American voters regarding the candidates.
As a born and bred Republican, I am changing parties.  As a Democrat, I will actually have some say as to who will NOT be the Democratic candidate!  

I have reconciled myself to the fact that our next president will not be a Republican, and I can both understand that and mourn it at the same time.

HOWEVER, I will do all I can to help Mr. Obama become the democratic nominee;  I would even support an Edwards/Obama ticket, but I will not settle for letting a Clinton waltz into the Whitehouse again without a fight.

Fellow Republicans--change your party NOW so that you can vote in Democratic primaries!  Because when election day rolls around, it won't matter what party is on your card, you will still be able to vote for your candidate of choice.

MSNBC--It ain't over 'til it's over.  Quit telling us that the next president will wear pumps!


Hill'--You ain't seen nuthin' yet!  Even if you slime your way into the Whitehouse, you will NEVER "represent" me.
Hey Liz, Hillary took care of herself just fine. However, Chris Matthews was not telling the truth about certain issues and in his evalution of her. It was painfully obvious that Tim Russert(asking her many questions, some ridiculous) was attempting to throw his male weight around and try to trip her up. Both those morons didn't do that to the other candidates. It looked like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly were running the show instead of impartial moderators-as they should have been.
Tim Cooke, Indiana: '...Guess what, shes human and still the best person running to be the US president...'

What debate did you watch, im Cooke ?
She didn't give a straight answer to any question !

Why won't she open up her archives ?
What is she hiding ?
Hillary claims her 'experience' in the White House qualifies her to be President.

Why won't show what her qualifications are ?
What DID SHE DO in the White House ?
She can't give a straight answer.
The Republicans will eat her lying carcass alive !

Oh Tim !!
What is Hillary's position on driver's licenses for illegal immigrants ?

Hillary Clinton, the Forked Tongue Express !!
bb - Mr Matthews and Mr Russert should be ashamed of themselves. They acted like two little boys picking on a girl and trying to make her cry. Two idiot men trying to get over on a woman. Pathetic!


Yeah, she's a girl!!  Lay off you two buffons!  Affirmative Action at work here, you know.
J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY  says,

"It's interesting that no other First Lady in history has been asked to release their personal papers."


That is not really a valid argument b/c no other first lady has ran for a presidency. Who cares about their record? But I anyone who is running for presidency based on their record, should be willing to expose their record. I think all Clinton supporters should want this as well, if they believe in her then it could do nothing but make their argument stronger. Why make it an issue if it is such a good record?
"...I'm just frothing at the mouth ....."
jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Wednesday, October 31, 2007 9:43 AM)

Truer words were never spoken.
"Frothing at the mouth" sums up your knowledge of the issues, and accurately describes your political agenda, jerry.
(Then again, that froth might have something to do with your lust for a second or third cousin.)
Dirty Harry Callahan said it best:

If you are going to play lumberjack, you better be able to handle your end of the log.

Ricardo, yes i did watch the debate, tired as I was.
Chris Matthews decided to throw Hillary under the bus and gave Obama some advice and he used it to attack Hillary and found out that when it comes to a serious debate, Hillary has no game plan and no hope.  To use my "Flipper" analogy, she looked like the Miami Dolphins; no hope and no game plan.  She continued to sidestep the tough questions and it showed in the ratings.  Everybody knew Obama won last night, it wasn't even close.  Hillary showed she does not have the stones to be president and she will have to use her husband and the Clinton name to win.
I'm betting that hillary was in Federal court this morning trying to get an EPO against all the bad men who called her on her Doubletalk. Where is AL when you need him. I said it yesterday, Tim Russert will not forget his gaffe from the last debate he moderated. He ask the Tuff questions & does his homework whether you agree with the questioning or not.if you want sftball questions, go to a high school debate. They're not running for class president here, my friends.
Clinton's followers are no different then Ron Paul's.
jerry/corpus christi texas
--- not fair jerry. Ron Paul's followers are motivated by principles (why else stick with a sure loser), while Hillary's followers want to be with the winner.
Hillary should be embarassed to show her face in public after THAT performance, and despite the few hanger-on'ers and blind Clinton fans, just take a look at the poll at the top of the MSNBC homepage about who did well and who blew it.  It may be "unscientific" but -45,000 people- sure is a higher accuracy than the 500 or so poll groups normally use.  Guess what?  -Everyone- knows Hillary Clinton blew it.  

Who had the most rehearsed answers?  Hillary Clinton- 58%.

Who avoided the questions?  Hillary Clinton - 65%.

Horrible job.  She stood ALONE on that stage on Iran, attempting to claim that "well it was non-binding."  Does that mean it's only a half-screw up?  She sure seemed to think it was binding on economic sanctions and diplomacy, but I guess she never finished READING that sentence: "to SUPPORT the prudent and calibrated use of ALL INSTRUMENTS of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and MILITARY INSTRUMENTS, [against the Government of Iran]"

And the tides begin to churn...
Hillary Clinton is a joke. I have said it before and i will say it again. She is Bush-Chenney lyte in all her dealings.

Transaparency -- She scored 0%
Credibility -- She scored 0%
Issues -- She scored 20%

What exactly does she stand for? She is too secretive and won't release her records.

If folks pay attention to my arguement in the past about the MSM, i told you guys the only person that can hold her accountable is Tim Russert. He did it yesterday by asking tough question we demand from our media.

No more Chris Matthew, Chuck Todd, Mark Murray but Tim Russert.

I trust Tim Russert to get an answer for us on all the issues that are important to us. I am tired of politician that is not ready to level with America people.

For people that are whinnie about the questions, get a life. This election is not about audition of the queen nor is it about corronation of the queen. This election is about who is going to deliver the change we've all been waiting for.

As far as i am concern, the process is just getting started. We the people will elect who is best for our party. Don't say Edward candidacy is dead....hahahaha!!!I love it.
Clinton’s defense of the Iran resolution was ‘other Senators voted for it’ and it was a non-binding resolution.  Well, if it was non-binding and thus not a very important vote and hardly worth Obama being present.  So, Clinton has obfuscated the situation once again, was the vote important or not?  But I leave this for Tuck to grasp at straws.  I think so—it was an important resolution, and I expressed my initial disappointment in Barack barring any good reason for missing the vote; yet, he did speak out against the resolution immediately, and I have so noted his beliefs.  He has made his opposition clear and in my view correctly.

Clinton's secrecy and double talk reminds me of the past seven years with Bush-Cheney.  Although, some might call it downright Clintonian.  Maybe she is right that it’s time to turn the page or throw away the book all together.  Bush’s, Clinton’s, all of it.


A little bit of fun … It’s like Clooney was talking directly about Clinton.

“Cause the house always wins. You play long enough, never change the stakes, the house takes you. Unless, when that perfect hand comes along, you bet big, and then you take the house.”

--Clinton is the House, take that how you want.
Anyone on that stage would be a better POTUS than Bush, Giulianni, Romney, McCain. Biden is GREAT.
"A noun, a verb, and 9/11" I was LMAO for 10 minutes, its so true!! Also loved Obama's line about wearing a Mitt Romney mask for Halloween.
Chuck Todd called it right. Hillary wasn't knocked out, but she was definitely on the ropes, as far as Iran and *laugh* driver's licenses. It was as if she knew the questions were coming, conformed them to some canned answer and believed that would be the end of it. Just check the MSNBC poll at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21528788/ She was definitely outed by *EVERYONE* for giving too many canned answers, failing to reconcile differing views expressed in the past to different folks, and ultimately couldn't cement her opinion in any clear way, particularly on healthcare.

By the way, who cares if everyone else "attacks" the front-runner? If you're running to lead the "free world," I would *hope* you make it as clear as possible, as often as possible why you're better than the person ahead of you.  
Merle:

maybe in New York state you people are used to candidates that are flip floppers and can't make up your minds without someone either holding a gun to your head or raising your taxes.

The country deserves better then a woman who can;t even answer a simple question about social security. She has to send a man out with an e-mail that did not answer any questions.  Makes me wonder if Mark Penn is really Hillary Clinton.
Tuck,Realityville, KS: '...painly obvious now that Obama is not tough enough to be prez....'

Tuck, it's obvious that Hillary Clinton can't give a straight answer !!
What is Hillary's position on driver's licenses for illegal aliens ?

Cat got your tongue, Shuck ?

'...edwards did well...'
For once, you're right:
'...Senator Clinton said two different things in the last two minutes...'

How true
Tuck, why won't Hillary release her archived White House records ?

Hillary Clinton, the Forked Tongue Express
Edwards was sharp, but was he too sharp? Many seemed to find his harangues over the top. Biden (There's a part of me that loves this guy!) was his usual, glib self, beginning a war of words with Rudy that's sure to continue. Obama not a sharp as Edwards, or a master of the one-liner like Biden had, to me his best moment when answering the question about whether he'd pledge to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes, when he spoke of civil liberties, it was the only time his rhetoric soared.
Clinton withstood 2 on 1, three on one, and even four on one attacks and held her own. Today's antiHillaries topic will be, "driver's licenses", because the Iran/Iraq and Social Security issues were pretty much handled last night. She also addressed the, "What's her position"? questions very well. She stood her ground in that steady, unspectacular style of hers and endured.
I agree with (I think) Craig Crawford, who said that that Hillary's challengers are better off attacking the electability issue than policy issues, where they really haven't gotten much traction.

I missed Gravel, because you can't have the SEVEN DWARVES without, "Grumpy".

Bottom line: Look for sharper attacks, more negative campaigning and advertising by Hillary's rivals, and little change before the real voting begins.


Van
hmmm, why did obama flip flop on his stand on SS?

Take a look at what he said last May , and what he said now.

Pandering
First Read, since you like the boxing analogy, did anyone hit below the belt?
J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY

" It's interesting that no other First Lady in history has been asked to release their personal papers."

It's interesting that no other First lady in history has run for POTUS.

"I think Bill Richardson was right when he said Democratic Candidates need to stop ripping into each other (in particular, ripping into Hillary)and save some spitfire for the republiCANTS."

I think Bill Richardson passed his job interview for VP.

"Democrats, tearing up other Democrats and lots of in-party bickering."

We can do it now or the Republicans will most certainly do it later.  All the sharp elbows thrown in this debate were policies, positions, substance: Iran, immigration, etc.  That is the purpose of a debate and all was fair game.  If you want a recitation of talking points, and platitudes, visit any candidate's website.

Elizabeth Sullivan, San Diego, CA

Well said.  The number of American's that will be persuaded by the "don't pick on me, I'm a girl" defence Sen. Clinton's partisans seem to be going with is most certainly far below 50%.  Consider:

The next president will inherit two wars (Iraq/Afghanistan), neither of which are going particulary well.  The candidate least like Bush will win in '08, whether or not that is s Democrat remains to be seen.

Revisit some of Guliani's debates from his mayoral campaigns:  the man was a prosecutor and can and will ruthlessly pick apart any discrepencies.  

I am a Democrat, and I am desperate at this point for a Democrat in the White House, but we will be making a huge, huge mistake buying anything sight unseen.
being a "gaffe machine" didn't seem to prevent Bush from winning so that must not be important except for reporters
You have no clue regarding what's really happening on the ground in Iowa, just as the "political experts" (a real misnomer) were clueless in 03 leading up to 04.

Statements of one newspaper columnist, who was trying to come up with an explanation regarding why his newspapers poll numbers two days before the Iowa caucus was so off, are accepted as fact. As opposed to caucus night rambling, or a guess, and the statement is repeated so often it becomes "political fact".

For example the idea that Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt lost because they went negative, and "Iowans" don't like negative ads is an absolute joke, and those claiming this to be true can't point to one study (that would pass any academic scrutiny)that verifies this "political fact", not only because no such study exists, but because its false, and no amount of revisionist history will make it true. Have any of the talking heads, or journalist that repeat this line actually looked to see if there is a basis for this claim? If they have why do they repeat it knowing its false? I assume like so much political reporting they simply parrot what others tell them. The claim that Iowans punish candidates who resort to negative ads/attacks is the "accepted reality" among pundits, however apparently someone has forgotten to tell Iowa politicians about this "fact", or Iowa voters!

 The truth is Iowans say they don't like negative ads at the same numbers as the rest of the country. The majority of people polled anywhere in the country claim they don't like negative ads. However the reality is negative ads are effective in Iowa, as they are elsewhere.  The only time a negative ad back fires is when the ad crosses a line. That line seems to move, what would have been over the top 20 years ago isn't even considered negative anymore. When a GOP millionaire (using mostly his own money) claimed freshmen Congressman Bruce Braley was endorsed by the Communist party during the 06 election for an open congressional seat, that ad was considered over the top, and it had a backlash, but Bruce was already ahead of Mike Whalen, and would have won without the ad. The ads for the Democratic primary for Governor (and for the congressional seat Bruce won)were very negative, and voters did not punish the candidate with the most, in either number or content, negative ads. In fact in both the GOP congressional race the GOP and Democrat with the most (in number) of negative ads won their 3 way primary battle, and the person who came in second in the race also was second in the number of negative ads. The candidate in both the GOP and Democratic 1st district congressional primary who came in a very distant last, was the candidate with only positive ads, and said he would not attack his primary opponents. The candidate who came in third in the Democratic primary (who was going to run on his record, ...) was the Democratic nominee in 04. So no negative campaigning has no different effect in Iowa than in PA, CA, or anywhere else.

It is not true that Gephardt and Dean lost because of the negative ads that were run in late December early January. I caucused for Gephardt in 88, in 03 when I was deciding who to support (in time and Money) I ruled out both Gephardt and Dean by June. I knew Gephardt had been the biggest cheerleader for the war, and he still refused to admit things weren't going just great. I probably agreed with Dean on more issues than anyone else in the race, but it didn't need  a national poll, a PhD in political science etc to know he was not electable. That may be a poor reflection on our country, but it was clear to me that nominating Dean, who I like and respect, would be ensuring Bush would be President until January 09. Dean's electability (like Clinton's) was discussed for months before the candidates mentioned it.

People did not reject Gephardt and Dean because of their negative ads, look at Deans poll numbers, he had a ceiling of 20 %, he rarely was above 20% in Iowa. As flawed as caucus polling is, given Dean was always at  or around 20%, and ended up getting 18% there is no basis to the claim that Dean lost support close to the caucus. Dean was the only candidate to receive actual caucus support  within the margin of error of his polling numbers. Yes there were some (maybe even 2%)Dean supporters who intended to caucus for him that let their head not their heart dictate who they'd caucus for, but the overwhelming number of Dean supporters in December that attended the caucus, supported Dean, not Kerry, Edwards, etc. at the caucus.
You can say that Hillary was still standing at the end of the debate.  Standing in the middle of a lot of bad answers.  I think it was most crucial that she was forced to reveal that she will continue with active combat roops in Irag; that she voted for Kyle/Lieberman before there have been any negotiations with Iran; that she has said different things to different people on how she will deal with Social Security; that she will defend giving drivers' licenses to illegal aliens (but in the same breath will say she might not); and that she is the candidate who receives the most money from lobbyists, including the defense department.  These are the posiitions that she is standing for, and we can choose who we nominate.

All the other candidates, except Richardson, look so much stronger, and smarter on the issues, than Hillary Clinton.
I don't understand why the questions posed to Biden and Richardson by Chris Matthews after the debate were esentially only about what they thought of Hillary's performance.
If given the chance to elaborate on any topic, why would these gentleman want to talk about another candidate.
Is that the best that Matthews can do?
J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY:

CRY BABY !!
CRY BABY !!

You can't stand anyone asking Hillary Hard questions

'...Oh, and Russert gets the Neo-Con Newsman of The Night award for asking about Hilary's personal papers. It's interesting that no other First Lady in history has been asked to release their personal papers...'

She claims her 'experience as a 'glorified housewife' qualifies her to be President.
Why WON'T SHE RELEASE HER PAPERS ?
What is she hiding ?

Hillary didn't give a straight answer to any question last night.

The post debate commentary pointed out that she'll do even worse in smaller debates



The FORKED TONGUE EXPRESS WILL LOSE !!
Of the top three Edwards won the debate.  As normal Hillary didn’t want to commit to anything so that she can go with the prevailing wind further down the road.  Hillary pretty much kicked ass through most of the debate; however, the archive question had her double talking and reaching pretty low to come up with a faux answer which showed her true Clinton colors.  Fortunately for her the max two questions were asked and the moderators had to ask someone else a question before they got back to her for a follow-up and by that time she changed the subject.  She definitely got caught in the double talk on the driver licenses for immigrants and I think that actually hurt her more than some think.  Richardson was an idiot; Biden was Biden; Dennis was out of this world; Edwards did well and the Far Left, unions and lawyers probably loved him; Obama did halfway dissent for the first time, and Dodd actually sounded like the most intelligent one in the pack.  I haven’t heard from Van today and I hope he wasn’t too traumatized by last night’s debate.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=440389

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google