First thoughts: Carolina cage match

Posted: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 9:17 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: First Thoughts

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** The Carolina cage match: Watching last night’s Democratic debate was much like the first time you witnessed a fight at lunchtime in high school: It was exhilirating, memorable, and a bit horrifying at the same time. While it wasn’t akin the rumble scene in the rain in “The Outsiders,” it 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. He began on the offense, but once Edwards got into the act, Obama was put on defensive, which we’re guessing wasn't the game plan. Of course, when you're the candidate under fire, it usually means you're ahead. And at least in South Carolina, that’s where Obama is.

Video: NBC Political Director Chuck Todd offers his first read on Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's squabbling during Monday night's Democratic debate in South Carolina.

*** Debate 101: As we and others keep on saying, Obama has improved a lot as debater since April. Nevertheless, he consistently got caught in a debate trap by responding to every charge with an explanation. It's a stand-up thing to do, but it ends up putting him 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, by contrast, rarely answers a charge directly and instead deflects by counter-punching, which shows her discipline. Of course, that difference epitomizes their candidacies: Clinton is the disciplined political street fighter, quick to score points against the opposition; Obama, meanwhile, tries to be transparent and accountable -- even as those goals, as last night’s debate sometimes showed, aren’t always easy to achieve.

*** A more polite second half: 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. And in this second half, Obama was particularly strong: His answers on religion and his national security rebuttal to Clinton were very good. That strong second-half performance will blunt any potential negative backlash he received in the first part. But, overall, 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 -- which could very well be their chief weakness. In fact, this will be the GOP narrative if Clinton wins the nomination.

*** When candidates attack: As for Clinton, she never looks good on the attack -- and she didn't last night. But because she was getting in the mud with Obama, the two neutralized each other at best. Of course, one of her goals last night 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. Another goal, as others have pointed out, might have been to bloody Obama in front of February 5th voters who were tuning in. While Obama reminded the audience that the Clintons will bend the truth to further their goals, Clinton tried to hammer home the message that Obama stands on the sidelines (those “present” votes) and isn’t as consistent as he claims he is (on Iraq and health care.) That was all new information for February 5th viewers. And will she keep it up when Clinton holds a press conference -- taking place as we publish -- in DC?

*** Edwards as Rodney King: Edwards had the easiest last night: He got to look like the above-it-all guy. That's at leaset 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 front-runner.

*** The Bill Clinton factor: He's now Obama's chief challenger in South Carolina for most of this week, since candidate Clinton is doing a February 5 tour of CA., AZ, and NJ over the next two days. Short term, Bill Clinton's been an asset, but how long can candidate Clinton have her husband out there "yelling at the neighbors" for her. Does the dynastic stuff become a problem for candidate Clinton at some point the higher profile her husband takes? We've heard from quite a few GOP strategists who aren't unhappy with Bill's high profile. He's becoming less statesman-like and may just be as helpful in rallying the Republican base as some believe she will be. Still, for the primary, the use of Bill appears to be effective. Obama looked like every Republican critic of Bill Clinton over his eight years, flummoxed that he was losing to this guy.

*** GOP musings: And while last night’s debate has placed most of the presidential focus on the Democratic side, there are some GOP developments to keep an eye on: The GOP intelligentsia is starting to come around to the idea that McCain could be their guy; Huckabee is no longer providing transportation for his traveling press and seems to be turning his attention AWAY from Florida; and Thompson is down tending to his ill mother -- he has no public schedule today.

*** On the trail: Edwards and Obama are in South Carolina. Hillary Clinton, however, is not. Her husband makes three stops on her behalf instead in Aiken, Anderson and Greenville; Edwards hosts a town hall in Conway and then appears on The Late Show with David Letterman. Obama holds four events, including two rallies, in Greenville, Greenwood, Lexington and Orangeburg. The Republicans are in Florida for the most part: Giuliani stops in at a deli in Palm Beach Gardens; Huckabee partakes in a pro-life march in Atlanta (Georgia’s a Feb. 5 state) and then raises money in Gainesville; McCain holds two rallies in Pensacola and Fort Walton Beach, then raises money in New York City; Paul is in DC; Romney stops in Boca Raton (where he meets with the Republican Jewish Coalition), then heads to Coral Springs and Naples.

Countdown to SC Dem primary: 4 days
Countdown to Florida: 7 days
Countdown to Tsunami Tuesday: 14 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 287 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 364 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

From Huff Post:

Leading Democrats To Bill Clinton: Pipe Down

Eric Risberg / AP

Footing the Bill: Is the former president hurting his
wife's campaign?
By Jonathan Alter | NEWSWEEK
Jan 28, 2008 Issue

Prominent Democrats are upset with the aggressive role that Bill Clinton is playing in the 2008 campaign, a role they believe is inappropriate for a former president and the titular head of the Democratic Party. In recent weeks, Sen. Edward Kennedy and Rep. Rahm Emanuel, both currently neutral in the Democratic contest, have told their old friend heatedly on the phone that he needs to change his tone and stop attacking Sen. Barack Obama, according to two sources familiar with the conversations who asked for anonymity because of their sensitive nature. Clinton,

Kennedy and Emanuel all declined to comment.

On balance, aides to both Bill and Hillary still see
Bill as a huge net plus in fund-raising, attracting
large crowds and providing a megaphone to raise doubts about Obama—even if some of those doubts are
distortions....'

i.e. even if they LIE about Obama
You reap what you sow

'...But there's concern that in hatcheting
the Illinois senator and losing his temper with the
news media (last week he thrashed a San Francisco TV
reporter for asking about a lawsuit filed by
Clinton-backing teachers union members to limit the
number of Nevada caucuses), Clinton is drawing down
his political capital and harming his role as a global statesman. "This is excruciating," says a member of the Clintons' circle, who asked for anonymity. "But the stakes couldn't be higher. It's worth it to tarnish himself a bit now to win the presidency."

During a December taping with PBS's Charlie Rose, a
frustrated Clinton called Obama "a roll of the dice,"
as aides tried to end the interview. Then, in New
Hampshire, he argued angrily that the story of Obama's principled position on the Iraq War was a "fairy tale," a charge few reporters bought. Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, the top-ranking
African-American in Congress and officially neutral,
found Clinton's tone insulting and said so publicly.

When the former president called Kennedy, the
Massachusetts Democrat gave Clinton an earful, telling him that he bore some blame for the injection of race into the contest. In any event, both Hillary and Obama made peace on the race issue at the Las Vegas debate.

The Clinton camp now fears that Kennedy is leaning
toward Obama, according to the Clinton source, though
Kennedy's office says he is making no endorsement "at
this time."

Clinton aides admit the boss sometimes goes off
script. Obama officials say this itself should be a
campaign issue. Greg Craig, who coordinated Clinton's
impeachment defense in 1998 and is now a senior Obama
adviser, argues that "recent events raise the
question: if Hillary's campaign can't control Bill,
whether Hillary's White House could."

There is little precedent for a former president's
engaging in intra-party attacks. In 1960, Harry Truman criticized the idea of a Roman Catholic president and tried briefly to stop John F. Kennedy's nomination. "I urge you to be patient," he told JFK publicly.

But in 2000, former president George Bush declined to attack his son's GOP primary opponent, John McCain....'

NOT EVEN GEORGE BUSH SMEARED HIS SON'S OPPONENT!
BILL CLINTON IS SMEARING OBAMA

'...Clinton is undeterred by the criticism and will likely keep hammering Obama if he thinks it helps Hillary.
"History will judge the impact on the Clinton legacy,
not daily or weekly political reporters," says Matt
McKenna, Bill Clinton's press secretary....'

Bill Clinton's Legacy: A SLEAZEBAG
Go back to the bimbos, Bill
That's your area of expertise

Hillary Clinton, cold, calculating, dishonest, unethical, divisive

Sierra, SF (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:24 AM)

Ali v. Frazier. Ouch! Let's get it on.

Did anyone hears Buchanan comments this morning on MSNBC? Obama has become "ghettoized" and is gaining only the black vote and loosing white and hispanic vote. Gee! And they say race is not an issue. LOL
Syreeta McNeal, Columbia, MO (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:05 AM)

Actually with some saying blacks should only support Obama I can see his point. I think this is the beginning of the end for Obama.

Kaye (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:24 AM)

Great analogy, First Read, it did feel exactly like watching a fight in a high school lunch room. It made me profoundedly uncomfortable, but I couldn't help but watch. Obama is like the handsome, gentle, introvert roughed up by the jocks. You want to tell him, "stop trying to reason with them! They can't be reasoned with!" The introvert loses the fight, but in the end, he ends up the leading scientist at NASA while the jocks go on to sell used cars. Clinton won her battle, but lost the war, in my book.

Amy B Portland, ME (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:24 AM)

Obama looked nervous, fidgety, anxious, and disengenuous.
He still refuses to say what he's going to change and how. Hillary effectively pointed that out several times.
She also exposed him to be a liar about not supporting the war in Iraq (because after he got into the U.S. Senate, he did), and about praising Ronald Reagan and Republican lawmakers above and beyond people from within his own party.
It was interesting to note that Hillary was received so well by an audience that was mixed in it's racial and gender composition. One would have thought that Obama should have had a clear advantage along those lines.
But, that wasn't the case.
In the end, Obama's face told the story. The look of frustration when his mean spirited attacks on Hillary were handed right back to him, the fidgeting, and nervously moving off to the left at the end of the debate intead of engaging the debate moderator and his two competitors at center stage.
Hillary showed herself to be a leader last night. Obama should himself to be a cheer-leader. He needs to be more specific about what he intends to change. There are too many details of his "plans" that aren't clear, or are completely missing from the mix.
In the end, The American People want real change that is born of experience, and reason.
Not just change in the way politicians talk.

Hillary For President 2008!

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:25 AM)

I want change. I want a women president with experience. who will take charge and get things done for our Country. Hillary your great!!

Joann Krohn Ft Lauderdale Florida (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:25 AM)

Hillary has never done well in the debates with focus groups; it's our own built in bias: men don't like "b.....y" women, women don't like powerful women. Immediate response to debates are about haircuts and humor, even among the pundit crowd. The real issue is not even one of policy. Unforseen events generally confront a president early on, whether it be 9-11 or the Cuban Missles. The question is at this moment do we need a fighter or a poet? If you think a poet is required not just to heal, but to reverse the extremes of the Bush years (and the GOP congress since '94), then Obama's your guy. But if you believe that the GOP is not going to go quietly into the sunset, then we need a fighter, and that's Clinton.

Wm., Schererville, IN (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:27 AM)

I was dismayed to learn about the many PRESENT votes Obama cast because a bill had something in it he didn't agree with. His indecisiveness, perhaps due to lack of experience and/or desire not to take a position in case it would hurt him politically, was clearly revealed. I don't want a President who can't make up his mind and who lacks the necessary experience to serve as leader of our nation, doesn't have national security experience, and is vague about when our troops would come home. I also felt he wasn't specific on his stand on many issues - didn't have a plan that he was willing to layout the specifics on.

Westie, Oregon (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:28 AM)

Wow! I couldn't be more impressed with Obama. He reassured the democrats, Independent and Republican that he can fight the most popular political machine in the history of American politics.

I like the way he took both Bill and Hillary Clinton on. His invocation of Bill Clinton will remind viewers about the need to get rid of dynasty.

Bee (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:29 AM)

Yep keep broadcasting this, the republicians are licking their lips LMAO

Dumocrats 4 America (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:29 AM)

When will the truth be seen...Obama has got very little "political history" and his "present" vote (no vote) proves he is not in office to help the people he represents, but to be elected to the next higher paying job. What political history he does have is very questionable. What about his Chicago mansion and connections to Rezko. Obama still thinks people are essentially stupid and lazy and will not do the research necessary to find out what he really stands for. He will surely divide the country as never if elected. Why can't he wait his turn and prove himself worthy in the meantime?

Sylvia, Alamogordo, NM (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:30 AM)

Obama was awesome. That was his best night.

RobK, Seattle, Wash. (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:32 AM)

Sierra....your posts are long winded, trite, boorish, and BORING.
In addition to the fact that you are a mean spirited Attack-Twerp for Obama.

Hordy Culture, Agawam, Mass. (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:34 AM)

Scott - I couldn't agree more. This primary election must not be about gender, race or age. If we divide into these groups we will be defeated. Even if you thought she's make a great president (which I don't), Hillary supporters need to get real about her chances of winning the general. They are very slim, if not impossible. When 50% of the country dislikes someone, telling them they are wrong is not a winning arguement. I implore women in particular to think about this.

Most peoples objections to Hillary have nothing to do with her being a woman. She had too much bad blood and history. This may be the last president election chance we have to turn this country around, before it becomes too late. We can't afford to wait 4 more years for a Democrat in the White House.

Kelly (from Pittsburgh) (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:34 AM)

Obama can ramble on for the longest time without saying anything. He can sting sentences together and sound very cool without ever answering a question.

Blue state baby (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:36 AM)

Poor Barry, those mean Clintons won't step aside and let him be President. That stupid Hillary gets to show how much more stuff she knows than him in another dumb debate and they won't even let Kucinich play too. This just isn't fair and reality should be ashamed of itself.
Hillary Clinton is ruining the dream. She's a mean old liar who thinks that just because she would be the first woman to be president in history that means SHE represents change.

Besides, we've won ALL the primaries so far and anyone who says we didn't doesn't know what really counts, and is a racist or a ninny. Not conceding or congratulating your opponent is what Barack means when he talks about a different kind of campaign, and that's what we're running.
The Clintons are racists. They're WHITE for goodness sakes, and only white people CAN be racists, as we all know. Some old guys from the "Uncle Tom Moses" generation are still fooled by them but like Michelle (Isn't she just wonderful, graceful,gracious and more beautiful than Jackie Kennedy) says, "I think that black people will, you know, wake-up..." Michelle is so cool and can't be a racist no matter what she says.

It's not fair that Bill Clinton gets to say stuff about Barry. He was a president, now he should shut up. You don't see Edwards' or Barry's spouses on the campaign trail or saying stuff about the Clintons. It's a double-standard! If America let's the dream die it will be because everyone is a racist or a liar or something really bad. Why can't everyone just step aside like they did in Illinois and let Barry be president? What's wrong with you people? Can't you see that he's the only one? It isn't hero worship to worship him like he's a hero, and it isn't blind faith to follow him blindly. It isn't that we believe that he can do no wrong, he really can't! You better wake up America and smell what Barry's cooking...(HIS OWN GOOSE?)

ObamaRama (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:38 AM)

{Why are the pundits so out of touch with the electorate? }

The so called "pundits" are looking for a good story. The Clintons are if nothing else, a great source of entertainment. Those two are as whacky as any sit-com the networks come up with, and they are good for ratings. But good for the country? Not a chance.

Robert Downs (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:38 AM)

Of course everyone is simply going to say that the candidate that they are supporting won the debate. Let's not be so juvenile about this. The bottom line is that all candidates are so similar on the issues. The real question needs to be which Democrat actually has a better shot at winning the general election? I don't think that as a nation we can afford to have 4 more years of a Republican president.

Anyone who believes that Hillary actually has a better chance at winning a general election is simply denying the obvious. She is hated by nearly 60% of the country. I am sure she can consolidate the Democratic vote if nominated, but there is no way that she will get any Republicans to vote for her, and there is no way that the majority of independents will vote for her. At a time when the Republicans are lacking unity, nothing will unify them more than a Hillary nomination. If nominated, we will have a Republican president for at least 4 more years.

Democrats, please stop voting for Hillary.

HILLARY NOMINATION = REPUBLICAN WIN

Richard, Las Vegas, Nevada (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:41 AM)

I want to echo another poster who mentioned that the Clintons are trying to dismiss, if you will, Obama as the "Black" candidate. Pat Buchanan just said on MSNBC that Obama has been - get this - "ghettoized!" Do they have such short memories that they have forgotten the Iowa Caucus? Obama won with the biggest margin of any contest thus far - 39% vs. Hillary's 29% - in an almost 100% white state!! OBAMA LEADS IN THE TOTAL DELEGATE COUNT!! Most voters in NH and Nevada are not African-American, yet Obama did very well in those states too. This is ridiculous for the Clintons and commentators like Buchanan to try and minimalize Obama's appeal. I am a white woman and I support Obama. Race or gender should have no impact in our preferences. I support Obama - proudly - because I think he is the only candidate who will be able to break this decades-old partisan gridlock. He is an inspirational leader who will unite Democrats, Independents, and even some in the GOP to effect real CHANGE in this country.

Sarah, Vienna, VA (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:42 AM)

Do we REALLY want a crooked unethical woman in the White House ?

If that's what the Democrats want......
We WON'T GET IT !

HILLARY WILL LOSE !

I'd rather vote for an HONEST John McCain than a CROOKED Bill and Hillary

Judging from Hillary's negatives, I'd say American would too

The Republicans are SALIVATING over an Clinton nomination

How hard will it be to drive up Hillary's negatives ?
From 47% ot 51 % ?
Election OVER

Better Bloomberg than Clinton
Better McCain than Clinton

Obama '08
All will NOT BE FORGIVEN in November
The Clintons have burned too many bridges

Sierra, SF (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:43 AM)

Dear Americans,
Congratulations on electing Barack Obama the President of the United States.God bless America

Eric from New York (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:44 AM)

This whole race card is disgusting. The media made a
circus of this. Instead of Clinton/Obama discussing
what they would offer to the presidency, they looked
terrible last night. I found it very difficult to
watch and thought I don't want any part of these two.
It was most embarrassing and hope not to see it happen again. Will be giving the Republicans a second
look!

Fay Logan (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:45 AM)

So McCain wants to keep our troops in Iraq for another 40-50 years? If McCain thinks that will fly with voters, he is in for a rude awakening in November.

Ron Jeffers, Arizona Independent (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:45 AM)

Betty from SC,
Thanks for the article; it was indeed a good one. And, it's probably right. It does indeed look as if women, the elderly (who are supposed to have the best judgement, right?????) and hispanics are going to give this nomination to Hillary. I guess you can all congratulate each other on February 6. For what, I'm not sure. And then we can all watch our county slip further into the nasty divide we've all had to endure for the past 20 years.

Seeing the Forest For the Trees (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:47 AM)

After the debate last night, CNN had a panel discussion. The word from the two black panelists was that race would trump gender and the black vote would go to Obama. Would all of the Af-Americans going for Obama feel the same way if he looked white instead of black? After all he is half white too!!!!

Diane T, Salt Lake City, UT (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:49 AM)

I don't understand how Obama supported actually think that he will be able to make all the changes he promises. Bringing everyone one together. Has everyone forgoten this is same theme George Bush used when he ran in 2000. " I'm a uniter not a divider" He promised to work across the aisle and work with Democrats. Obama thinks he can bring over some Republicans but honestly does anyone think Republicans will work with him. The only way Barrack can do all he promises is if the Democratic party gets more seats on the House and Senate otherwise we will be in the same situation. Republicans will never make it easy on a Democratic President. Barrack is likeable and eloquent but 7 years ago people voted for a likeable president and look at where we are now. People need to vote the issues not who is likeable.

Marie Salomon, Carrollton, Texas (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:49 AM)

I am a woman over 50. One who has spent a lifetime working on equality for woman and to have a woman president has been a longtime dream -- but not this woman. I was appalled last night by her arrogance, lies and distortions. I lived for many years in Illinois and this whole present thing is a sham. Study the legislature Hillary, you have it wrong. I am so heartbroken by this debate. Hillary and Bill seem to think it is not only alright to lie but also to destroy very talented, honest and decent people. This is not the America that I a white suburban woman over 50 want to be a part of. If Obama or Edwards doesn't get the nomination, I will not vote for her in the fall and I am also a life long democrat. Shame on Bill and Hillary, shame on us if we help them.

Susan Hynes. Mamaroneck, NY (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:49 AM)

Obama was on point last night! I felt as though a person that had been bullied for so long actually stood up for himself. I find myself wanting to debate Hillary myself. I wish I could ask her a few questions! I will never vote for Hillary and Billary ever again! Dirty, dirty politics that their motto! They will do anything to get the power of living in the white house!

Lisa , Minnesota (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:49 AM)

Are we looking for saints in this group of people? Gentlemen/Ladies this is a selfish/mean set of people. Yes, words are spoken that you & I want to hear; Yes, we are told, "the other people is at fault and I and always clean, good and work for you."; It is explained to us, in clear language, what the other guys program/idea's are.

So our job is now to figure out who will at least not work against our interests, forget for our interests. Take you pick, all the B*&ta&d* are essencially the same and there is not any significant differences.

Gir from Michigan (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:50 AM)

jade: you are so right! I do remember analysts asking over and over when and if Barack Obama would ever go after Hillary Clinton.

Pat, Boston, MA (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:50 AM)

Way to go Obama: first you bring race into the campaign and now religion... can you do more to divide the Democratic Party? Is this your idea of changing Washington by dividing the democrats?

The national security and foreign policy question sealed the debate. Obama offers up the same kind of ethereal emptiness of his campaign slogans about change and unity. It is the same kind of simple mindedness Bush offered when he ran in 2000. As we have learned during the last eight years the world (and Washington) is far more complicated than just a simpleminded "can't we all just get along" approach. Obama has his foreign policy slogan based on "talking with your friends and your enemies" to match his equally hollow domestic slogan of "change you can believe in". We all know what happened with "peace in our time". Foreign nations (and Republicans) are going to eat him alive.
Similarly, he keeps relying on his position against the war in Iraq as his one claim to fame. In reality, first he was against the war before he was for the war and then he was willing to pay for the war. Republicans labeled Kerry a flip flopper and for sure they will label Obama a waffler. He never gives a straight answer on anything and has an excuse for everything (ie missing over a hundred votes in Illinois legislature and the Iran Resolution in the Senate)

As for the Hillary haters I haven't seen any substantive reasoning. All you do is regurgitate Republican talking points. When Obama attacks you claim he's defending himself and when Hillary defends herself you say she is attacking him. What you really hate her for is she has been standing up and fighting for Democratic principles all her life and you are afraid of her. Hillary is head and shoulders above the other candidates. Zb

ZB Nevada (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:50 AM)

Everybody's blaming Bill for campaigning too hard on his wife's behalf, and how it makes it seem like he's running and not her.
Funny, but I seem to recall the very same arguments against Elizabeth Edwards at one point, which seems to be forgotten here.
How about it's just as Hillary says: an enthusiastic spouse saying what the candidate can't or shouldn't and give everyone equal credit or criticism or none at all.
I didn't like a lot of what went on last night, but you have to admit that Barack was the one who started the fray. Hillary simply showed she can kick like the big boys.
If she didn't, you'd all scream she's too weak to be commander in chief.

can't have it both ways (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:50 AM)

Obama won the debate? Did anyone hear him say anything substantive about any of the issues? The guy is a great orator, but does not speak of the details of the issues.
Hilary and Edwards discussed the economy, for example, in detail, while all I heard Obama say was 'we need to do this, we need to that'.
You call THAT winning a debate?

YawB, Atlanta, GA (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:51 AM)

To those of you who thank that Obama won the debate last night, I have one question. Were you watching CNN? He was sweating and stammering and never completely answered a question. Hillary did well but John Edwards was excellent (he had trouble with his first question though). I am also fed up with the race/gender bias. Undecided voters said that they thought John Edwards won the debate but they think Obama is more likeable. This isn't a Mr./Mrs Congeniality contest!!! Pay attention to the details and look at each candidate's plans for the future. John Edwards in 08! Come on South Carolina do the right thing for this country and vote for Edwards!

Indygirl, Piketon, Ohio (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:53 AM)

First of all, its the MEDIA that keeps bringing up race, therefore marginilazing Obama as a black candidate, not the Clintons. Second, has everyone including him forgotten that he his half white? What if his features were predominantly white rather than black,-would the nation still be having this discussion? Would black america still embrace him as "black"? Third, the media bias towards Obama is sickening. Rather than personify all of the candidates objectively, the media continually and subjectively projects their incessant gushing. Bash, bash, bash Hillary. Limbaugh said, "do we really want to watch a woman age before our own eyes on a daily basis"? Way to go America, we've progressed on issues of race, but sexism prevails stronger and more enthusiastically than ever!!

Chris, Arlington, MA (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:55 AM)

Bill convinced his wife to move to a heavily Democratic district where he was popular so she could run for senate. He convinced her to run for President. As he has done his entire life, he has manipulated a woman for his own gain. This entire election is about Bill Clinton wanting to be President again, and his finding a way to manipulate his way into the office. Do you really want to vote for that? I do not want to re-live the '90's. This will be a revival of the '70's, w/ both houses of Congress and the Presidency controlled by the same party. Look what happened since 2000 w/ both houses of Congress controlled by the same party. The best times we've had in recent history are the '80's and '90's, when we had divided gov't.

Worray Dose (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:55 AM)

HERE IS ANOTHER INTERESTING ARTICLE TODAY BY PAT BUCHANAN - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/ghettoizing_barack.html

OBAMA HAS BEEN GHETORIZED - Obama is Toast.
Just a few of you black, gen X and Y supporters still ranting and raving about how wonderful Obama is.
He has lost his momentum just like Jessie did back in 1988. Jessie Jackson won 11 primaries in 1988 but he never made it to the presidency. Jessie and his mistress and his out of wed-lock child, imagine that?
Whites in South Carolina do not agree with the Black community in general especially about Barack Obama or Jessie.

Betty, S.C. (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:55 AM)

I was always a big supporter of Bill Clinton, based on what my quality of life was during his administration and due to his balancing of the budget. But the person I see now is not what I like. He is showing another side of him now that he is not the candidate. He lost much of my admiration recently. And I am now an Obama supporter. I owe some of that to Bill himself.

dem4life (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:56 AM)

The news people talk terrible about the Clintons - Not one other canidate gets raked over the coals like the Clintons. Too bad everyone is jealous of them.
I am a republican and I will vote for Hillary Clinton.
Thank you the people for showing me the right way.

Faye, Fargo, ND (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:56 AM)

Can we PLEASE stop the nepotism!! No more of this back and forth between the Clinton's and Bush's. If Hillary gets the nomination then does that mean that we'll get Jed Bush next time? Please God it's time for a change. Also how does Hillary claim that she has 35 years of experience... she's only been in an elected office for 7 years. Obama matches that if you include this work at Illinois State senate.

We do NOT want Hillary to get the nomination. Yes both her and Obama will be a huge upgrade over our current president but Hillary will NOT win the general election if she's nominated. There are just way too many democrats, independants and ALL republicans HATE Hillary... we'll be stuck with McCain/Romney instead.

Please see through all the mind games and political tactics that Bill Clinton and Hillary are throwing at Obama. Go to an Obama rally and listen, you'll know he's the right choice for the nomination.

Sarah T, San Jose, Cal. (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:57 AM)

I agree with Pat Buchanan(gawd forbid!). If Obama becomes "the black candidate", he will lose the nomination. He was supposed to be the universal candidate.
PS...GW has dug us a hole that we will be climbing out of for 20 yrs. Not matter who is elected, the people will be unhappy with the speed of recovery and probably throw that person out in four years. My mother used to say, "Be careful what you wish for;it may not be worth having"

gailmd, maine (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:57 AM)

let's get one thing straight, folks...either Democrat will win the national election, hands down! Particularly if McCain is the nominee. UNLESS we split our party with all this nastiness. McCain will be hammered on the war...wanting to keep troops there for years upon end, as if we can continue spending billions every month for the debacle and letting more and more of our troops die for nothing! a great majority of the country want our troops home. Clinton will also destroy him on the economy, what everybody agrees is his weakness. His strength is foreign policy, but Hillary can definitely compete with him there (though O'bama can't). But it's the economy, stupid! so, knock off the Hillary bashing saying she cant win nationally...we know she can, otherwise the republicans wouldn't put it out there that they "want" her to be the candidate. If anything, injecting race (which it definitely was the O'bama camp doing...over and over) has made is scary to contemplate his results nationally. I no longer think he could win as he now has turned himself into the "black candidate". I would vote for either democrat, but the only one who truly has the experience, and know-how is Hillary. (I like Edwards, but he's gone too far to the left to win nationally). Let's just stick together, dems or we'll end up with another Republican in the whitehouse!

susan, MN (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:57 AM)

I THINK OBAMA DID A GREAT JOB LAST NIGHT. HE FINALLY TOOK A STAND FOR HIMSELF AND THIS COUNTRY. I HOPE AND PRAY HE WINS FOR THIS COUNTRY AND ALSO FOR THE AFICAN AMERICANS.

GEORGETTE,EASLEY,S.C. (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:59 AM)

Might it occur to anyone that Bill's instigative, mud slinging, politics-as-usual tactics can be characterized as his continuous attempt to prove that he is Hilary's reformed, monogamous knight in shining armor. I contend that Bill atoning for his past transgressions to his wife by playing the bad ass on her behalf has no place in American politics.

If Hilary wants to show that she has what it takes to be America's next Commander in Chief then she needs to take command of her husband first!! Otherwise, she is simply perpetuating the stereotypes about women. She'll prove to be a disgrace and disservice to deserving women in this country. America's ready for a woman president but this woman ain't ready to be president.

Morgan, Cleveland OH (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 11:00 AM)

Finally Sen.Obama is fighting the clinton clown clan. about time. But I wish he would ask her to list what the 35 yrs. accomplishmetns are . Does anyone one see the mess that would happen if by some chance we would have to endure another clinton administration? We would have to watch on a daily bases billy, hilly, and pelosi jocking around for the spotlight. For the most camera time. we would have to endure a corination every week.Three spoiled, unethical, power hungry clowns bickering constantly to have their way. Please put a lock on our oval office door. The questions I need answered from each canidate is: if elected would our boarders, ports and airways be secure, would our military be stronger( it was cut to the core in the 90's, doesn't anyone remember ??), would the illegal immigration be stopped. I want to hear their answers. Please, someone ask a real question for a change. And how long will our black communtiy except the patronizing and condescending additudes from the clintons? It's embarrassing to watch. They treat them like we are back in the 50's someone wake them up. Our black Americans are educated, intelligent. have their place in all walks of life. I realize there's alot more to do. but how can they if they continue to believe these two want the best for them? I believe America's blacks are far above that kind of treatment. and hilly-billy grand standing at Dr. Kings celebration is discusting, they have no shame.

Del LaBelle Boise Id. (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 11:00 AM)

Edwards staying above it all. How'd that work out for Richardson. It's becoming obvious that you cannot win by being nice. Look at how the pudits critisized Obama for not going on the attack in the first 100 or so debates. In the end, this debate was on Hillary's terms. Nasty, mudslinging. It's dissapointing but inevitable. Sooner or later, the worst in politics bring the rest down to their level. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

Al, KS (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 11:02 AM)

Bill Clinton is pushing so hard for Hillary to be President so that it will keep her occupied. Once shes occupied then Bill Clinton has a chance to see more women again. Bill Clinton doesn't honestly feel that his wife can be the leader of the free world... cmon!

Michelle Griffin, Montana (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 11:04 AM)

Hillary, Barack, Experience
E-MailPrint Save Share
Del.icio.usDiggFacebookNewsvinePermalink

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: January 20, 2008
With all the sniping from the Clinton camp about whether Barack Obama has enough experience to make a strong president, consider another presidential candidate who was far more of a novice. He had the gall to run for president even though he had served a single undistinguished term in the House of Representatives, before being hounded back to his district.

Skip to next paragraph

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Nicholas D. Kristof.

On the Ground
Share Your Comments About This Column
Nicholas Kristof addresses reader feedback and posts short takes from his travels.

Go to Columnist Page » That was Abraham Lincoln.

Another successful president scorned any need for years of apprenticeship in Washington, declaring, “The same old experience is not relevant.” He suggested that the most useful training comes not from hanging around the White House and Congress but rather from experience “rooted in the real lives of real people” so that “it will bring real results if we have the courage to change.”

That was Bill Clinton running in 1992 against George H. W. Bush, who was then trumpeting his own experience over the callow youth of Mr. Clinton. That year Mr. Bush aired a television commercial urging voters to keep America “in the hands of experience.”

It might seem obvious that long service in Washington is the best preparation for the White House, but on the contrary, one lesson of American history is that length of experience in national politics is an extremely poor predictor of presidential success.

Looking at the 19 presidents since 1900, three of the greatest were among those with the fewest years in electoral politics. Teddy Roosevelt had been a governor for two years and vice president for six months; Woodrow Wilson, a governor for just two years; and Franklin Roosevelt, a governor for four years. None ever served in Congress.

They all did have executive experience (as did Mr. Clinton), actually running something larger than a Senate office. Maybe that’s something voters should think about more: governors have often made better presidents than senators. But that’s not a good Democratic talking point, because the candidates with the greatest administrative experience by far are Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee.

Alternatively, look at the five presidents since 1900 with perhaps the most political experience when taking office: William McKinley, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush. They had great technical skills — but not one was among our very greatest presidents.

The point is not that experience is pointless but that it needn’t be in politics to be useful. John McCain’s years as a P.O.W. gave him an understanding of torture and a moral authority to discuss it that no amount of Senate hearings ever could have conferred.

In the same way, Mr. Obama’s years as an antipoverty organizer give him insights into one of our greatest challenges: how to end cycles of poverty. That front-line experience is one reason Mr. Obama not only favors government spending programs, like early-childhood education, but also cultural initiatives like promoting responsible fatherhood.

Then there’s Mr. Obama’s grade-school years in Indonesia. Our most serious mistakes in foreign policy, from Vietnam to Iraq, have been a blindness to other people’s nationalism and an inability to see ourselves as others see us. Mr. Obama seems to have absorbed an intuitive sensitivity to that problem. For starters, he understood back in 2002 that American troops would not be greeted in Iraq with flowers.

In politics, Mr. Obama’s preparation is indeed thin, though it’s more than Hillary Rodham Clinton acknowledges. His seven years in the Illinois State Senate aren’t heavily scrutinized, but he scored significant achievements there: a law to videotape police interrogations in capital cases; an earned income tax credit to fight poverty; an expansion of early-childhood education.

Mrs. Clinton’s strength is her mastery of the details of domestic and foreign policy, unrivaled among the candidates; she speaks fluently about what to do in Pakistan, Iraq, Darfur. Mr. Obama’s strength is his vision and charisma and the possibility that his election would heal divisions at home and around the world. John Edwards’s strength is his common touch and his leadership among the candidates in establishing detailed positions on health care, poverty and foreign aid.

Those are the meaningful distinctions in the Democratic field, not Mrs. Clinton’s spurious claim to “35 years of experience.” The Democrats with the greatest Washington expertise — Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson — have already been driven from the race. And the presidential candidate left standing with the greatest experience by far is Mr. McCain; if Mrs. Clinton believes that’s the criterion for selecting the next president, she might consider backing him.

To put it another way, think which politician is most experienced today in the classic sense, and thus — according to the “experience” camp — best qualified to become the next president.

That’s Dick Cheney. And I rest my case.

MG, St. Louis, Mo. (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 11:04 AM)

No doubt that John McCain was the big winner last night. While Billary blasted Obama like a jealous school girl, Obama spent the entire evening telling us the obvious(again not telling us how to fix it). Obama is a classic-All he's ever done is tell us what's wrong and that we need to fix it. He has yet to offer a single idea on how to do so effectively.

The back and forth between the two was embarrasing for our country. Can you imagine what the other world leaders were thinking as they watch Presidential candidates act like jealous, vindictive children? They were probably licking their chops.

John McCain is the only candidate that will not only command enough respect to get things done on both sides of the aisle in Washington(like he always has), but also will bring worldly respect back to this great country.

Come on y'all, this is serious stuff and we need a President who is Presidential...We haven't had one since Reagan.

VoteMcCain (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 11:06 AM)

Bill Clinton is acting non-professional and non-president like. He needs to "but out". Even though he is married to Hillary Clinton, he should not show all this bias. He is suppose to be supporting the democrats as a whole. I have no idea how Obama is concentrating. You can see the frustration in his face over and over again. And he is right, I am running against two Clintons. The Clintons are underhanded at best. What Bill Clinton did in NV was completely wrong, Hillary Clinton's voters where open a half hour before Obama and they made Obama close first. This is despicable. There should be a law passed when a former President is married to a presidenial candidate, he should not be permitted to support her publically and destroy others in the Dem. Race. They are so arrogant, Democrats are advising him to stop, but does he, no way. I can't wait until that Clinton Machine goes away permanently.

Cynthia Albright (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 11:07 AM)

BAD NIGHT FOR BARACK!!!
I THOUGHT OBAMA LOOKED LIKE HE WAS OUT OF HIS LEAGUE LAST NIGHT, AND DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO TAKE ON THE BIG BOYS,-- OR GIRLS.
HE SIT'S BACK AND WATCHES AS THE MEDIA SLAMS THE CLINTONS, AND HE NEVER GET'S QUESTIONED ABOUT SOME OF HIS INDESCRETIONS. HE HAS SAID, "I AM NOT A PERFECT MAN". I THINK LAST NIGHT HILLARY GOT TIRED OF EVERY WORD THAT SHE AND HER HUSBAND SAID BEING TURNED INTO SOMETHING IT'S NOT, AND DEFLECTING THE NEWS AWAY FROM SOME OF THE THINGS SHOWING THAT OBAMA IS NOT INDEED, A PERFECT MAN. SO SHE OPENED UP SOME OF THE THINGS THAT SO FAR HAVE JUST BEEN SHOVED UNDER THE RUG. GOOD FOR HER!!!
SOME PEOPLE SAY THEY DON'T LIKE FOR HER TO SHOW STRENTH, OTHERS DID NOT LIKE FOR HER TO SHOW A SOFTER SIDE. TO ME SHE SHOWS SHE CAN BE COMPASSIONATE AND SHE CAN STAND UP TO JUST ABOUT ANYBODY --BAR NONE--
THAT, IS WHY I THINK SHE IS BY FAR THE BEST LEADER FOR OUR COUNTRY, WHEN EVERYONE KNOWS, IF WE EVER NEEDED STRONG LEADERSHIP, IT IS NOW.

SHIRLEY METCALF (Sent Tuesday, January 22, 2008 11:07 AM)

<< Previous

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=597863