Democratic ’08ers target frontrunning Clinton
ABC’s David Chalian reports: In the build-up to the sixth Democratic presidential debate this year, there were high expectations for every Democratic candidate not named Clinton to come gunning for the frontrunner. Perhaps the fireworks were not quite as bright as the pundits had predicted, but there was no doubt that Sen. Hillary Clinton was taking some heat from her opponents for the Democratic presidential nomination. The rest of the field (and the moderator) kept Clinton on defense for most of the evening, though nobody seemed to be able to land a clean punch that posed any serious harm to Clinton.
After Sen. Clinton once again described her failed battle for universal healthcare in the 1990s as "kind of a lonely fight," Sen. Obama responded by saying, "If it was lonely for Hillary, part of the reason it was lonely, Hillary, was because you closed the door to a lot of potential allies in that process." The Obama campaign later pointed reporters to comments Senators Bill Bradley and Pat Moynihan had made about then First Lady Hillary Clinton’s approach in dealing with the Congress on her proposed. healthcare reform package.
Sen. Edwards attempted to draw a clear distinction between himself and Sen. Clinton on a Senate vote to declare Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization. Sen. Clinton voted in favor of the resolution. Edwards sided with Sen. Dodd and Sen. Biden who voted against that resolution today and went on to say that he believes he and Clinton learned very different lessons from their 2002 votes for the Iraq war. "I have no intention of giving George Bush the authority to take the first step on a road to war with Iran," Edwards added. (Sen. Obama was not present for the vote on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.)
Sen. Dodd and Sen. Biden were both probed about their past statements concerning whether or not they believe Sen. Clinton is too polarizing to govern effectively as president. Sen. Dodd, in what is becoming a pattern, was far less aggressive on television than he has been in written press releases distributed by his campaign.
Sen. Biden again claimed that the baggage from the political polarization in the Clinton years is likely to hang over a President Hillary Clinton and make accomplishing compromise on big ticket items — such as universal healthcare — far tougher for her than for many of her opponents. "And I’m not suggesting it’s Hillary’s fault. I think it’s a reality that it’s more difficult, because there’s a lot of very good things that come with all the great things that President Clinton did, but there’s also a lot of the old stuff that comes back. It’s kind of hard," said Biden. "When I say old stuff, I’m referring to policy — policy," Biden added lest viewers think he was referring to impeachment or Monica Lewinsky.
Clinton handled the incoming fire from her opponents and from the moderator with determined confidence and appeared mostly unruffled by it.
She did, however, seem to lose some steam towards the end of the debate in the lightening round where she was faced questions about the transparency of donors to her husband’s library and foundation, suggested she and her husband may differ on their answers to a hypothetical scenario about torture, and seemed to waffle on her baseball team allegiances when she said she would probably have to alternate sides in a hypothetical Yankees vs. Cubs World Series.
Sen. Clinton did try to turn the slight awkwardness — when it was revealed she and her husband disagreed about the torture hypothetical — into a lighthearted moment by saying, "Well, he’s not standing here right now. . . Well, I’ll talk to him later."
Eloise Harper and Raelyn Johnson contributed to this report
Email
CPAC: Romney Struggles to Convince Voters
Obama Backs Off Birth Control Battle?
GO HILLARY
Posted by: dahl | September 27, 2007, 7:48 am 7:48 am
Hillary: Confident, bright,and ready to lead! YES!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: rkcarte | September 27, 2007, 8:15 am 8:15 am
I thought the best statement of the night was John Edwards calling out Hillary for voting for the Iranian / terrorist resolution. Has she learned NOTHING about giving Bush, Jr. ANY cover for his military plans? He cannot be trusted with even the smallest green light or the next thing we know, there are cruise missles in Tehran and our troops are going across the border. Ahmadinejad is not popular amongst the Iranian people but the quickest way to change that is to let him portray himself as the national protector against a bellicose US. It’s the same reasoning that got GWB re-elected. Stick with me and I’ll protect you. On our current path of saber rattling and no diplomacy, Iran can justify nuclear weapons as necessary to combat the American threat. After 7 years I think we can see this president’s grand scheme and I cannot believe that Hillary just helped perpetuate it.
Posted by: TSnow27604 | September 27, 2007, 8:22 am 8:22 am
Just shows how ridicilous the democrats really are. Our history making democratic congress. The lowest approval rating in history at 11%. Of course its GW’s fault. NOT. Its time we eliminate the 2 term limit and re-elect GW one more time.
Posted by: No2demosandlibs | September 27, 2007, 8:31 am 8:31 am
Why would we want to re-elect the worst president in the history of this country. But maybe he can run again because he really didn’t win that first time.
Posted by: MOD223 | September 27, 2007, 8:36 am 8:36 am
No2demosandlibs: It’s your kind of thinking that has gotten us where we are. The democrats don’t have a sufficient majority to force the changes they would like to make, and most of the country would like to see. Four more years of GW Bush would simply give him an opportunity to finish destroying this country. The damage he and Cheney have done to the balance of power in this country is severe. If they had their way, they would declare the constitution null and void. They have done their level best to ignore the constitution that they swore a solemn OATH to “SUPPORT, PROTECT, AND DEFEND”. What Congress has failed to do is their part in defending the Constitution “against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC”. GW Bush and Dick Cheney are the two greatest threats to the Constitution, and should have been impeached long ago. My theory on why this has not been done, is that having Bush in the White House at election time will make election of a democrat a virtual certainty.
Posted by: Bob Robinson | September 27, 2007, 8:43 am 8:43 am
rkcarte,
you are right on the money!
John Edwards statement was another example of Hillary Chameleon’s decisions. I don’t trust her. I would much prefer Obama and/or Edwards.
Posted by: Mike | September 27, 2007, 8:45 am 8:45 am
Action alert for MoveOn and CodePink: The top three Democratic presidential candidates refused Wednesday night to commit to removing all US troops from Iraq by the end of their first presidential term—by January 2013!!
“I think it’s hard to project four years from now,” said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation’s first primary state.
“It is very difficult to know what we’re going to be inheriting,” added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
“I cannot make that commitment,” said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.
How’s that for taking a tough stand on THE hottest issue of our times!
Posted by: Real Change in Iraq--ha ha | September 27, 2007, 8:50 am 8:50 am
“CBS/AP) The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.”
OH! the truth is starting to come out now. Great debate give Tim Russett credit for “pulling” this info out of the slimy Democrats.
Here”s a Party that with the help of America”s corrupt liberal MSM wolfpack press pulled one the the biggest propaganda campaigns off in 2006 by “promising the American people THEY would end the war in Iraq.
And now last night they, the most unqualified bunch of Dems to ever run for president, are saying that troops will still be in Iraq in 2013.
What do you liberals think of that now?
Posted by: perception5 | September 27, 2007, 8:51 am 8:51 am
They touched on but never really endorsed cutting off Bush’s War Funds!
It is a quick and concise tool to stop his war folly!
Posted by: TVCASTER | September 27, 2007, 8:58 am 8:58 am
Dont cry Bob. The american public sees the surge working and that the president was right all along. The patriot act is and has been stopping terrorism in the US. The democratic party is a farse who are all talk and NO action. They take a majority but hide in the closet when it comes to backing there promises. The only thing they are good at is dividing our country with double talk. We all know that terrorist from across the globe are going to Iraq and that our troops are valiantly destroying them. All is good except our lowly democratic congress with the lowest approval rating in history. Like I said, our country would be much better off if we could get rid of the dumb (democratic) 2 term limit and re-elect GW one more time.
Posted by: No2demosandlibs | September 27, 2007, 9:00 am 9:00 am
Does anyone here know where the comments/answers of the other “also running” candidates may be found? I have read todays msnbc front page and noticed that instead of Obama/Clinton standing close, that Kuicinich/Clinton were together. They look good. Maybe a team for Pres./V.P., although I don’t know if Hillary would take second slot. (Ha, ha)
Posted by: Lou Ella Howard | September 27, 2007, 9:25 am 9:25 am
There are three people in the Amazon jungle who don’t know Hillary will win the Democratic nomination and likely the presidency. All the rest of us have known it for a long time. The news media picked her long ago and Americans who bother to vote usually do what ever the news media, union, church, or club tell them to do. Thinking for one’s self is too tough for some folks
Posted by: Royce | September 27, 2007, 1:59 pm 1:59 pm
Time magazine anointed Hillary long ago.
She has been on their cover TEN TIMES!!
More than FDR, Stalin, Mao, Churchill, Gandhi, or any other of the larger than life figures the world has seen since 1923, when the magazine premiered.
Posted by: carl | September 27, 2007, 2:24 pm 2:24 pm
without raising or creating more taxes, without going further into debt, without cutting into military spending, how will hillary pay for the nations “free” healthcare system?
what is she going to cut out of the budget for this?
Posted by: darknessesedge | September 28, 2007, 5:52 pm 5:52 pm