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 News Political Reporter



Viva Las Vegas: The MSNBC debate

Posted: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 9:20 AM by Domenico Montanaro

The Washington Post: "After a week of bitter intraparty disputes over the issue f race, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) extended an olive branch to Sen. Barack Obama  (Ill.) on Tuesday night and declared that she and the other Democratic presidential candidates are ‘all family’ in a nationally televised debate." More: "Obama and Clinton, in one of their sharpest distinctions of the  night, offered starkly different visions of the presidency. Obama said he believes that the job is about ‘having a vision for where the country needs to go’ rather than ensuring the ‘paperwork is being shuffled effectively,’ while Clinton emphasized the need for understanding how the system works. ‘I do think that being president is the chief executive officer. I respect what Barack said about setting the vision, setting the tone, bringing people together,’ Clinton said. ‘But I think you have to be able to manage and run the bureaucracy.’”

The Wall Street Journal says, "The debate seemed to do little to shake up the race; as with other forums, the candidates found much to agree on and kept their sniping at the edges. The three candidates showed general agreement on the Iraq war  (for ending it), the proposed Yucca mountain nuclear waste site in Nevada  (opposed) and the need to find alternatives to oil. Mr. Edwards, as he has in the past, said he opposed expanding nuclear power."

The New York Times adds, "The low-key tenor of the debate would seem to belie the dynamics of the race: Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama involved in a pitched fight for the nomination and Mr. Edwards struggling to break through. Clearly, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama came in deciding to lower the volume from the overtones of race and gender that had shadowed their contest for the past week and worried many Democrats - including many of the candidates’ advisers - that the back-and-forth could imperil both candidates."

The Boston Globe: "Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, meeting for the first time after a blistering series of attacks and counterattacks centered on race, downplayed their feud in the latest Democratic debate, insisting that overzealous supporters had fueled a battle they refuse to fight with each other."

The New York Daily News focuses on Clinton and Obama's discussion of management. "Obama opened the door to the issue on the campaign trail Monday, admitting he was averse to managing the day-to-details of government bureaucracy... But Obama insisted vision matters, and that Clinton was taking the wrong lessons from Bush." The paper also notes Obama accusing Clinton trying to score "political points" by talking about terrorism and al Qaeda. "The clashes peppered an otherwise muted debate, dedicated to Latino and African-American issues and aired nationally on MSNBC."

Obama may have touched on it rather gently last night, but the New York Post makes it its focus: "Latest 'O' blow: Hill plays the fear card on terror." Obama leveled "a harsh charge that Democrats usually save for President Bush."

Looking ahead to South Carolina, the Columbia State front-pages the following with a photo of a sullen-looking SC Rep. Jim Clyburn. "Democrats call a truce: Candidates pledge to end racially tinged talk; Clyburn reaffirms neutrality." The AP also quoted the Rev. Jesse Jackson, an Obama supporter as saying, "November is the Super Bowl. I don't want the best candidates on the bench because they are so angry at each other."

If you are wondering what Clinton's campaign decided to push post-debate, then check out her talking points at her post-debate rally… Seemingly energized after the sedate debate earlier last night, Clinton rallied supporters at a local high school here, driving home the message that the country needs a competent leader to manage the government, NBC/NJ’s Mike Memoli reports. Joining a diverse group of more than 20 women -- including “Ugly Betty” actress America Ferrara -- on the platform in the center of a crowded auditorium, Clinton offered a booming hello and asked the audience how they liked the debate. She said she’s running for president not just on her experience but on the voices of those she’s met.
 
Later, Clinton said that the job of the president is not just to “set big goals” and unite the country, but also “to manage the government” and get results -- a not-so veiled reference to Obama’s answer at the debate about his management style “We’ve gotta have a president who is hands on, saying to everybody in these bureaucracies, you’re accountable to the American people,” she said. Clinton added that if she was president when Hurricane Katrina hit, “we would have been on it” and “been taking care of people.” “It was a disgrace the way the president of the United States mishandled that terrible disaster,” Clinton said, setting off a huge ovation and chants of “Hillary! Hillary!”

NBC/NJ’s Aswini Anburajan reports on a couple of nuggets from last night’s spin room. First, David Axelrod, Barack Obama's chief media strategist, joked last night that there were "no peace negotiations, no rounds of talks" between the Obama and Clinton campaigns on the "truce" they have declared regarding discussions of race in the campaign. However, once Obama decided to publicly call for a truce, Patti Solis Doyle, Clinton's campaign manager, called Axelrod and said that the Clinton campaign also planned to issue a statement. "We'll see how long it lasts," Axelrod said wryly to the reporters clustered around him.

Second, Obama's communications director, Robert Gibbs, told reporters that as the campaign moves forward to the February 5th states, they will rely heavily on their volunteer base to do the work of getting out the vote. He claimed that the large number of small donors the campaign has across the country was a sign that their volunteer base was far larger than any other campaign's. But he also acknowledged that voters were far more unfamiliar with Obama and his message, and the campaign could not rely on retail politics the way they did in smaller states. Gibbs said, "We'll have count on national coverage a lot more," to which reporters immediately pounced and asked, "Does that mean more media avails?"  Gibbs, wouldn't answer.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Wendy from PA, in case you didnt know it, The GOP has candidates right now vying for the presidency. Your statement proves that not even the republicans think any of their candidates would make a good president. You are looking to the democratic party to see who you could vote for  Right on for the democrats. At least we have viable candidates who will make a difference.
obama lost the debate after his comment on not having to shuffle papers and then had a puzzled look on his face-....he tried to entertain the point later on and back peddle and when he got THAT opportunity he didn't do a very good job....the point is this:  his inexperience showed through and at this point its too late-every little thing is magnafied at this point of the process.....isn't it very ironic that here we are with the end result that  experience is going to win out over inexperience and change????
Did anyone else find Obama's long, rambling answers to be yawn-inducing? He seems to me to take a lot of time to basically say one thing: I will bring the country together. We are supposed to take this on faith. Hillary also talks a lot, is articulate and is the ultimate insider. Her message boils down to I know how to run the government and I will do it like Bill did. In contrast, Edwards speaks concisely, makes his points clearly, and lets you know exactly where he stands. His message is about the need to correct the course that America has drifted onto over a period of years. Hillary Clinton and Obama copy his lines, but I don't think either of them really get it. Neither do a lot of the pundits.
Hillary has already won the Presidency. It's the Clinton family turn to run the country. The Clinton and Bush families have been running the country in some form for the last 28 years. WE ARE NO DIFFENT FROM LATIN AMERICA.
I worked for the ultimate "bureaucracy" for over a decade - the Federal Govt. Believe me, we don't want a president who is trying to micro- manage the bureaucracy! We want a president who will, as Obama said, bring together the best and brightest to tackle and solve these enormous issues facing us. We want a leader who will inspire us to come together for the common good. We want a president who will have good judgment and reasoning who will not lead us into a war like Iraq. To me, Barack Obama will make a truly great president. He will be able to set an agenda to deal with issues like health care - and then be able to actually effect real CHANGE by being able to bring divergent sides together (political, medical, etc.) in a way that has not been possible for decades. THAT is what is SO EXCITING about BARACK OBAMA!! You get the feeling that we have the opportunity to actually GET SOME THINGS DONE for the COMMON GOOD!! He will inspire us to do better - and we will!! GO OBAMA!!!
Hillary won in these 2 debates so far.I hav enothing against senator Barrack about in intention to change and his vision but LET'S BE REALISTIC, IT IS NOT GOING TO BE THAT SIMPLE AND EASY TASKS UNLESS HE IS PLANNING TO BE THE PRESIDENT OF " FAIRYTALE LAND " THAT ALL HE NEED TO DO IS JUST TALKING OR WISHFUL THINKING
Why hasn't anyone stated the obvious yet? The "Truce", Clinton calling for Senator Obama (not Edwards mind you, just BHO) to co-sponsor a bill, the continued back and forth praise... I think all of us who watched, witnessed the birth of the Democratic Ticket.
I think these comments pointing to a preference for a "bureaucrat" as president only demonstrates a lack of civics education in our schools.
If I hear about Hillary's 35 years of experience one more time... I have over 35 years of experience as an engineer's wife, but that doesn't mean you would want me to build a bridge!  John Edwards is the candidate most likely to beat the Republicans in the general election and I hope the Democrates realize that fact before we end up without the White House for four more years.
My fellow Americans. We all must admit that Hillary Clinton's performance in the Debate last night was superior to the other canadidates. She was poised, regal, and her delivery was crisp. BUT SHE HAS BEEN PRATICING THIS FOR THE LAST 16 YEARS. It is the Clinton's turn to run the country. Isn't Prince William better prepared to be the King of England than any of us? He has been being groomed since birth.
Susan, being also from Dayton, I agree with you on your assessment of Obama and Hillary, but not on Edwards. I believe Edwards would make the best president. I will vote for Hillary because Edwards is finished.
It very much disturbs me when people say a candidate has no chance so he/she should quit. One of the reasons that these less than top tier candidates don't have a chance is because the media focuses on the leaders and basically ignores them.
I keep hearing that John Edwards has the best plan on this or that but he doesn't have a chance. Give him equal coverage with Obama and Hillary and see what happens to his poll numbers. Considering that his advertising is at a small fraction of the others I consider it INCREDIBLE that he has done as well as he has and is still competitive.
Hang in there, John.
My fellow Americans. We all must admit that Hillary Clinton's performance in the Debate last night was superior to the other canadidates. She was poised, regal, and her delivery was crisp. BUT SHE HAS BEEN PRATICING THIS FOR THE LAST 16 YEARS. It is the Clinton's turn to run the country. Isn't Prince William better prepared to be the King of England than any of us? He has been being groomed since birth.
Dear Jerry of Corpus Christi Texas you wrote: "With the Clinton's being called racists and using their talk to tick off the African American vote, i can see why they would ask for a truce.  They played the race card and it backfired on them, now they are asking to play nice.  This should last for a day....

Now wait a minute...I guess that you did not get the memo that Tim Russert waived in front of Obama last night? That memo that was waived in Obama's face was a talking points memo for his campaign to exploit the race issue. AND BO APOLOGISED. One doesn't apologize unless they did something wrong. Most educated and worldly people agree that neither Clinton remarks were racist. There is a great commentary in the Wall Street Journal today about how disingenuous it was for anybody to inject race in the Clinton's comments. So I ask you, who played the race card?
NSMsnbc, you just did compare them. What do you think we are all stupid? So you're just yet another male who is intimidated by an intelligent, strong woman. Sort of like, ah..Chris Matthews? Of course I would NEVER make that comparison.
My fellow Americans. We all must admit that Hillary Clinton's performance in the Debate last night was superior to the other canadidates. She was poised, regal, and her delivery was crisp. BUT SHE HAS BEEN PRATICING THIS FOR THE LAST 16 YEARS. It is the Clinton's turn to run the country. Isn't Prince William better prepared to be the King of England than any of us? He has been being groomed since birth.
The message is very clear from Hillary, the problem we have with our economy is that not just blacks are falling into poverty, but whites, hispanics, asians,Indians, middle class people.  It is an AMERICAN problem, and not one of a race problem.
No doubt about it:  it will be President Hillary Rodham Clinton and I'm looking forward to casting my ballot for her.
In any business 35 years means it's time to retire because the times have changed.The two people you don't want are the ones that just started less than 4 years(too green) and the ones near the end(too stubborn)I like John McCain based upon what I have read about him,I don't like Hillary for similary reasons,but both belong with names like  Ted Kennedy,Orin Hatch,Arlen Spector,and Robert Byrd who in the Senate to balance out newcomers.Either that or the media should call Hillary on the number she uses.Or is that the number of years she has been pulling shady deals like Whitewater,inside trading.She keeps having her agents bring up drug use.Look up White House scandals and the Clintons(both)are associated with them and not Monica.
The focal comparison in the post is, I think the most viable comparison between Obama and Clinton, whereby one looks at the role of visionary-in-chief while the other stands by the role of bureaucrat-in-chief.  What's interesting here?  They are both right, and they are both wrong.  A chief executive most be smart enough to pick the right people to delegate so that monitoring and micro-managing doesn't overcome the role of the chief, yet too much visionary musing could lead to an awful lot of ill-selected leaders destroying any visions on the way to reality.
What's good about these two candidates is they at least hold to two perspectives that never excisted in the administration over the past 7 years.
This ran in the Wall Street Journal today...I think that this commentary says it all. Please read with an open mind.

Hillary and MLK
By JOHN MCWHORTER
January 16, 2008; Page A12 (Wall Street Journal)

There are many people in our great land aggrieved over the idea that Hillary Clinton thinks Martin Luther King Jr. was not the hero of the civil rights movement.

This idea seems so illogical that the only way to understand it is to approach it as a puzzle. After all, why would a white person running for president in 2008 dismiss the legacy of King near his birthday, which is celebrated as a national holiday, and right before a primary in a state with a large black vote?

To do such a thing would suggest inability to tie one's shoes. Let's imagine that in private Sen. Clinton thought little of King, which is vastly unlikely for someone of her background. Still, the puzzle remains: Why would she, an intelligent person, say it in public?

Yet there she was on "Meet the Press" Sunday, having to defend herself for simply saying that while King laid the groundwork (which she acknowledged), another part of the civil rights revolution was Lyndon B. Johnson's masterful stewardship of the relevant legislation through Congress. She was arguing that she is more experienced in getting laws passed in Washington than is Barack Obama -- which is true.

Why do people like op-ed columnist Bob Herbert, South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn and countless black bloggers hear a grievous insult in her simple observation? The outcry is so disproportionate to the stimulus that one can barely help suspecting something outright irregular.

I think of a study published last year in the Journal of Black Psychology. It documented that the extent to which black Americans perceive their lives to be affected by racism correlates with symptoms of general paranoia disconnected from racial issues.

To be able to hold in one's mind the notion that Mrs. Clinton would attack King suggests a bone-deep hypersensitivity that overrides sequential reasoning. "We have to be very, very careful how we speak about that era," Rep. Clyburn explains.

But why so very, very careful? What effect does it have on anyone's life if that era is occasionally discussed in less than perfectly genuflective phraseology? Is the Klan waiting behind a hill? Will a black man working at an insurance company in Cleveland have a breakdown because someone didn't give King precisely enough credit in a quick statement?

There is a willful frailty, a lack of self-confidence, in this kind of thinking. It suggests someone almost searching for things to claim injury about, donning the mantle of the noble victim in order to assuage a bruised ego.

Of course, there is a less depressing interpretation of the current uproar: Mrs. Clinton's critics are playing political hardball. You know, let's get blacks to vote for Mr. Obama by playing the race card to pretend Mrs. Clinton is dumping on King. John Edwards, for example, is obviously not mouthing agreement with these people out of insecurity about his blackness.

Well, politics is rarely pretty, but in this case the price is too high. For one, misinterpretation of statements in this vein makes black people look disinclined to process detail and context -- in other words, dim. It only gives that much more fodder to views on black intelligence like those uttered by James Watson.

Think, for example, how utterly unreal the notion is that Bill Clinton, our "first black president," would call Mr. Obama's whole candidacy a "fairytale" rather than referring, specifically, to perceptions of his record on the Iraq war. It's as if the outraged crowd is only capable of processing seven words at a time.

In an election that is supposed to focus on larger issues such as America's role in a violent world, playing the race card in this fashion distracts us from real problems. When most new AIDS cases are black and the murder rate among young black males is sky high, what kind of black representative throws tantrums over extremely unlikely implications of something someone said?

In the name of speaking for Mr. Obama, the people throwing these tantrums are presenting a parochial, cynical face, rather than the thoughtful, cosmopolitan one that the candidate himself is trying to show.

Overall, Mr. Obama has not run a "black" campaign. The past few days suggest that if he did, many would consider it a favor to him to churn up 10 more months of dustups over phrases carefully lifted out of context and held up as evidence of racism. Hopefully Mr. Obama is too smart, and too much a man of the world, to succumb to this twisted rendition of black identity.

Mr. McWhorter is a weekly columnist for the New York Sun and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Did anyone else notice that the lion's share of the questions went to Clinton and Obama...its almost like they barely let Edwards in.   Immediately following the debate all of the analyst ignored Edwards too referring to Obama simply as "him" like there were no other males in the race.  The media runs on entertainment and since thats the case a 2 person horse race is more interesting and financially lucrative.  Its really sad when Edwards was the one who essentially brought all the key issues to the table which everyone now debates.  Shame on MSNBC.
Edwards clearly won and he's the only one who can win in the south
To: celticfire, erin, wi,

I would ask you to remember that GWB has an approach to being president that is very similar to what Obama is stating. I believe that Hillary in combining both a vision and directive alongside being the CEO is really what we want our presidents to be able to master. I think Bill Clinton was that type of president and believe Hillary will be as well. GWB talked about having a vision and hiring the right people. How did that work out? Not so much.  
Finally, a civil debate.  It was good to get a chance to pretty much hear the candidates express themselves more clearly, without such a limited time allowance.  I feel I learned more this time out than all the other debates combined.

I don't understand the media ... and some of the posters ... who are looking for combat.  We can learn nothing from who can shout the loudest or be the most over-bearing.  I like John Edwards a lot.  I am completely behind Barack Obama, as I believe his approach is thoughtful.  Those who critic his speech patterns in debates are not seeing through to the man whose mind is working at giving as thorough an answer as possible.  This is the type of mind I would prefer seeing in negotiations to solve the problems he will inherit from the ill-advised, mis-managed previous eight years.
Senator Clinton's pat and dogmatic answers may play well in debate, but strong presidential leadership and decision-making require a nuanced understanding of complex issues, and the ability to move the country forward toward change.  Senator Obama has the strength and steady, calm judgement that we need in a Commander in Chief.  Ted Sorensen, President Kennedy's aide and speechwriter, knows what kind of courage and judgment it takes to lead a nation and resolve complex international issues--  Sorensen was with Kennedy when he resolved the Cuban missile crisis at an equally dangerous time in our nation's history.  Ted Sorensen knows that Senator Obama is ready to lead our nation and become a great president-- and so do I.
I heard an interesting comment by Mike Huckabee on NPR this morning regarding "push polling" and other negative campaigning done by independent so-called 527 organizations. He said that he has publicly requested that these organizations stop doing this kind of stuff to support his candidacy. The interviewer then pushed him a little bit, by saying, "Oh, c'mon, you can get them to stop it if you want to." (Not an exact quote.) Huckabee pointed out that it is illegal for any coordination to take place between campaigns and these independent groups. He indicated that all he can do is publicly call for them to stop, but any private communication would violate the law and that he didn't want to go to jail because someone is doing something that he disagrees with. If that's the correct interpretation of the law, that would explain why Hillary Clinton can be a good administrator, but be unable to stop the 527's supporting her from spreading whatever they're being accused of spreading about Senator Obama. In fairness to all the candidates, this should be pointed out by the corporate mainstream media. I'm sure this won't satisfy any of the irrational Hillary haters out there, but nothing ever will satisfy them. I'd still like to get a look at Karl Rove's private National Republican Committee email correspondence with the Swift Boat Veterans for....Truth? I bet we'd see evidence of campaign coordination there, and it wouldn't be Karl begging them to stop.
Barack Obama does nothing to inspire me. He talks a lot about hope and uniting, but does not seem to have a plan to lead the country. Hillary Clinton seems to bring about more of the same blue state/red state divisiveness and Republicans can't wait to run against her.

John Edwards is the only candidate that has comprehensive plan to bring our country back together.

http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/

Go John Edwards!
"John Edwards was given about 3 minutes of speaking time in the last 20 odd minutes. And the two specific questions about Yucca and the Bankruptcy law seemed intended to expose him"

The others both support nuclear power so if not yucca mountain where?  Ignoring the fact we have to grab up ex soviet republic fissile material and get it to a secure location.

Edwards answer on Yucca was acceptabe in that he understood the changing nature of the debate, and is opposed to creating more nuclear waste.  Are we going to make every nuclear facility Hillary and Obama builds into a weapons grade waste depository?  Are they going to leave the loose material in the former soviet republics there, A wearhouse in longbeach? where?

As for the commentators acting like it was the most substantive debate yet on say the war.  I saw a bunch of people channeling Richardson and Kucinich who were attacked for that position in previous debates by some of the people channeling it.  I saw commentators that attacked richardson on how you get out in a year which he then explained give a pass to these three candidates.  In fairness it was always clear Obama and edwards wanted out but were unsure on specifics hillary the experienced one however wouldn't even promise by the end of her second term.  Russert didn't call her on that he lumped her in the 2013 crowd.

Edwards won for getting past those first two questions from san diego without getting himself embroiled in the racial politics the media had been pressing.  As a white male I cringed on hearing those both could have been answered easily in ways that destroyed his candidacy.

Anyone that has seen every debate since last year and has a memory has to be asking "Will the real Senator Clinton please stand up"  Of course most weren't watching leaving the question will the media run the tapes side by side and ask the questions and will they do it on the evening news.

If not Yucca Where?  The Senators must answer as they support nuclear energy.  Edwards should answer as we have free fissile material in the world we need to get secured to defend ourselves.

This was a softball debate on foreign policy but the choice I think we are making now is;

A visionary leader that wants to negotiate their way to change.

An experienced leader that wants to keep walking the halls of washington to make change.

A fighter that wants to take the battlements throw out the enemy and raise up the middle class and america along with it.

The good news for the dems is this race doesn't look to be over soon as the republicans appear to be heading to a nomination in September.  Tactically if they have february through novemeber to attack discredit and smear our candidate while we don't know which one of them we are facing and therefore which messages to run would be a disaster for the party.

The later our nominee is named the better so personally I hope all three keep fighting and this goes to our convention in august.
iam a republin but i have to give it to the old girl she won the debate hands down . she knows her stuff. go huck.
Edwards is toast. Obama and Clinton will split his votes and the closer we get to the election, the more we will see just how inexperienced and weak Mr Obama is. Hillary will get the nomination and also the presidency. As she deserves. GOP is also toast...thanks to W.
SAM SAID:---------------------------------

In times of relative prosperity, we can have a president who is into the visionary thing rather than detail...Reagan.  



But in times of megapolitical challenges, we need a pres. who is willing to lead in a much more concrete and involved manner.  We need a person of action who understands the issues....Roosevelt and Lincoln

Hillary this kind of leader.

Sam (Sent Wednesday, January 16, 2008 10:20 AM)
------------------------------------------------------

Sam you have it perfectly reversed.  You need the vision during times of major change.  For instance when Chrslyer was screwed it needed visionary leadership like Lee Iocca.  Countries are no different.  To bring us out of the Great Depression we needed FDR.  To get us out of apartheid (called Jim Crow in the US) we needed Martin Luther King Jr.  Bad times require visionary leadership.  

When Ronald Regan came into office to country was in a bad place.  He provided a vision of where the country needed to go that lasted for about 30 years, until now.  That is what Barak Obama means and that is what he is offering, a vison or where the country needs to go.  Hillary does not offer any vision, and she is not trying to offer any vision.  Because of that she needs somebody to run against.  Thus, Hillary is fighting Obama's vision, is trying to keep the country rooted in the now, is trying to keep the country operating along Ronald Regan's vision.  

No President should be concerned with managing files and schedules.  He has people to do that.  If fact, the more bureaucratic work the President (or the person at the top of any larger organization) does, the worse off the organization is.  

Obama is right, the Presidency is all about vision.
Clinton said. ‘But I think you have to be able to manage and run the bureaucracy.’”]


And what bureaucracy has Clinton run? What details has she ever fleshed out? She has a million ideas, but none have ever been implemented. Hillary is more  suited for a liberal think tank that writes policy statements then she is to run a government.

And John Edwards, same question. What bureaucracy have you ever run?

Same problems for Reid and Pelosi. Long on ideas. Short on building coalitions and general agreement.
To: Edwards all the way

Edwards would win over more people if he would say something different on occasion. I feel everytime I listen to him is stuck on script. Also he needs to stop with the "This is personal for me" thing. For the others it is some sort of game. What is the point he is making?
I was immediately put off when the candidates, Obama & Edwards were asked if they felt they had ganged up on Hillary last debate.  To me that set things off on the wrong foot right away!  She is a candidate and believe me she is tough enough, likeable enough.....she can't be touched because she is "girl," remember that old saying well she can get down with the best of them so I wouldn't worry a whole lot.  She was given way to much time as she acted a though she was debating Bush, her staff is smart I will give you that, since it was a ploy to not debate these other two.  I will vote for Obama & Edwards in a race any day
It's too bad that John Edwards is disadvantaged because he's not a minority like Clinton and Obama are.  He's got the right vision and the experience needed after 8 years of W.  If the convention comes down to neither of the two front runners having enough delegates to win and they don't team up, Edwards would be a logical choice.
I do want to point out to Obama that Social Security isn't taxed, so you can't give tax relief to people receiving it.

Social Security certainly IS taxed, how do you get the fool notion is is not?
The strongest and best ticket for the Democrats and America would be Clinton and Obama. That would also give Obama additional seasoning and experience for his run at the Presidency after Hillary's 8 years.
I think some people were mislead by Clinton about what Obama said.  He listed his weakness as being personally disorganized.  And guess what, President's have loads of secretarys for that kind of paperwork. The quote originally mentioned said he is not an "operating office."  Hillary get it right, that is COO not CEO.

She then comapares him to Bush. That is just wrong.  Obama correctly points out that Bush's biggest fault isn't that he mis-manages people like Hillary claimed, but he consistently sets the wrong vision.  Afterall, he managed Hillary pretty well when he covinced her to authorize the Iraq war.  He is actually very good at the bureaucracy, which is why he has been able to usurp more executive power and make congress ineffective.

Look Bush has two faults.  Bad people hired (cronyism) and Bad ideas for the country.  A new Clinton administration would certainly be staffed with many cronies and she has proven time and time again to have bad judgement.

Hillary (nor Edwards) had the courage to list a real weakness, but let me interpret the Clinton double speak.  She said it was being impatient (that's sort of what I say when I am asked this question on job interviews), but the true answer is she is a perfectionist.  Perfectionism leads to micromangement, which can clearly be seen as a big part of her previous Healthcare reform debacle.  There are many stories that document her unwillingness to bring people into her process as the reason for its complete failure.

Her pefectionist attitude is also what precludes her from admitting she made the wrong vote on Iraq.  She would rather try rewriting history before admitting that she makes mistakes.

There are too many serious problems in this country for us to hand the country over to a micro-manager like Hillary.  And we most certainly need a president whose not afraid to inspire and enlist people smarter than himself on particular issues, to turn this country around.  That President is Barack Obama.
Another question for Hillary:

What, exactly, from your employment history makes you the most "experienced" candidate?  

The only two jobs she obtained on *her* merits are the Rose Law Firm and the Senate one she now holds.  Yes?

Being First Lady of Arkansas and the U.S. are not "vetted" positions.  You do not obtain them solely on your own merits in a competitive environment.  Nor is there oversight, a source of evaluation of your work.

On the other candidates:

I like Edwards a lot, but am troubled by his repeated claims that he voted wrongly.  It undermines my confidence in him.  Still, I'd consider voting for him - certainly over Hillary.

I could live with Obama, from what I see so far.  We need a thoughtful leader who can communicate his ideas clearly and in a collegial manner. He's the strongest of the three so far.  None of that 90's baggage, at least.

Who won?  I think we all won.  For the first time that I can remember we got three adults sitting around a table and discussing the problems facing our country and their ideas about fixing those problems.  I got so much more information about the canidates and how they think, last night, than from any other debate.  If I had to pick a "winner" it would probably be Hillory.  She sounded Presidential.

Obama is slick but just didn't seem to have a clear vision on what to do except talk about having a vision.  I would like to know what that vision is.

John Edwards is the most liberal but is passionate about what he wants to do...

And to the person above that said the Republicans are gonna win whoever the Dem's decide on...did we forget to take our medication?  The Republicians are so scattered on what or who they want, have less money collectively than just one of the Democratic canidates and finally, the American people are tired of the B.S. that GWB and the Republicians have been forcing down our throats for 8 years.  Any part of that you didn't understand?
Rob, Phoenix, AZ:

Senator Obama apologized because he is trying to move on to more important issues.

Why is typing a memo about statements made by the Clinton campaign worse than the comments themselves?

Are you telling me that there has been NOTHING wrong with ANY of the comments that Senator Clinton and her surrogates have made about Senator Obama?

Is the Obama campaign supposed to pretend that everything is alright while Bill and Hillary Clinton unleash the dogs of hell on him?

Let's quit playing mind games - we all know dirty politics when we see it.

The Democrats held their fire for one night.  Let's see if they can keep it up.  Ronald Reagan always said the Republican's 11th amendment was:  Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican.  Apparently, the Democrats' 11th amendment is:  Thou shalt not adopt the Republican's 11th amendment.

See, http://rhettoracle.net
So I ask you, who played the race card?

Rob, Phoenix, AZ (Sent Wednesday, January 16, 2008 11:52 AM)


The Clintons mentioned that MLK was not the driving force behind the civil rights bill signed by LBJ....

LBJ might have signed it, but MLK did the leg work...

The Clinton's tell people that Obama has not enough spade work.....

If Rush Limbaugh had said that, he would have felt like Frankenstein in that windmill while the townies were lighting torches to burn it down....

Who brought the race card into the fight?.....
The Clinton's...

I refused to watch the debate after Dennis Kucinich was excluded. Likewise, I haven't watched debates that excluded Ron Paul. I won't watch NBC or any other media company if they are filtering out dissenting viewpoints from legitimate candidates.
After listening to last night's debate, I could not help focus on issues others seem to have forgotten - the fact that the Clinton Administration was deluged with investigations, firings, indictments, etc.  Does anyone else remember these things?  And, if one has 'no knowledge' of wrong doing in their own administration, and consistently denies knowing, what does that say about their honor, integrity and leadership capabilities?  Consider the same 'lack of knwledge' when it came to the recent actions of Clinton supporters. Are 'admit nothing, deny everything and make counter allegations' tactics going to work for this campaign?  These were words used to describe Bill Clinton some ten years ago (and not just regarding the 'Monica' issue), and seem to be an apt description of Clinton's campaign tactics now.  Also, risking the black vote seemed to be ok for Clinton because she is more focused on the Hispanic vote, which would appear a much larger potential - the Hispanics, even according to her comments as I saw them, are generally less educated.  Does their 'less educated' status give her more of an advantage because she genuinely cares...or is it because they may not necessarily take the time to look back at the Clinton prior history,  or be able to see through the political games? Frankly?  After what I have read, and what I have seen, it's truly time for someone new...not the repeat of the same old 'dirty politics' of the past.  Clinton lost my vote.
Clearly, Obama is the most thoughtful, reasoned, insightful candidate with the most leadership capabilities.  

The other two are mostly hot air:  Witness, probably the most single negative piece of recent legislation that is oppressive to America's poor and unfortunate is the Bankruptcy Bill.


Edwards, who will "fight and fight" because it is "personal" to him, clearly forgot to fight on this one as he voted for it, and when questioned said, "I made a mistake."

Hillary, who can "implement real change" did so in this case by screwing the poor and admitted to voting yes on the same bill.  She also admitted to "making a mistake."

Only Obama voted no on this bill and said rightfully that it was heavily skewed in favor of financial institutions at the expense of the American consumer.  He is the only one who acts on what he speaks.  The other two are hypocrites who will say anything to get elected.

"He will grow in office?"

I do not want someone who needs to grow in office - I want someone to govern on day one.  

And as for the debate?  It was the JV team (Obama and Edwards) against the major league pro team (Hillary). She know both of their records cold, and has specifics on every policy choice that needs to be made.  She never says thing like, "I, uh, will give, uh, BILLIONS of dollars to that" (thank you Sen. Obama).  She has figures, plans and specifics.

Slam dunk for Clinton - Hillary '08.
I, for one, am not intimidated by a strong woman.  But I expect her to be forthright and honest (as I would, any man).  Hillary and her husband, Bill are neither and they both intimidate me because I fear the consequences of what their presidency will have upon the integrity of this country.  

I thought that the elections of the 'Juan Perons' (and wives) of this world, were symptomatic of tin horn dictatorships (I do cry for you Argentina) and that we in the USA, were not susceptible to such manipulations of our strong (maybe not so strong) democratic tradition.  I hope that I am proved right and that we are able to overcome the cynical manipulatios of the Clintons and their Clintonista machine.

Clinton supporters:  You always wonder why we anti-Clinton people hate Hillary.  Well, I can't speak for anyone but myself.  I don't hate Hillary but I fear the Clinton machine.  I fear that the Clintons represents the same elements that I detest in the Bush administration, powerful moneyed interests who wish to run this country as a fascist oligarchy.  

Nader, whom I blame for the election of GWB in 2000(no matter what explanation he offers in his defense) is right when he says that changing Republican corporate interests to those of the Democrats is no change at all.  We the people must take this government back and it doesn't have to be done in a confrontational manner, as suggested by Edwards (and Nader).  The power of an involved electorate is unstoppable.  Obama is the one who can inspire, he can awaken the sleeping giant and with that unleashed power, we can take our country back again!
Obama '08
Obama '08
Obama '08
And hmmm - who voted for Dick Cheney's energy bill...?


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=581959

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