Initial post-debate take...

Posted: Monday, January 21, 2008 10:06 PM by Chuck Todd

From NBC's Chuck Todd
This was easily the most heated debate to date. The candidates, particularly Obama and Clinton were, well, angry and it got personal. Obama, in particular, seemed to have a lot he wanted to get off his chest.

Obama spent the early part of the night on the defensive, which I'm guessing, wasn't the game plan. Of course, when you're the candidate under fire, it usually means you're the candidate ahead. And in South Carolina, he's probably ahead. Still, Obama was constantly under attack by both Clinton and, to a degree, Edwards.

Also, Obama consistently got caught in a debate trap by responding to every charge with an explanation. It's a standup thing to do on one hand, but it ends up putting Obama off message; and it allows for the attack to get more air time rather than the original point or message Obama meant to be heard. Clinton, in contrast, rarely answers a charge directly and instead deflects by counter-punching, which shows her discipline.

Obama seemed to get that he got a bit too hot because in the second part of the debate, he refused a new chance to go after Bill Clinton a second time. But the campaign probably believes they showed that he's tough enough and they did want to continue to push the idea that the Clintons will say and do anything to win. BTW, Obama was particularly strong in the second part of the debate. His answers on religion and his national security rebuttal to Clinton were very good. The strong second half performance will blunt any potential negative backlash he received in the first part.

Clinton never looks good on the attack; and she didn't tonight but because she was getting in the mud with Obama, the two neutralized each other at best. Of course, her goal tonight was probably simply avoiding a major gaffe as she's headed out of the state and is somewhat downplaying her chances by staying out of South Carolina for three days.

Edwards had the easiest job tonight; he got to look like the above-it-all guy; but that's better than being the third wheel which to some he may ALSO have looked. When you aren't as competitive as your two opponents, it's easy to play the mediator and he did it well. He did no damage to his favorable rating (which is generally high) but did he do enough to start climbing back above that 15% threshold he needs to keep getting delegates? On points, Edwards can call himself the winner since he got to make the easy "can't we all just get along" points. But the center of attention for this debate was Obama and ultimately, that's probably a good thing for the South Carolina frontrunner.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

John Edwards won this debate hands down. If he received the same "free" exposure that Clinton and Obama receive he would be winning some of these primaries. Edwards easily had the best lines of the night and showed the most class yet I predict that all the news media will show on their recaps is the fighting between Clinton and Obama. Edwards said it best when he asked "Are there three people in this debate, not two?" There are three people and the news media need to pay equal attention to all three.

Concerned Democrat, San Antonio, Texas (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:30 PM)

Hillary Clinton reinforced in this debate all the reasons voters across the party spectrum don't like her. Democrats were also reminded of the mixed legacy of Bill Clinton and the "elephant in the room" of his own record of lack of truthfulness with the American people, and therefore lack of credibility. The debate therefore is again about change. Do we want Clinton Dynasty Part II with all the character issues that went with it, or do we want a fresh start with a fresh perspective and a new idealism and new energy that an Obama candidacy offers.

Bill R. Salem, Oregon (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:30 PM)

If the women in NH responded to an attacked HRC, then it'll probably pan out that the Clinton-Edwards tag-team against Obama will work to drive AfrAms to Obama's side. Was tonight Obama's "crying moment?"

(anybody else think the Obama in the middle of two attackers made for great tv?) w

Justin, Norfolk, Va. (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:31 PM)

For over the last year pundits have been saying, "the gloves have come off" (Jon Stewart's "Daily Show" covered this recently), but it looks as if they finally have! Tonight I saw an Obama that is more than just able to unify and serve as a likable candidate, but one that is also tough and strong. I'd call Obama the "winner," although I THOUGHT the debates where supposed to be about giving us information about each candidate and not a competition?

Sean Going, Tucson, AZ (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:31 PM)

Obama was under attack, at some points looking to his left and right batting away charges. But he did so without looking rushed or crazed. He attacked his attackers. He came off looking tough.

His line about not sometimes not being able to tell which Clinton he's running against was classic.

S, Wallace, Orlando, FL. (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:32 PM)

I don't understand why more people can not see right through Clinton's and Edwards politics! Am I the only person in the world who can see that Obama is the most genuine candidate of the three? Is honesty not a quality we are looking for in our next president? How eaisly we have forgotten Monica-gate..."I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Has it ever occured to any democrate that all red-blooded neo-con republicans pray nightly that Clinton will win because they know how to fight her? People, wake up! Please stop, take a moment to think about who you are voting for and why. Don't vote for the sex and or race of the candidate. Don't listen to the media to decide, get involved and check their records for your self...internet! Insted, vote for competence, vision and electability...the republicans can't beat Obama!

Stanton Schuler, Lake Oswego Oregon (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:32 PM)

Hillary was once again the Queen of Mean but Obama fought back her crazy charges and got in some good counter punches. He never lost his cool and seemed totally presidential and in command. Edwards benefited by not being in the fray but overall this was Obama's night because he got the chance to show us there's no substance to the attacks from Hill and Bill. The Clintons represent the old politics while Obama will be a transformational figure in American politics. Obama had good arguments regarding a debate vs republicans on national security. He'll be able to change the terms of the debate rather than playing into their hand. It's time to move on to a new day in this country.

Keith Gilbert, Silver Spring, MD (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:32 PM)

Edwards won the debate and looked most presidential - which will happen when two others go at it and you can be above the fray. Clinton's (Bill and Hillary) attacks have gotten out of hand and I'm glad Obama stood up to defend them as best as possible without going into the mud too much himself. Hillary said in NH that its 'not a game.' The Clinton campaign's tactics seems to show they believe that it is actually a game. Most of Hillary Fact check entries are to berate Obama's record. Most of Obama's Fact Check entries are to defend Clinton's attacks. I've decided to vote for Obama.

Jeff (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:33 PM)

Hillary came across as belligerent and shrew-like when she attacked Obama. Obama, to his credit, defended himself against both her and Pres. Clinton's attacks against him. He did a great job, and even sounded quite inspiring at times--something Hillary cannot ever do--though she desperately tries. The audience was clearly pro-Obama. I think the female voters of this country (and definitely South Carolina) are finally seeing Hillary for the opportunistic, anti-feminist, automaton that she is, and I think it's about time!

Mary, South Carolina (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:33 PM)

Obama finally stod up and showed some backbone to the Clinton campaign. He has needed to do this for the last few weeks, rather than looking like he doesn't have answers. He was more articulate on national security and I thought his answer on health care was a better position than more Government mandates.
He pointed out one good consistant. The Clintons do not have enough ethics to put out factual truth. They would rather put out misleading inuendo. But what's new?

Mark Verstraete (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:34 PM)

I thought the debate was good for Obama. This article speaks for itself on all 3 cadidates. I'm tired and can't say anymore except - OBAMA '08.

Keith Ashford, Goldsboro, NC (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:35 PM)

I found it unfortunate that Senator Clinton is being forced to ask the questions about Senator Obama that the news media should be asking but refuses to. The media is trying their best to simply hand the nomination to him. It has been the Clinton campaign's strategy to let Former President Clinton ask the difficult questions and critizise Obama, so that Senator Clinton can stay on message with her own ideas, but the media has repaid that with withering attacks on the Clintons, implying that by pointing out Obamas record(or lack of one) and statements that they are somehow dishonest or worse, racists.

In response to former President Clinton's recent comments, Good Morning America gave Senator Obama a "creampuff" interview with Robin Roberts, then(I believe as a warning)gave us all a worthless reminder story about Monica Lewinsky. Was the Lewinsky piece their way to tell Bill to lay off their appointed candidate? How transparently biased can they be? So it will be up to Hillary to take on the inexperienced(shows in his lack of debate skills)Obama, hoping that America will listen to her voice of reason and not let the biased media turn it into a voice of shrillness.

Jeff, Mount Vernon, Wa (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:35 PM)

There were two winners tonight: Obama and Edwards. Obama fought back but in a very gentlemanly way. And i disagree that he got "throw off message." To the contrary he put Clinton in her place. And got her to fall for the trap of "going there..." She brings up Rezko, the door is now open to revisit the sins of the Clinton White House of which she claims to be such an integral part.

The other winner was John Edwards who was able to bring himself back into the spotlight. He was just hard enough on Obama to create a little tension, but if you were paying attention to them during the seated portion of the debate, it was clear that Edwards and Obama like each and Clinton was the odd woman out.

Her body language had her sitting away from the two men; they were turned into one another, were patting each other and joking. very affable. There was none of that affection from either man for Hillary.

She came off shrill, divisive, unnecessarily combative and negative, when she could have been more positive. She got booed TWICE. In my book, she was the Biggest LOSER.

Wolf Blitzer also allowed her to filibuster ad infinitum.

jade7243 (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:36 PM)

Agree, agree, agree. Except that you omit an important distinction. Aside from the sparring in the first half (and that's a huge aside) the basic worldviews of the three candidates crystalized tonight:

Clinton's is inherently authoritarian and divissive; Edwards'is Johnsonian (vis-a-vis class); but Obama's is both inspirational and inclusive (ergo the reference to Reagan).

Paula von Loewenfeldt, Evansville, IN (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:37 PM)

Who won? The American people won this debate.

Who will win the nomination?

Hillary Clinton!

Fred C. Dobbs (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:39 PM)

The last two debates have made me very happy to accept any one of these three Democratic candidates as my President. Edwards won the debate though and I'll be voting for him. Any two of the three as a ticket is ideal.

Trace, San Diego (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:39 PM)

Obama was a clear winner. He called Hillary and Bill on their lies. It did not look good for her. You can tell she was caught off guard. She attacked Obama stating that the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats. However, Obama came out and Hit her and Bill with their lies straight in their face. He told them he never said the republican policies were good. He said that Reagan brought the country together. He even got democrats to vote for him. Yes, Obama was correct. A lot of Dems did vote for Reagan. He is smart enough to know that is what it is going to take to win the general election.

Cheryl (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:41 PM)

John Edwards showed yet again why he is the only one who is really ready to take on the republicans. He is specific and focused on policy and his vision for the nation. Whenever John attacks another candidate, it is over something that relates directly to policy or approach, not petty personal attacks.

JB Hull, IA (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:42 PM)

Obama held his own in this debate and PROVED that he can stand up to anything the GOP throws at him. His performance tonight is an indication of how effective truth is as a debate tactic- great debate overall. I thought that Edwards made some very good points but I think that ultimately he will not be able to bounce back after winning only 4% in NV. Hillary on the other hand only affirmed what the web has been speculating- she will do/ say anything to win. It's a sad sad day to see a woman who claims to be strong minded lower herself to this extent (the comment she made about Obama failing to vote against sex shops near children (which was well answered by Obama)) was an indication of the kind of politics that have been clearly embraced by Clintons. I commend senator Obama for being strong, truthful and direct- I look forward to seeing him in the white house

Sara, NY (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:42 PM)

I think this hurt Obama! He came out angry and a bit whiny. Having said that, if the strategy was to give a clear signal to Clintons - Game On! it is misplaced. It is playing in Clintons' hands. And, if the strategy was to bring-out the alleged good cop - bad cop tactics of the Clintons' it seemed to be whiny! I am a Barack supporter and is interested to see how it is spinned in the media and by all three camps.

Vivek Sharma, New York, NY (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:43 PM)

Edwards played mediator?? He was the only one in the debate who came off looking presidential, composed, and stuck to the real issues. Please. Yet another example of him being marginalized. Thanks a bunch Chuck.

Judy, Pittsburgh, PA (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:43 PM)

Obama had to fight back especially after the dirty campaign the Clinton's have been running. He just couldn't sit back and let them get away with it. Barack you have my respect, my support and my vote!!!
Obama'08

Cindy (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:43 PM)

Hillary "Borg" Clinton continues her traverse through the galaxy. Tonight she made an effort to appear philisophical and professorial, formerly Obama's domain. Resistance is futlie. You will be assimilated.

Don, Mason, Texas (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:43 PM)

I agree but not totally, in particular with regards to Obama actually responding to the multitude of charges from the Clinton campaign. With the Clinton campaign attempting to flood Obama with less than accurate charges, he would run the risk of looking like he is bowing to the Bill and Hillary tag team hit squad. Which could make the Dems question whether he'd be able to fight off attacks in the general election.

K d, Atlanta, Georgia (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:44 PM)

This political circus hit an all time low tonight. Hillary and Barack screaming at each other was an embarrassment to the country.

Overall, Edwards came out the winner. He was the sane one in the circus. I feel Hillary did a good counterattack, but I wish she had stayed above the fray. Barack was totally out of line by going off-topic bringing up the fairytale comment, Reagan, etc. He also showed his anger which isn't a good thing. He can't deal with valid scrutiny and typical political mudslinging. That's not good for someone who wants to run in the General Election.

MJC (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:45 PM)

I agree for the most point, I thought Obama handled himself from the Clinton attack machine. I am glad he got to defend his Regan comment (which I find it ridiculous that Hillary claimed to take it the way she did) I also agree that Clinton looks HORRIBLE on the attack, I still think Dems lose th election if she wins the nomination, she is just too divisive.

John (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:45 PM)

I disagree with your assessment--Obama looked frazzled from the beginning and never regained composure. Sure, he got slightly more on target with some of the national issues, but that is only because it isn't entirely out of his realm of experience. He was weak.

Edward, Boston (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:46 PM)

Hillary goin' to cry now?

RobK, Seattle, Wash. (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:47 PM)

Though I do not think the attack mode bodes well for the Democrats in general - I think Obama showed he can handle himself and as someone who voted for Bill Clinton twice I have to say I am getting "Clinton Fatigue" already - how many of them are running for President anyway. John Edwards looked the best, staying mostly above it - but btwn the front runners I think this one goes to Obama

JMC, NJ (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:48 PM)

Oh please. Obama won nothing!
I happen to love it when Hillary shows her strength. She can dish it out and she can take it.
John made great points. I hope he & Clinton make the ticket.

Lo Neal (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:48 PM)

I think Chuck has it all very wrong. In fact, MSNBC should stop calling this race a 2 person race and give Edwards more coverage and consideration. The American public deserves nothing less. I have lost respect for corporate media and bias pundits who are distorting Edwards rightful place in these polls. Edwards is the Earnest, Authentic, and Original candidate for change and the other two Democrats are running campaigns imitating his successes. A win without Edwards for the Democrats will be impossible.

Frank , Rockville, MD (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:48 PM)

Obama won the black vote, Edwards will take the anti-Hillary vote and the independents sick of Obama and Hillary attacking each other, Hillary Clinton won the general population vote. Obama stepped right into her trap which I thought was fabulous. Obama has marked himself as the black candidate and he will win S.C. but it will be expected and Hillary won't be hurt by the loss. Hillary Clinton's performance tonight will appeal more to White voters and the general population. Obama needs to learn that winning only the black vote will not win him the nomination.

ClassyChic, Michigan (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:48 PM)

Hillary spent 8 years trying to get healthcare with no results - Is that experience we need? She and Bill are also distorting facts (again). I had enough evasion and distortion from the Bush administration and am ready for change.

Voting present in Illinois is a strategy to negotiate for a stronger bill. It is not a non-vote. Another Clinton and Edwards (and pundit)distortion.

We need someone with the experience to bring diverse elements together to build coalitions to actually get things done and Barack Obama has that experience,and that leadership. I'm ready for an end to the divisiveness that has plagued this country for the past 7 years. Let's work together and actually get our problems solved.

Linda Lee, Sedona, AZ (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:49 PM)

John Edwards came out looking good, but Hillary will go on to win the nomination. She might not win South Carolina, but Obama winning South Carolina will hurt his chances everywhere else. Remember it is because of race he will win South Carolina and because he won due to the race card he will lose everywhere else.

John Doe (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:50 PM)

ABC!!
Anybody But Clinton!! out with the old and
in with the new!! Do we have to relive that era
again??

Dory (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:51 PM)

Please everyone think, think, think. Remember this when the cameras are off and the show is done, whi is going to be the work horse and who was just the show horse. There is only one answer, Hillary Clinton. She has done, will do, and will always listen listn listen, help help help, and provie results. As a 28year old sinlge black mother, you have a really clear view. Hillary Clinton is and always has been the best person for President hands down. I'm urging eveyone to please really think, follow who you know and who has shown the strength experience and wisdom for this position. Bless you all.

Brianna Jenkins, Columbia, SC (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:51 PM)

Obama was the winner. No contest. This will be the night people remember as the crucial turning point. Obama will be the nominee, and our next president!

Caroline, Bethesda, MD (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:53 PM)

Great debate. Finally we saw some sparks. Same old twisting and spinning from Senator Clinton but at least everyone was engaged.

What's unfortunate is that Wolf Blitzer let Senator Clinton off the hook on the question of whether her healthcare plan would cover illegal immigrants. Both Edwards and Obama were forced to say no. Wolf did not hold Senator Clinton's feet to the fire.

How much you want to bet that over the next few weeks the Clinton campaign will wink and nod their way to the Latino community believing that Senator Clinton is the only one who will cover illegals?

Watch. I'll be stunned if it's not in a mailer in the next week...

Healthcare Prediction (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:54 PM)

Chuck, a generally shrewd analysis, as always. But I beg to differ on one point. Obama has been subject to series of last-minute, but apparently very effective, negative mailers from the Clinton campaign in each primary/caucus. Those have gone unanswered -- until tonight. And I think he left undecided or less-than-fully-committed voters with the general sense that not every charge leveled by the Clintons is necessarily true, and that indeed many are false or misleading. That will do him a world of good in the long run, even if it made him look defensive for a few minutes tonight. And I could not agree more that, in the second half of the debate, Obama was able to convey that he'd rather be generous and highminded about his opponents if he had his druthers. So the overall impression was of a guy who will hit back if unfairly attacked but not of a guy who enjoys attacking and criticizing -- a reluctant warrior if you will. Hillary, in contrast, did not look a reluctant warrior, but instead looked like someone who enjoys attacking for the sport of it.

RaymondA (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:56 PM)

Who was the winner tonight, you ask? Actually, the American electorate was the winner in this latest episode of "Which Is Your Ultimate King And God, Savior and Executioner"... the answer to which is: None of you self serving twits. They call themselves presidential timber? More like used toothpicks derived from termite infested sapwood.

Savoie Faire, Is Everywhere, USA (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:57 PM)

The pattern is becoming very evident. The
Clinton's (it is hard to tell who is running)
are just playing (dirty) politics - trying to
manipulate people. While Obama and Edwards
have a message, have a goal and a belief. They a
are trying to stay out of the mud but the
Clinton's keep trying to drag everyone down to
their pathetic desperate level.

Bill Macomb MI (Sent Monday, January 21, 2008 11:57 PM)

so glad he finaly stood up to Clinton she had it coming between her and her husband all they have been doing is ganging up on him all week . She comes across as a bitter woman . My husband and i are indepents that lean republican but in the primary we voted for Abama and so did our reltives just to keep her out.

lorna d voigt (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 12:00 AM)

I watched this debate as I have all of the previous debates. It's getting punchy in there all right...but we knew it would especially with a Clinton (or should I make that plural) in the mix...I appreciate Chuck Todd's comment that Hillary "rarely answers a charge directly"...The only thing Chuck is you should change the word "rarely" to never...The Clinton's game plan IS never answer directly, choosing to carefully word answers without subject and verb and few adjectives using words and phrases right out of the latest opinion poll...Course I guess, it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is....On Obama, I understand his "anger" so to speak, but in my opinion it was justified...I like the guy, and quite frankly, this long time Republican voter (me) is seriously thinking about voting for Obama for President...I can't remember the last time I voted for a Democrat, but he thinks out of the box, and I liked his brave statements about Reagan this past week. We need a President who thinks BIG, reaches across all aisles for support in Congress....Demo's and Rep's can ONLY fix what needs to be fixed by coming together, which would never be the Clinton way of doing things....She prefers to hit the people over the head with a hammer until they are knocked out or give up from the pain...The country needs to wake up and give Obama the chance of a lifetime...He seems like the only one with a fresh vision of our country and what America can become with the proper respect and dedication.

John Dewey (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 12:01 AM)

Obama was awsome tonight! I WAS INDEPENDANT UNTIL TONIGHT. HE GOT MY VOTE! HILLARY WAS NASTY.
WILL NEVER VOTE FOR HER IF SHE WIN NOMINATION. I AM WHITE. THANKS

KAOU,NY (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 12:02 AM)

Health Care. These candidates are looking at it upside down. At least Clinton and Edwards are realistic in mandating coverage for everyone. Obama's contention that some people can not afford as his rationale for "not" requiring it for all, does not hold water. Those that can not afford health care would not be denied and obviously would only pay a minimum amount if any. The upside-down view, though, is that why would any self respecting billionaire or multi-millionaire want to invest in health insurance when they will go above and beyond what is health care the rest of us could afford, if necessary and without regards to cost. In other words they would opt out and have no incentive to buy in. Be realistic Obama, mandate required.

Odd, but it seems if both Clinton and Obama have latched onto the inititives of Edwards. It seems as both Clinton and Obama have come to support Edwards, or at least his positions and ideas. If they are not going to give him credit, at least they could send him a thank you card. His positions are better reasoned and thought out than any other candidate - period.

K Barnes (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 12:02 AM)

Obama definitely won. I don't think Clinton or Edwards did bad, but Obama was significantly more fired up than he was in previous debates, and it was needed. I think the fire was planned by the campaign, and they all brought it back down a notch in the second half. Thank god, because my heart was beating like crazy the first half. It was great watching them get fired up.

Kate, PA (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 12:03 AM)

The role that Bill Clinton has played in this campaign so far is really not befitting an ex president. I worked on the Clinton campaign in 92 and 96 but will not be voting for Hillary either in the Primary or in the General if she gets the nom. It is obvious that Bill Clinton sees in this election an oppurtunity to rescue his legacy. If Hillary were to become President you can just about write Monicagate out of the history books. His urgency in campaigning is not to benefit a wife he has cheated on numerous times but to rescue his place in history.

Craig Roberts Pasadena, CA (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 12:03 AM)

Barack may be a thinker (might explain the
Reagan comment this week), but Hillary is the
debater. She won on health care, Edwards too,
and overall, she looks strong and solid. This
is going to be won by strong and steady. Obama
will be ready in 8 years perhaps, but he isn't
now. And, he's not progressive enough. The idea
he has of playing to the middle was good in '92,
but it's not enough now. He seems to think he
has more interesting ideas and a more novel
take on things than he really does. Naive.

Sam, Madison, Wisconsin (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 12:03 AM)

It's already too late for Hillary. There is no way Obama or Edwards supporters are going to vote for Hillary in a general election. That is the truth. That is just a fact.

Also to Hillary supporters that think playing the Race Card the way the Clinton's have been doing is going to work in marginalizing Obama. You are wrong. Its going to back fire. It already has. African Americans will not forget what the Clinton's are doing to Obama and thus the Democratic Party as a whole will suffer. The Clinton's are guaranteeing that a whole generation of Young African Americans become Independents or Republicans. Its sad to see a guy who is the future of the Democratic Party get trashed by the Clinton's. Its also sad to see Democrat's that think that Political Karma doesn't exist. Well It does.

MDDemocrat (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 1:48 AM)

The Clintons are the main reason why I will be a registered independent (instead of a democrat as I once thought) once I get my US citizenship in 2 years. Good job you mighty couple! It is so unfortunate to see an ex president stoop to such a low level during a campaign! The reason is simple, the Clintons think that getting into the White House is their right, while for the other candidates it is a privilege. They will stomp on anyone who dares to stand in their way! I hope their dirty trategy backfires if Mrs. Clinton becomes the democratic nominee. I cannot stand Mitt Romney, but if he is up against Mrs. Clinton in the general election, I would rather vote for Romney just to oppose her. BTW, the tears you saw in NH? You won't see them again as she is on her way to becoming the party nominee. That was a sign of panic, as the pre-primary polling in NH showed her headed for a second defeat. It's always all about her!

F. CH, Lebanon, NH (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 1:48 AM)

Next >>

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):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

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=596683