New Hampshire: Post-Debate Thread

[Update: Debate transcript here.]

The Democratic debate is over. Live thread one is here. This thread is for post-debate comments.

What did you think? Who won? Who scored points and who lost them?

Big Tent Democrat says: [More....]

One quick reaction - I LOVED that both Obama and Hillary stressed the difference between the Democrats and Republicans in their last answers.

My quick thoughts - Obama was very strong in the beginning. I thought he left Hillary an opening on health care and she took it after a slow start. I think Edwards' early doubleteam on Hillary was a fatal mistake.

Overall, Hillary tried to do what I thought she need to do - which was appeal to the Democratic base voter. I thought Edwards did NOT do what he needed to do - which was to project that he was trying to win the nomination. And Obama was solid. Good night for Obama and Hillary. The political conditions in New Hampshire will determine what it means.

< New Hampshire Democratic Debate: Live Blog | The Passionate Moment: A Test For The Media >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Obama won (none / 0) (#1)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:45:53 PM EST
    Of all the debates I've seen it was his best.  But he wasn't significantly better than in other debates.  He won because Edwards attacked for him and let him look presidential.  And because Hillary had a bad night.  

    Every other debate I've seen I thought she won.  Not tonight.

    And they're already showing the "meltdown" and the "hurt feelings" part.

    I disagree (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:48:31 PM EST
    I think that Edwards made a fool of himself by latching on to Obama.

    I think Hillary was excellent on Iraq, the Democratic brand, and grasping on to the (Bill) Clinton legacy.


    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:52:26 PM EST
    She was also good at listing specifics of her past accomplishments. She was human (when she said her feelings were hurt) and Edwards turned her into the underdog which will be good with voters.

    Well, all I can say is that I've (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:58:27 PM EST
    been very impressed with her in every other debate and deep down wondered why I didn't support her.  Not tonight.

    I have to say that my reaction tonight wasn't really very pro-Obama.  He never does much for me in debates.  I didn't think he was quite as wooden as in past debates and that's a plus for him.  But it's not much.  That's why I think he wins because the others lost.


    I just dont get (none / 0) (#19)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:02:06 PM EST
    your comments. Do you have anything to say about the substance of their respective answers?  I am not arguing with you - I think you are smart and I want to know.  Becuase I thought her answers were overall more in depth and concrete than any of them including Obama.  Though I am not dissing him.

    Of course her answers were substantive (none / 0) (#29)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:09:03 PM EST
    and in many cases more substantive than the others. But at this point, two days before the primary people are looking beyond substance.

    This is politics not a debating society.  People only take rational decision making up to a certain point and then they go with their gut.  Most people aren't like us - they aren't listening for substance right up to the end.  They listen to as much as they think they need and the rest is instinct.  We're in the instinct phase now in NH.  Which candidate does the voter, in his/her gut, think would make the best president.

    Each of the top three had to give decent substantive answers tonight and they all did.  Beyond that - it's the intangibles that matter.


    no I am talking (none / 0) (#36)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:14:43 PM EST
    about YOU.  Why you say you want to like her and support her but cant.  So are you saying that you willfully disregard her more substantive answers cause this is politics? That is what it sounds like and that, to me, is weird.  This isnt a game.  This inst teevee.  This is reality.

    Let me be clear (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:20:37 PM EST
    I would willingly support her in the general election if she was the nominee.  I don't support her nomination because (a) I firmly believe that in my state she would be a drag on the outstate ticket because she is so irrationally hated and there are some big races in my state this year and (b) I'm uncomfortable with the dynastic aspect of her candidacy, we've had a Bush, a Clinton and then a Bush - I don't really want to follow with another Clinton.  

    On substance and policies I'm much more in Edwards camp. But truthfully, once any of them get into office there's a limit to what they can do anyway.


    thanks for the clarity (none / 0) (#52)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:27:29 PM EST
    so she never had a shot at your support because you dont have the hoochies to go and fight for someone who may be the right person for the job. With reasoning like that the continental army would have gone home and locked the wooden door as soon as the Hussians showed up.



    Thanks for the attack (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:29:00 PM EST
    I gave you a truthful answer and you decide to be catty and hurl an insult rather than discuss it.  

    I'll be ignoring you from now on.  Bye.


    it was an honest (none / 0) (#65)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:35:28 PM EST
    assessment of your comments.  Your rationale as stated for not supporting her was because too many people in your state hated her. Right?
    How is my comment that that sounds like you lost interest the minute it got tough an attack rather than an appraisel of the content of your reply?

    but you can of course (none / 0) (#67)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:37:32 PM EST
    ignore me.  I wont mind.  You already answered me and I thank you for it.  

    and by the way (none / 0) (#49)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:23:35 PM EST
    it is all politics with me tonight.  I'm not voting in NH.  

    You say it isn't a game.  I disagree.


    maybe to you (none / 0) (#57)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:29:53 PM EST
    not to me.  You can have fun posting ways on chatboards - I am with you on that - but politics is not a game when soldiers are dying.

    different take (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Jgarza on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:12:04 PM EST
    at listing specifics of her past accomplishments

    I don't see what so impressive with her laundry lists, they have been falling flat.

    She was human (when she said her feelings were hurt) and Edwards turned her into the underdog which will be good with voters.

    She can't change who she is, either people like her by now or don't, and no one is ever going to consider her an underdog.

    I think her strongest moment was during the debate when they made cases for themselves. (What Richardson thinks is Washington bickering)She made  case for her self as did Obama and  Edwards, she should have done it in Iowa IMO because after Obamas win, his broad coalition of voters seems plausible.  none the less her case was strong and it is about time she spelled it out. that was what she needed to do.

    Her worst moment was when she attacked Obama, and called him a flip flopper, she looked petty.

    Obama made his case and looked knowledgeable and presidential.  his worst moment was when he said Hillary was likable enough.  I chalk it up to being tired.


    You think Edwards looking like a fool (none / 0) (#6)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:50:38 PM EST
    means Obama didn't win?  I think it means Edwards didn't mean.

    I think the question (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:56:41 PM EST
    the press ought to be asking tomorrow is: "Senator Obama, what is your arrangement with John Edwards?"

    Is using John Edwards as his incompetent attack dog what he means by "bringing us together?"


    Excellent question (none / 0) (#86)
    by MarkL on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 12:07:41 AM EST
    Edwards came off the worst to me.
    Obama's incredibly boring, but he's very solid.

    sorry I lost the end there (none / 0) (#11)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:55:55 PM EST
    Edwards didn't mean to try to win.  

    And it was obvious (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:57:18 PM EST
    I agree with that (none / 0) (#17)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:59:14 PM EST
    But that didn't hurt Obama.

    I think Obama gave a middling performance (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:01:22 PM EST
    I don't think Obama won (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:05:02 PM EST
    because he was great (although he wasn't as bad as sometimes he is in debates).  He won because everybody else lost.

    you have said that (none / 0) (#25)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:05:46 PM EST
    4 times and it rings hollow.

    Well, it's my opinion (none / 0) (#34)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:13:12 PM EST
    and that's all any of us have at this point.

    We'll look at the post-debate polls and see if Hillary stopped Obama's bounce.   That will tell us.


    wellllll (none / 0) (#82)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:33:05 PM EST
    your opinion remains your own despite what the pundits say later. or perhaps I should say, your opinion should remain your own despite what pundits say later.

    You're right that HRC was good at grasping on (none / 0) (#38)
    by CB on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:15:20 PM EST
    to the Bill Clinton legacy, but I don't think it helps her much, if at all. I always cringe a little when she does that, because it's like she's taking credit for someone else's work. Yeah, sure, she was there and probably in the thick of it at times (e.g. health care), but really, she just can't keep harping on that and her "35 years of experience" and not make it look like she's not her own woman.

    But it is her record (none / 0) (#42)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:17:30 PM EST
    And only people who dislike her for different reasons dispute that.

    Sorry, ... huh? (none / 0) (#44)
    by CB on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:19:58 PM EST
    I don't disagree with her motives or policies, I just think she's not quite the best nominee. How is it her record anyway? What is there, concretely, that she's really accomplished over the other Dems? Bill Clinton was President, not Hillary. There was only one chair behind the desk in the Oval Office.

    well, there might (none / 0) (#46)
    by along on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:22:02 PM EST
    have been one underneath the desk too.

    (sorry couldn't resist. please erase if that's too snarky.)


    See (none / 0) (#50)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:25:50 PM EST
    You see that as an endorsement? (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Rojas on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:40:44 PM EST
    Hell, it's an outline of someone selling people out to get re-elected. Assuming they truly ever held progressive principles to begin with.
    I have no idea how accurate it is but it seems quite plausible to me. I suggest you go back and read it again.

    ahh, but see (none / 0) (#94)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:42:21 AM EST
    now you can't argue that she wasn't instrumental to the Clinton administration. Now you actually have to argue against the Clinton administration itself. That's fine, but don't pretend that she doesn't have experience.

    That's been my point all along (none / 0) (#99)
    by Rojas on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 03:36:32 AM EST
    The Clintons were responsible for taking the Democratic party far to the right. Hell, you could split our incarceration rate 50/50 between bill and hill and each one could still have twice the average incarceration rate of the rest of the world.
    A progressive does not become the anti-newt by embracing newt's policies and selling them as your own.

    huh? (none / 0) (#83)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:34:45 PM EST
    you say you dont disagree with her policies you just dont know what they are and by the way she isnt the best candidate.

    That is the most clear example of blatant ignorance I have seen on this board in my 2 days here.  You get a cookie for that one!


    Some of her "experience" isn't good (none / 0) (#93)
    by burnedoutdem on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 12:32:24 AM EST
    She left a few things off her laundry list of accomplishments from the 90's:  failed health care, travelgate, filegate, etc.  Not to mention that being First Lady does not equal governing experience.  It means she could govern the White House Christmas Decorating Staff, but not the country.

    I don't think Obama won at all (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:48:15 PM EST
    He wasn't presidential he was professorial.

    He won because the others lost (none / 0) (#4)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:49:57 PM EST
    Specifically Hillary. But including Edwards.  And of course Richardson.

    I dont see that (none / 0) (#23)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:05:15 PM EST
    Hillary lost so that makes Obama the winner.  That seems rextreme to me and not what I saw.

    depends (none / 0) (#5)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:50:23 PM EST
    I thought Obama and Clinton were both off their game - he was sharp but snotty (now that he is perceived the Front Runner maybe he can be himself)and she made very solid defensive points but she didnt slam dunk it.

    Edwards played his part as you said - I wonder what was in it for him to go down in flames like that.

    Results (none / 0) (#7)
    by along on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:52:23 PM EST
    1. Edwards     28.4
    2. Clinton    26.7
    3. Obama    24.9
    4. Richardson 20.0

    Hmm, I agree with BTD that Edwards could have been more about going for the nomination, but he did great with the 'personal' stuff, and perhaps convinced some voters that it really will take the most impassioned fighter, no matter what the others' talents are.

    While this (none / 0) (#9)
    by RalphB on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:53:19 PM EST
    could be spun seven ways from Sunday to show just anybody winning.  I think Clinton did the best, followed by a pretty good performance by Obama.  Richardson was irrelevant and Edwards looked like a dolt trying to attach himself to Obama like a parasite.

    i dont know (none / 0) (#16)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:59:06 PM EST
    how you could spin for Edwards or Richardson - they were annoying to me.

    Well to (none / 0) (#28)
    by RalphB on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:08:19 PM EST
    begin with you'd have to lie, which is the real definition of spin, to say Bill or John did great.

    regardless of spin (none / 0) (#30)
    by along on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:10:18 PM EST
    our views about who did well or not are all opinion, more or less. there's no objective reality.

    except that Romney bit it.


    check our Republican thread (none / 0) (#53)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:28:28 PM EST
    Big Tent Democrat and I thought Romney did the best.

    really? (none / 0) (#68)
    by along on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:37:51 PM EST
    Wow, I'll check it out. I thought he was good at explaining some policies, and preparing the Republican electorate for a change election. But he didn't end up handling all the incoming fire well. I think he'll look weak--even to his own supporters.

    spiining isnt lying (none / 0) (#31)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:10:54 PM EST
    it is accentuating the positive while eleimiating the negative. anyway, it is up to the media.  Whoever they say won for whatever reason they want to give.

    Your mother (none / 0) (#59)
    by RalphB on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:30:39 PM EST
    would say that was a lie, by commission or omission.

    she wouldnt know (none / 0) (#84)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:37:14 PM EST
    what spinning was unless it had to do with knitting - which she totally stank at.

    I think it's over for Edwards (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:55:09 PM EST
    Unlike Hillary and Obama, he has to do well in New Hampshire, and I don't think he will after tonight.

    I think (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jgarza on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:59:05 PM EST
    he thinks Clinton is weak and he can beat her down and come out ahead in NH(as in second).  if he did that it would be a good strategy, i just don't see it being plausible.

    Even iof he thinks that (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:23:19 PM EST
    It is bad strategy.

    As always Edwards needs to beat Obama first.

    Hwe is not playing to win and it shows.


    He's not stupid (none / 0) (#87)
    by MarkL on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 12:09:02 AM EST
    and I think Andgarden's question is good: what is his deal with Obama?

    Gosh I hope you are right (none / 0) (#20)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:04:16 PM EST
    I always liked him - never was my choice but I liked that he brought up issues like poverty and the disappearing middle class etc.  But he was harsh Thursday and worse here and it sounded jarring to me.

    debates are about the 'gotcha' moments (none / 0) (#22)
    by commissar on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:05:07 PM EST
    like it or not - a "lockbox" moment. there weren't any tonight.  and that works to Hillary's disadvantage. she had to win big.

    "she had to win big" (none / 0) (#26)
    by along on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:07:30 PM EST
    that really depends on what the true polling is. On balance she did well, got some real differences out there. She probably grabbed a few percent tonight.

    hillary strong obama got clocked by gibson (none / 0) (#24)
    by neilario on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:05:37 PM EST
    I think hillary started slow but caught the fire she needs to show. Obama was way too vague and got caught by not mentioning actions so he just defended words - a problem. the one action he boasted was the ethics reform which charlie Gibson completely debunked leaving obama stumbling.
    edwards is clearly either angling for or already made a deal with obama for vp. i think this was a mistake, but he may figure his only real path to president is from the vp seat. i prefer a clinton edwards ticket since i think they are boh all about action.

    good debate. richardson did well. also angling for clinton's favor... interesting.

    yeah (none / 0) (#27)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:08:14 PM EST
    Charlie snapped Obama on that ethics thing - and Edwards helped but made himself look goofy at the same time.  Obama had no recourse but to keeop talking which was probably the right thing to do.  He didnt get flustered but he did look annoyed.  Ooops, the halo slipped.

    If this (none / 0) (#32)
    by RalphB on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:11:28 PM EST
    debate leads to an examination of the candidate's actual records, rather than their rhetoric, that's the best thing that could happen for Hillary Clinton.

    but it will it be reported (none / 0) (#37)
    by neilario on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:15:11 PM EST
    i have done a pretty quick tour of the blogosphere and no one has mentioned gibsons smackdown... just about hillary on the attack. ahhh the same old  a woman being strong is just the same as shrill and nasty.  i really wonder given the msm's hillary coverage and obama love if anyone will be showing That clip.  i sure hope so - it was an important moment....

    it won't get (none / 0) (#61)
    by Jgarza on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:31:30 PM EST
    reported because there is nothing to report, Obama ignored it, and no one else brought it up.  If Hillary thought that needed to get played she should have brought it up again, and again till he responded.

    Tomorrow over and over we are going to hear her attack on Obama, which she did in laundry list form (that always makes it look like petty mud slinging).

    Edwards calling her an agent of the status quo.

    Finally we will see her plea for her candidacy but only after the above mentioned.  Anger gets headlines.  Her orig. attack on Obama was a BIG mistake.  Poorly executed.


    What "ethics" things are (none / 0) (#89)
    by MarkL on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 12:10:17 AM EST
    you talking about? I didn't see the whole debate.

    Substance over strategy, and reading the landscape (none / 0) (#35)
    by Aaron on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:13:25 PM EST
    I think maybe you guys should have paid attention to what Edwards was say, about change versus the status quo, reform versus the establishment. He's right, he and Obama represent change, Hillary represents the established status quo, and that's exactly what she did as a senator in Congress, maintain the status quo.  

    As I said Hillary should've run this campaign in 2004, she's four years too late.  Yet another example of how the Clintons are stuck in the past, they've miscalculated and it's going to cost them the game.

    And I don't think it's out of line for me to say, even though I am and Obama supporter, that Obama read the political landscape of America perfectly, far better than his competitors and that's why he's going to take New Hampshire, South Carolina, the Democratic nomination and the White House.  Obama is the future folks.

    Creepy Candidate Cultism® (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:16:35 PM EST
    witty!! (none / 0) (#41)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:17:23 PM EST
    I like the trademark best!

    thanks (none / 0) (#40)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:16:45 PM EST
     but we already heard those empty claims.  Got anything else?.

    well they (none / 0) (#63)
    by Jgarza on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:33:14 PM EST
    are apparently empty claims caucus goers in Iowa bought so you should take it up with them too.

    if obama is change and hillary is the status quo (none / 0) (#43)
    by neilario on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:18:58 PM EST
    then can you please detail what he has done in the senate to do anything change-worthy? a 'present' vote is not challanging the status quo. where was he when dodd single handedly held fisa... i mean, i want to believe in him, but isee no leadership from him now... just words. so - i would love specifics. i would love for him to hop to dc now and DO something radical. he has the power now. and he hasnt even called a meeting o his subcommitte.

    i am really open to details....


    When Obama is in the White House... (none / 0) (#64)
    by Aaron on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:34:23 PM EST
    ... I guess you'll get to see if he can lead or not.  As of now his political qualifications are the same as those of John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. And if you guys don't see what I see, I understand that, many of you have been playing catch-up with me in the past, no reason for things to change now.  :-)

    I know most of you folks are not Obama supporters, but I've got a theory and maybe you can help me out, I'd really be interested to know your ages, and I think that since you all use pseudonyms to protect your identities you've really got no reason not to tell me.

    So I'm taking a small survey how old are you codgers anyway?


    Tell us how old YOU are (none / 0) (#66)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:36:55 PM EST
    and I'll tell you if I'm old enough to be your mother.  But that's all :)

    that was (none / 0) (#70)
    by Jgarza on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:39:04 PM EST
    a great remark i'm 25

    I forget, that's how old I am. :-) (none / 0) (#72)
    by Aaron on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:46:47 PM EST
    Just kidding, I'm 42, but I feel 95 most of the time.

    Nope (none / 0) (#73)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:48:07 PM EST
    Biologically impossible to be your mother.  Or your grandmother.  I could be an older sister.

    my son (none / 0) (#75)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:51:29 PM EST
    is 27. But many readers here who are close to my age were activists or at least very politically engaged when we were your age. It's not like we didn't work for change. We did, but we had specific agendas. And  change didn't mean compromise with the other side.

    Perhaps that's why you wound up losing... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Aaron on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:28:41 PM EST
    ...America to the Republican conservative agenda. Which is exactly what's been happening since the end of the Carter administration.

     Compromise is good in democracy when it gets the people something, as opposed leaving them with nothing and at the mercy of those who would prey upon them.

    I will admit that my viewpoints have changed since I've been blogging, I visit a wide variety of sites, many conservative sites among them.  Where I find myself fighting people there as well.  Maybe I just like to fight.  :-)

    One thing that I've come to learn, is that no one is altogether right or wrong, and that none of the issues are black or white, they're all competing shades of gray, a view that most lawyers I'm sure understand.  But it's funny, how much conservatives and liberals in this country have in common, far more than I think most of you realize.  In a way I see the whole liberal, conservative dichotomy as a kind of con, which is designed to keep us fighting among ourselves.  Now perhaps the progressive agenda is more RIGHT and moral most of the time, but demonizing conservatives and refusing to of acknowledge that conservatism has a rightful place in the world, genuine conservatism, not the false pseudo conservatism which has replaced it in much of the Republican Party, a phenomenon which I think the liberal side bears a measure of responsibility for. But I believe it's important to acknowledge the necessity of conservatism, and the need for balance, balance is key.

    Marginalizing people and trying to cut them out is never a good thing, and if the progressives or as I would describe many of them these days pseudo progressives gain control of this country and start trying to push things backwards, what you wind up with is an unending cycle, which will be to the detriment of everyone in this country, except a small number of special interest groups who have been making out like bandits at all of our expense, and at the expense of this nation.

    The young people who didn't see the 60s, or the 80s, don't really have a frame of reference, but they also have the advantage of not being trapped by those competing times and approaches.

    When I look at Obama, I see someone who is striking out in a new direction, and I'm so glad that he is a progressive, a genuine progressive and not a conservative, because what that means is this country will move forward in a more progressive direction.  Perhaps not the direction that many liberals would like, but that was never going to happen anyway, and it certainly wouldn't happen under Clinton or even Edwards, regardless of what they would have us believe. If Obama can achieve the consensus he's talking about, if enough people get behind him, then no one will be able to stand in his way, not the Congress, not the judiciary (that's another point I'd like to address, I have no doubt that Obama will appoint superior judges, he would've made one himself if he had chosen that route) but no one will be able to stand in the way of the People's majority and a president who represents our interests.  That's the vision that I believe Obama has, and is working for in this campaign.

    Perhaps the conservatives could produce a leader like Obama, with the same kind of appeal, but today's Republican Party never could, they are to co-opted and corrupted.  I think that Obama's candidacy is going to move the Republican Party in a new direction once these elections are over.  They will be forced to recognize that this country has changed, and will begin producing better quality leaders in response, and the Republicans and their constituency will benefit as well.

    I realize that this takes a measure of faith, and I respect all of you for your criticisms, and doubts.  Rest assured I share them.  Let's just hope that Obama turns out to be a good president, because this country desperately needs a president of the highest caliber if we are to fix this country. And I think we can all agree that it needs fixing.


    What did Jeralyn lose? (none / 0) (#92)
    by Jgarza on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 12:19:50 AM EST
    I'm proud of what baby boomers(hope that isn't prsumtions to assume Jer is a boomer) have brought us. I'm a gay Hispanic male that got to go to college.  That would not have been possible with out  what the boomers did. Go Jeralyn and go BOOMERS

    Lets hear it for the BOOMERS!!!


    nice. (none / 0) (#97)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:22:34 AM EST
    You do know Hillary is a boomer and Barack isnt, right?



    Edwards is not trying to win (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:22:02 PM EST
    and it showed.

    Whether you think he is right or not is not really the issue.

    It is obvious he has thrown in the towel.


    huh (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by along on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:29:06 PM EST
    I didn't see that. I took his defense of Obama and attack on Hillary to be a way to continue his "second-place finish", two-person race rationale. Now that might be pathetic, but I think he believes that IF it works, and he somehow takes second in NH (no way it's going to happen), that he comes away with new life. That strategy requires an attack on Hillary, rather than Obama, to try to depress her numbers.

    Then he was as strong and clear as he has been about his populist message. It won't be enough, but I think he's going for it.


    That is pathetic (none / 0) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:50:08 PM EST
    umm (none / 0) (#80)
    by along on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:57:54 PM EST
    I'm unsure of what you're saying, maybe because it's hard to convey emphasis in written comments. My comment is pathetic, or his strategy?

    I was agreeing with you (none / 0) (#95)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:17:20 AM EST
    oh (none / 0) (#98)
    by along on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:50:29 AM EST
    but I was disagreeing with you. I guess you mean agreeing that he's pathetic. that wasn't the point of my comment.

    I was agreeing with you (none / 0) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:17:47 AM EST
    Hilary is the longhaul candidate (none / 0) (#88)
    by bronte17 on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 12:09:20 AM EST
    Edwards is down in NH, knows he won't win or even place second in that state, so he is taking hits on Hilary's armor for the long run.

    What effect on Obama's candidacy (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:26:15 PM EST
    if voters think Edwards has a lock for the VP slot?  

    Yeah (none / 0) (#58)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:30:36 PM EST
    I wonder if he'll pull out if Obama wins NH rather than stay in through South Carolina.

    Yes, Obama has figured out (none / 0) (#90)
    by MarkL on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 12:11:18 AM EST
    how to get the idiot (independent) vote---by talking to them like Barney.
    It's a worthy accomplishment.

    Tie (none / 0) (#56)
    by andreww on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:29:36 PM EST
    I think it was pretty much a tie debatewise.  I don't think people who like Obama necessarily like him for debate performance.  And unike some who think his answer on how words matter was bad, I actually think it was inspiring and more closely resembled moments from his speeches - cleary his strong suit.  

    The smaller debate worked to Obama's advantage and was his best performance.  Hillary looked good except toward the beginning when she almost slipped a little to far into serious anger.  Also, as another mentioned, saying change doesn't happen based on what you believe.  Obama missed an opportunity to have a seriously memorable debate moment and close the door on her; but he missed it.  

    Basically, no one walked away seriously wounded; That's why I think it was a tie.  

    What smackdown? (none / 0) (#60)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:31:23 PM EST
    When was it? What topic? I missed it and want to go back and watch.

    Obama (none / 0) (#71)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:41:09 PM EST
    said he helped enact changes to the ethics rules..

    and Gibson said - oh you mean like lobbiests can only pay for meals of congressmen when they are standing up?  Effectively saying, "big deal,Obama"


    Oh yes, that was a great (none / 0) (#91)
    by MarkL on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 12:13:33 AM EST
    "kindergarten" moment.

    It was... (none / 0) (#77)
    by andreww on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:53:33 PM EST
    about a third of the way in.  Hillary was, i think, just saying a modified version of her "some demand change some hope..."  But instead she said something like - you don't get change based on what you believe.

    It was a slip up I think Obama could have exploited.....someone else mentioned it on the live blog but i was on a little delay on the tv so maybe it just had more of an impact on me since i was looking for it?  


    sorry (none / 0) (#79)
    by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:57:17 PM EST
    I confused the smackdowns

    I Think (none / 0) (#62)
    by squeaky on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:32:01 PM EST
    That in this race will be hard to predict. Polls and debates will be misleading since it is historic situation. It is not a bunch of white guys running for POTUS this time.

    That's a good point (none / 0) (#69)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:38:26 PM EST
    Richardson (none / 0) (#76)
    by LieslAllena on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:52:07 PM EST
    I encourage him for competing in the debate and for standing up for himself and he didn't back down.
    Liesl Gonzales
    Age 8
    New Mexico

    Agreed (none / 0) (#78)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:55:09 PM EST
    Richardson was very good. I loved his humility and humor in explaining his mistep on Supreme Court Justice White. And his bringing up the PTSD and problems our returning vets will face.

    Edwards Logic (none / 0) (#100)
    by diogenes on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 07:54:12 AM EST
    If Hillary wins then the juggernaut is restored and he has no hope.  If Obama wins and Hillary turns into another Ed Muskie, then maybe the party establishment will get "cold feet" and turn to Edwards in future primaries, especially since many of them aren't open ones, thus favoring candidates like Edwards who appeal to the left wing.