Live-Blogging During Democratic Presidential Debate by Rick Klein
Email9:53 pm: My take: This is one of those debates where you could call it based just on your predilections — enough for both sides to declare victory, and not a debate that’s likely to change many minds. Indeed, it seemed that this was all about talking to undecided voters, introducing their positions, on substantive grounds. This was a meaty debate — the jabs were all couched in policy.
So we can be disappointed in the lack of fireworks, but let us applaud the high-minded discussion. Voters heard real differences, particularly on health care, but also on foreign policy and immigration.
To get to the tactics, this tells you (again) that neither candidate is all that confident about the campaign’s trajectory. It was a showdown marked by caution, like a title fight that goes to the judges instead of being decided by who falls onto the mat.
As for winners and losers — split decision in my head, but I give a slight edge to Sen. Clinton. She was at the top of her game tonight. It’s not that Obama wasn’t — he was also in command, and he did get his points on Iraq across. But Clinton portrayed a measured confidence and competence throughout, reinforcing her campaign message, and turning down the heat that was starting to burn her.
That’s it for tonight — check back tomorrow for a full analysis of the race at The Note.
9:50 pm: Obama on the VP question: "I’m sure Hillary would be on anybody’s short list." Clinton says she agrees with what Obama said, but similar words do not cross her lips. And notice that extended whispering conversation (and half-hug) on stage at the end — no snubs tonight, indeed.
9:48 pm: From ABC’s Jake Tapper: "Despite their considerable differences, Hillary and Rudy (R.I.P.) have that unusual political tic where they guffaw loudly whenever asked questions that would cause any non-politician to hit the questioner in the face. They must teach that at politician school."
9:45 pm: A BIG Clinton laugh when the question comes to controlling her husband. "The fact is, I’m running for president… I want the campaign to stay focused on the issues I care about." But that is PRECISELY the problem with what Bill Clinton has been saying. "It’s a choice between the two of us," she says. If that’s really want she wants, then pull Bill off the trail. Surely he has plenty of work he could be doing for his foundation.
9:44 pm: ABC’s Nitya Venkataraman (WAY more into pop culture than me) does some star watching for us: "Lou Gosset Junior is at this thing. Plus Diane Keaton. Plus Bradley Whitford. Plus Rob Reiner. Plus Alfre Woodard. Plus Stevie Wonder. Plus Steven Spielberg. Plus Topher Grace. I think Hollywood is so starved because of the writers strike they realized this was their shot into the Kodak Theater this year."
9:39 pm: I guess we’re blowing past the time limits… Hey, why not?
9:35 pm: Obama: "Everybody, the day after that vote was taken, understood that this was a vote potentially to go to war." He makes the link explicitly — not all good experience is good experience. "It is important to be right on day one."
9:33 pm: "It was not just bad execution," Obama said. "We need better judgment when we send men and women into war." Good, powerful stuff, well delivered. The second half of the debate is being fought much more on Obama’s turf, with all this talk about the Iraq war. And she still will not call the vote a "mistake," whatever that really means.
But I just wonder if the talk of Iraq sounds stale to people at this point. "What are we going to do going forward?" Clinton says.
9:29 pm: Sen. Clinton says her vote for the Iraq resolution was "not authority for preemptive war." I don’t know — can’t she move beyond that? And "gravitas" is the word she uses — a rather clear suggestion that the neophyte to her left lacks it.
9:26 pm: From ABC’s Jake Tapper: "Clinton has a really steady tone tonight, solid and presidential. Eminently likeable. And kudos to Wolf for a very substantive debate. Now, less substantively, did they just show that in the audience is that dude from Grey’s Anatomy who got fired for homophobic comments?"
9:22 pm: Obama sets up his "clear contrast," since he opposed the war from the beginning. Blitzer (hope in his voice): "Sen. Clinton, that’s a clear swipe at you." She doesn’t think so, apparently. Or decides not to swing back.
9:21 pm: From ABC’s David Wright: "Does it seem like Obama is trying to turn the debate to McCain and the general a bit too early???? He has mentioned him 3 or 4 times now."
9:18 pm: Clinton seems very calm tonight, just totally in control of her responses. And not to leave him out — Obama does as well. I just sense a bigger contrast with Clinton. She is having a good night, seems respectful of Obama and certain of where she is.
9:11 pm: (Was that Pierce Brosnan? James Bond is in the house?) Really good question on Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. And a good answer, but I don’t know any answer will settle questions of Bush/Clinton fatigue.
9:07 pm: Obama praising the accomplishments of the Clinton years, BUT — "who can inspire the American people?" And Obama talking about changing the electoral map — that’s a strong argument.
9:07 pm: Clinton campaign provides this link, a clip of Obama on driver’s licenses from a previous debate, in November, when he handled it rather poorly.
9:05 pm: Clinton: "No one else is on the ballot." Yes, this from the woman whose campaign is deploying Bill Clinton to boost her prospects essentially any way he can.
9:02 pm: Clinton does have the resume answer down pat. And when she says the US government isn’t a business, but is a "trust." Knocks it out of the park. She’s in command tonight. And Obama’s line is funny too: Romney hasn’t gotten a good return on his investment in the campaign. HAH!
8:58 pm: Obama on experience: "We need to move forward with new leadership." "The skills that I have are the ones that are needed right now."
8:54 pm: At the halfway point — I should give up trying to predict how feisty these things will be. So far, my guess is the Clinton campaign is marginally more happy about the debate than the Obama folks. She generally excels when the talk is substantive, and she handled the focus on health care rather masterfully.
8:51 pm: Sen. Clinton opposes driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants because it "puts them at risk"? I’m sorry, but nobody would force them to get them… And Obama brings up the fact that she’s been all over the map on this issue. (He also shows some love for Bill Richardson, the Hispanic governor of New Mexico.)
8:46 pm: Obama: "I think it is the right thing to do." But Obama is dancing, too — "there are those" who have flipped, or run away from the issue. "People don’t come here to drive. They come here to work," Obama says — good line, and one that gets to the heart of his position.
But Clinton was sponsoring comprehensive reform bills back when Obama was in the state legislature. Hah.
8:42 pm: Driver’s licenses for immigrants — that was the issue that started knocking Clinton off her game many moons ago. Clinton ended up coming down against the licenses — and that’s a position that could hurt her in the critical Latino community. That’s probably why she took forever to answer the question, and didn’t do so directly.
8:37 pm: The RNC is having a fun night — Obama and Clinton nodding in agreement about the need for higher taxes on the rich.
8:34 pm: All this talk of healthcare — this is Hillary’s wheelhouse. She’s got to be happy about the first 34 minutes.
8:33 pm: Intriguing that Obama brings up McCain to take a swipe, on tax cuts: "Somewhere along the line, the Straight Talk Express lost some wheels." The prospect of a McCain nomination scares Democrats more than a Romney nomination — and Obama folks argue that he’d be more electable in a general election matchup with McCain (though polling is not that clear-cut).
8:30 pm: We in the media often criticize candidates for not being substantive — and these guys are about 90 percent substance so far. That means, 1/3 of the way, things are pretty tame. Wal-Mart mentions tied with Rezko mention — Zero.
8:27 pm: Blitzer’s right — OF COURSE it was a swipe at Sen. Clinton’s secretive task force, to say your task force would have its proceedings broadcast on C-SPAN.
8:26 pm: BUT, Obama does a good job too explaining his plan, "bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors." His plan is more incremental, but he ties it to his unity message.
8:24 pm: This strikes as one of few issue differences (since there are so few) that can drive votes. Sen. Clinton still seems more comfortable talking about her healthcare plan than Sen. Obama is about his — it depicts Clinton as the fighter who’s going for the big prize. "You have to bite this bullet," she says. (And mentions — again — that her plan is similar to Edwards’.)
8:20 pm: Is it universal healthcare if people decline it and don’t get coverage? The Obama campaign still calls his healthcare plan "universal." It isn’t, and I think Sen. Obama just acknowledged that, sort of. (And does anyone else notice that Obama can’t pronounce "Massachusetts"? He lived in the state for three years, during law school, and he has three politicians named Kerry, Kennedy, and Deval Patrick who could help.)
8:18 pm: The question was about a policy difference. And Obama’s answer includes positions on the Iraq war. Telling.
8:16 pm: They are playing out the healthcare and mortage issues with some real details. They disagree on the approaches — and they’re laying it out there. It’s only personal at the far edges so far — like they’re feeling each other out a bit. A dig on each side — Clinton on meeting with rogue leaders, Obama on special interests.
8:12 pm: Healthcare — this actually is a policy difference, one of the very few that truly exists. And Clinton also jumps on that old debate line about meeting with rogue leaders.
Also, ABC’s David Wright proposes a game for the night: How many times can each of them speak in uplifting terms about Sen. Edwards?
8:10 pm: We’ve heard before from Sen. Clinton about the "stack of problems." It’s critical to her argument about being ready lead on day one. But it also speaks to one of the problems in her campaign — it’s sort of a downer to think about that stack. It’s more fun to hope and dream with Obama, no?
Oh, and Sen. Clinton also squeezes in an homage to John Edwards — and Elizabeth, too — iin her opening statement.
8:06 pm: Obama IMMEDIATELY honors John Edwards — hmmm, think he’s interested in his supporters, by chance? And his message — "testimony to this country," "opportunity to make history." And a message of comity — she and Sen. Clinton will be friends no matter what. Awwwwww….
But there’s the first sharp line — "Past vs. the future." "We also have to have change that brings the country together" and that "levels with the American people." He got right to his core argument.
8:02 pm: I do love Wolf Blitzer’s tendency to overhype — but he’s right tonight about the stakes and the historic nature. Sen. Clinton sounds peppy on the stage — "Hi, Wolf, nice to see you," she says loudly. And good — they’re doing that lame pointing thing, like they’re surprised to see people in the hand-picked crowd.
7:56 pm ET: Gotta love this — great tidbit from my colleague Jonathan Greenberger. If you want to see what John Edwards is up to on his second night as a non-candidate, all you have to do is click over ESPN. The Boston College-Univ. of North Carolina game is on, at the Dean Dome in Chapel Hill — and John Edwards is in the stands. (My colleague Teddy Davis reminds us that we never did find out about how many tickets he’s getting to UNC sporting events.)
7:54 pm ET: Some color from the Kodak Theater, from ABC’s Sunlen Miller: "Wolf Blitzer is going through the whole and the Oscar goes to’ bit before the debate starts, standing on stage before hand."
7:53 pm ET: OK, I’ve said before — I’m not a bad better, but . . . how could this not be a tremendous show this evening? We’re expecting a huge audience for the first head-to-head matchup. And I point this out as much to remind myself as to remind all of you, but for many, many people, this is the first debate they’re watching closely. So I know I’m sick of the canned lines, but they may sound fresh to new sets of ears.
7:27 pm ET: One more pre-debate note — Obama’s campaign today announced that it has raised $32 million THIS MONTH. That’s right — not this quarter, THIS MONTH. Radio silence from the Clinton campaign — they’ll say only that they met their $10 million goal for January. This means, first off, that Obama at least (and almost certainly Clinton) is well-armed for a long haul of a campaign. And second, it’s another measure of the extraordinary energy that’s fueling the Obama campaign. Once again, these are fundraising figures that should have Camp Clinton worried.
6:42 pm ET: Scott — that’s an interesting point about the potential impact of Arnold on Mayor Bloomberg — but my sense is that you’re reading a bit much into today’s endorsement. My sense is that the two politicians — Gov. Schwarzenegger and Mayor Bloomberg — are close ideologically and in their sense of purpose, and yes — if the mayor runs, he’d really need to win California. But I think the governor’s decision was made on a quite different track. Bloomberg will run if he thinks he has a realistic chance, and it’s a decision that will be in his head — he won’t be taking cues from anyone, really. Meanwhile, the governor isn’t going to sit out the chance to help a friend (and earn a chit) in endorsing McCain in the GOP primary, while Bloomberg is very much not a candidate.
Rick Klein from ABC’s The Note here. I’ll be live-blogging during tonight’s Democratic presidential debate in Los Angeles — a one-on-one affair, just Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The debate starts at 8 pm ET, so watch on CNN and follow all the action here at ABCNews.com.
Stirring the pot, the Clinton campaign put out a memo this afternoon — just maybe trying to get into Obama’s head:
"Which Barack Obama will show up at tonight’s Democratic debate?
"The Barack Obama who once told the press: ‘I would challenge anyone to find a statement that I’ve made that has been personal as opposed to a substantive difference with a candidate.’
"Or
"The Barack Obama who is increasingly not drawing policy differences or highlighting issue contrasts – but personally launching or allowing his campaign to launch a series of personal negative attacks against Hillary Clinton."
So this means one thing to watch tonight — who takes the first swing? I’m guessing the tone won’t be as shrill as it was 10 days ago, in South Carolina, but there’s too much at stake for this to be all sweetness and light.
Rick Santorum Sweeps 3 States 
Pentagon to Open Additional Jobs to Women
Look for Saint Obama to deny having anything to do with negative attacks. Then look for the press to just accept that as true!
Posted by: Democrat | January 31, 2008, 4:40 pm 4:40 pm
Hey Rick -
Wanted to get your thoughts on this because I want to know if I’m crazy or not. With Arnold Schwarzenegger endorsing McCain today, doesn’t that signal that Mike Bloomberg probably isn’t going to run for President? Bloomberg and Schwarzenegger are close, Bloomberg was just out in California a few weeks back I believe and held a joint press conference with Arnold, and you have to figure that any strategy Bloomberg has of winning the election includes winning California, and that the support of Schwarzenegger would have been central to that. Do you think Schwarzenegger makes that endorsement unless he had a pretty good idea Bloomberg likely wasn’t going to run? Or am I reading too much into things?
Posted by: Scott | January 31, 2008, 4:48 pm 4:48 pm
As long as Obama show Mrs. Clinton some much overdue respect and sticks to the issues, he will come out ok.
Should he try to throw the first punch, she will come back and hit him with a TKO. He will have his butt handed to him in a paper bag..
Posted by: Jay | January 31, 2008, 5:12 pm 5:12 pm
Excuse me, the contrasts on issues are not some hit jobs or negative attacks.
It is Billary who fired time and time again the misleading and inaccurate statements on opponent’s record. If you are fired upon, are you telling me you will not fire back?
Posted by: sean | January 31, 2008, 5:21 pm 5:21 pm
All the concern in the world about which candidate is better doesnt amount to zip is our elections are rigged. We havent change a thing since the last two elections that proved there are serious flaws with the system. HBO’s black box voting. Doesnt anyone care about the REAL issues concerning fair elections? Blah…blah… blah. Nothing changes because people are sheeple. CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN!
Posted by: Jackie | January 31, 2008, 5:21 pm 5:21 pm
Bill and Hillary are afraid of the power of the “past v. future” message, so they try to frame it as a personal attack.
The fact is, there are no meaningful issue contrasts between Clinton and Obama, other than in foreign policy, and Clinton is more a Republican than a Democrat when it comes to foreign policy.
So unless you’re voting on foreign policy, you have to decide based on your assessment of the candidates’ personal qualities (honesty; leadership; experience; inspiration; divisiveness; intelligence) and their electability. You also have to think about whether you’re comfortable with Bill Clinton’s return to power and with the prospect of 28 straight years of dynastic rule by two families.
Not much of a decision: Obama.
Posted by: Common sense please | January 31, 2008, 5:26 pm 5:26 pm
I suppose the Obama camp could email back, wondering which Clinton will show up at the debate: Hillary or Bill?
Posted by: Derek | January 31, 2008, 5:27 pm 5:27 pm
Hi Rick,
Please be fair! My experience with this blog is that you are always pro-Hillary. Be fair so that people will see and hear for what you have to say.
Posted by: John | January 31, 2008, 5:28 pm 5:28 pm
I would suggest that anyone holding political aspirations beyond serving as Hillary Clinton’s VP would be extremely wise to think long and hard before accepting such a position. With co-President “Big Dog” Bill hanging around, sucking up all the oxygen in every room, throwing his weight around and consistently dominating the headlines, I’m certain Hillary’s VP would be doomed to serve in obscurity and anonymity, returning that office to its previous, less than a “warm bucket of spit” career status.
Posted by: Mark | January 31, 2008, 5:32 pm 5:32 pm
No more playing nice.GO GET HIM HILLARY!
Posted by: trishia | January 31, 2008, 5:40 pm 5:40 pm
Does anyone else think we’ll see one or more big endorsements (Gore, Richardson, Edwards???) tomorrow for Obama?
I think they’re waiting until tomorrow so there will be no questions about it at the debate — which means Clinton won’t be able to play the victim card during the debate.
Posted by: just wondering | January 31, 2008, 5:40 pm 5:40 pm
Anyone who agrees to be her running mate would doom their political career whether she wins or loses. Obama needs to hold back and hit personal attacks with issue attacks. He should also play solid defense. Respond once on each attack and dismiss repeated attacks, let her prove herself as the smarmy politician who would reposition herself and dismiss the African-American vote as inconsequential.
Posted by: David | January 31, 2008, 5:40 pm 5:40 pm
God I *hate it* when Team Clinton whines or attempts to play the “defenseless little lady” card. It’s soooo transparent and disingenuous. Let’s be frank: Speaking metaphorically (of course) and politically, as their opponent, Bill Clinton would remove and cook your liver without hesitation, and Hillary would sit right down with her Cheshire-cat grin and eat it.
Posted by: Mark | January 31, 2008, 5:43 pm 5:43 pm
The rigged selections of 2000 and 2004, the war crimes, the cheney cash collector brigade in the killing fields, the contractor citizen killings,the immunity grants, the rape and murder hearings, the torture prison and renditions, the UNOCAL TALIBAN talks, the gamut. You people want to know what went on or don’t you? Take your pick and live with your choice…Read THE STRATEGIC CLASS article to see Hillary, Biden, Liebermann, etc. or look to a better day a coming!!!!
Posted by: daddyblue | January 31, 2008, 5:47 pm 5:47 pm
I can’t see Richardson endorsing Obama…I always thought that he would lean more towards Clinton if anyone at all. Actually, I had thought that he perhaps could have been a VP candidate for her if she were to secure the nomination…but who knows. There is little certainty in this race!
Posted by: Louise | January 31, 2008, 5:50 pm 5:50 pm
Richardson is smart enough to know that his chances of actually becoming VP are much greater with Obama than with Clinton.
He also knows how awful it would be to serve as VP in a Clinton White House.
Posted by: just wondering | January 31, 2008, 5:56 pm 5:56 pm
Is there anything that Barack Hussein Obama has mentioned that he is going to change for better? He just talks about change till you will puke, not a word about what indentends to change.
Also doen’t he claim to unite Dems & Reps and in the same breathc accuse Hillary of taking Rep positions.
The Word Hypocrite comes to mind.
Plus he got endorsements from Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Patrcik kennedy: a bunch of Drunks and Losers!
He is sonn going to join them.
Posted by: vh | January 31, 2008, 6:00 pm 6:00 pm
DOES HILLARY PLAN TO TAKE ANY ACTIONS WITH REGARDS TO THE CREDIT CARD INDUSTRY? LIKE STOPPING THE UNIVERSAL DEFAULT. MY BANK MADE A MISTAKE. THEY FIXED THEIR MISTAKE; HOWEVER, THE CREDIT CARD COMPANY SAW THE REPORT BEFORE IT WAS FIXED AND THEY DID A UNIVERSAL DEFAULT AND WILL NOT CHANGE MY CREDIT CARD TERMS BACK TO THE WAY THEY WERE. IT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL!
Posted by: BRENDA | January 31, 2008, 6:01 pm 6:01 pm
vh, well said………..greg
Posted by: greg | January 31, 2008, 6:10 pm 6:10 pm
Can we really trust him? It wasn’t very long ago that he was where? Smoking what? All I see is a smooth talker that we can’t question because he is half black.
Posted by: trishia | January 31, 2008, 6:11 pm 6:11 pm
trishia, it sounds like you and ol’ greg are wrangling for jobs with the Clinton camp! It appears to me you’ll both fit in very well there. *Very* well.
Posted by: Mark | January 31, 2008, 6:15 pm 6:15 pm
Jay, speaking of Rezko, have you noticed that the Obama camp thus far has not mentioned NORMAN HSU, Mrs. Clinton’s once-fugitive/now-imprisoned former funder raiser? I suspect such restraint by the Obamans may fast be coming to an end. For two folks occupying such an obvious glass house, the Clintons really need to quit chucking rocks.
Posted by: Mark | January 31, 2008, 6:21 pm 6:21 pm
Someone should ask about the Senate Stimulus package bailout of mortgage bankers who underwrote the sub-prime mess.
From Bloomberg news—Jan 31 “Subprime lenders, homebuilders and banks stand to benefit from a $14.4 billion tax break passed yesterday by a Senate committee as part of an economic stimulus package.” Thus, most of the Senate’s additions to the House stimulus package are tax breaks for the underwriters and sellers of the sub-prime mortgage-backed CDOs that have precipitated a systemic loss of confidence in the American capital markets. Why should taxpayers bail out companies currently under investigation by the SEC and FBI for fraud, conflict of interest and insider trading? If the banks need cash, they should stop paying their dividend and slash the bonuses paid traders?
Don’t the little pension funds like the Florida School Fund that unsuspectingly bought these supposedly AAA rated instruments deserve a bailout more than the perpetrators of the sub-prime mess.
Posted by: John Bishop | January 31, 2008, 6:24 pm 6:24 pm
I’m glad to see so much more action here tonight than last night. I think it shows that Democrats are much more involved this year than the Republicans are. A good sign for the forces of light in November.
Posted by: steven | January 31, 2008, 6:29 pm 6:29 pm
Go Hillary Go!!!
Hillary has the experience and the ability to answer for the people.
We want change from the Republican Party. That’s the main ingredient.
The Clinton years were wonderful and President Clinton deserves much more respect from Obama and all commentators. He was a President well loved by 80 percent of the people.
Our country was wonderful. I had a beautiful home and a thriving business. Now I am having a rough time just having to make ends meet.
Hillary knows the ropes.
Vote a Democrat. That’s the biggest change we need!
Forget Obama…who is he anyway?
You Go Girl!
Posted by: Alecki | January 31, 2008, 6:29 pm 6:29 pm
Mark, with all due respect. Norman Hsu is old news, and it was proven they was no wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton. Being a Chicagoan for all my life, we have all know about how dirty Obama plays and who he plays with. No surprises with Hillary, much more being quashed by the msm for Obama, until if by some strange chance , he gets the democratic nomination. They and only then will the media pull out all the dirt on Obama.
Posted by: Jay | January 31, 2008, 6:33 pm 6:33 pm
Alecki — ummmm…yeah…right….
Posted by: Mark | January 31, 2008, 6:34 pm 6:34 pm
Jay, with all due respect reciprocated, Mr. Hsu is only “old news” as long as he’s allowed to *remain* “old news.” If we hear more Rezko shots from Hillary, I suspect Barack will go for Hsu. As for Mrs. Clinton having been completely exonerated in her own sordid little mess, I’m not so sure. Trying to nuance and explain the subtleties of such entanglements is difficult if not impossible, so I’m merely suggesting that since no one in this race is without some such “baggage,” each side would be wise in exercising discretion in attacking the other.
Posted by: Mark | January 31, 2008, 6:40 pm 6:40 pm
Mark, I completely concur. But there is much more about Obama being the “New Kid on the Block” that many are not aware of,and the biased msm won’t report on.
That being said, I think if either Obama or Hillary brings up this type of negativity instead of the issues, all’s fair and the gloves come off, and I think this is when Mr. Obama is at a tactical disadvantage.
Posted by: Jay | January 31, 2008, 6:44 pm 6:44 pm
Hillary Corporate Wal-Mart Lawyer
Michelle Obama, Treehouse Co. biggest customer is Wal-Mart.
Mr Hsu donated money to Clinton – she gave back $860K
Mr Hsu also donated to Obama – won’t admit it and hasn’t given it back yet.
Points to Clinton’s lack of experience – White House doesn’t count.
The Ethics Bill Obama touts -
he didn’t write it.
He didn’t co-write it.
He didn’t alter it.
He didn’t have anything to do with it. Oh, and it was ‘hard to get that bill passed?’
It took just 14 days from creation to passage.
It wasn’t hard.
It wasn’t Obama.
He cannot be right all the time, every time, without exception, ever.
He managed to pass VERY few bills in his state, and to date there is no mass exodus of Americans moving to the New Jerusalem in Illinois. There are no floods of traffic ENTERING Illinois to join in the miracles that folks living under Obama’s rule have enjoyed. Illinois’ economy is a mess.
The big cities are looking rundown, traffic sucks, the poor are poorer, the unemployed are still unemployed. Those in the dark still can’t pay for lights. Those hungry are still on the streets. Those without medical care are still without medical care.
If Illinois hasn’t got it right yet, then why in the world is Obama going to be given the Nation to experiment on and fail on.
This Obamathon has got to come to an abrupt halt. We have overwhelming polls showing all the big states are SLAMMING Obama, 20+ point leads, but we have the media trying ALREADY, days before the event, to twist this into some kind of sweeping victory for Obama.
Latinos are flocking to Obama? Really? Where?
Not Nevada.
Not Michigan.
Not Florida.
It doesnt matter that Michigan and Florida don’t have seated delegates. The population came out and kicked the CRAP out of Obama. They didn’t care that the seats won’t be seated.
They came out and voted against him in droves.
Posted by: 2009 Where Are You? | January 31, 2008, 6:45 pm 6:45 pm
my only concern here is what in the hell are these candidates going to do about the illegal price gouging at our gas pumps?
Posted by: Pat | January 31, 2008, 6:52 pm 6:52 pm
Hillary is going to kick Obama’s butt. Clintons are done playing nice. She’s gonna bury Obama with his own double talk. I need to make popcorn…its SMACK down!!!
Posted by: ken | January 31, 2008, 7:00 pm 7:00 pm
Sean: I disagree with you. Obama made the first attacks with the first debate and he kept attacking Hillary until Bill Clinton came along and put him in his place.He didn’t like what Bill Clinton said because he does not like to be scolded. He’s like a kid that never grew up. How would he run the country. He didn’t even congratulate Hillary on her win in New Hampshire. Another thing he is not going to win the nomination because he won’t win the big big states that she will. No one cares about Ted Kennedy anymore and most of this generation doesn’t know JFK because many of them were not born yet. Kennedy should retire and Kerry should stay out of the campaign altogether. The change that Obama talks about is changing a white president to a black president but this generation is too dumb to read between the lines.
Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | January 31, 2008, 7:08 pm 7:08 pm
Just wondering: Obama would not choose Richardson for VP. What in the world are you thinking? In reality he really would like Oprah and then her ratings would go down and under. Get real and smarten up. That’s like saying Hillary would choose Obama. Are you kidding me?
Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | January 31, 2008, 7:12 pm 7:12 pm
I really don’t know where MSNBC got Chuck Todd but they better straighten him out as he is a very bad analylist. He can’t estimate anything and what he does say is all wrong. And the polls are up and down and all around never really right until the votes come in.
Clinton is winning Nationally right now and will win California, Mass. Arizona, Okla, PA, and more. And he is no JFK. He could never be like JFK. What is Carolyn thinking? Is she stupid or blind?
Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | January 31, 2008, 7:20 pm 7:20 pm
Sorry, I meant Evan.
I Posted that news, because the Obama biased networks never do…
Posted by: Jay | January 31, 2008, 7:30 pm 7:30 pm
no staffers. I have been watching simultaneously CNN and MSNBC, while going to their websites and ABCNEWS. Find me 5 nice stories in the last 3 days about Clinton. Find me 3 positive articles. You can’t. You won’t.
I just wonder if this is a rouse (sp?) roose, ruse? LOL. Is the media doing this so that when things start to turn the tide, they cannot be called out as racist. They have given way more than a fair ride to Obama as far as hard, critical, repeated stories.
So when Hillary cleans up the big big states, the media is going to have shift the fairy tale. Ok, Obama wins Georgia and Kansas and a few other smaller states with not ver many delegates.
Survive tonight. Survive until Tuesday. And this Obamathon is going to go off the air for a few hours.
Posted by: 2009 Where Are You? | January 31, 2008, 7:33 pm 7:33 pm
2009 where are yu: You are so right. And she will clean up the big states leaving Obama in the dust to sweep up.Chris Matthews and Tucker try hard to hide their support for Obama but it shows in the way they talk. Edwards should not endorse any candidate and wait to see who gets the nomination. I wonder if he’s that smart. Bill Richardson should do the same. Hillary doesn’t need Edwards to endorse her because she is capable of getting the votes anyway even if he endorsed Obama. Look what happened in Nevada and New Hampshire people didn’t pay attention to the unions they did what they wanted. Obama is a desperate man and so is Ted Kennedy desperate to knock Hillary out of the face. Bill Clinton told him off on the telephone that’s why he endorsed Obama.The Dynasty is over. Bill Clinton was in NM today and I understand so was Kennedy. Wonder who won.
Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | January 31, 2008, 7:44 pm 7:44 pm
Good evening all. Look forward to your commentary, Rick.
To 2009: I don’t think there’s any great plot in the media to give Obama preferential coverage for any particular reason. I understand how compelling his candidacy is and I support Hillary. He’s a great candidate and his day will come.
Posted by: andy | January 31, 2008, 7:44 pm 7:44 pm
Look. I have written this time and time again and not one person has answered it.
If Obama has performed such miracles in office, then why isn’t the country desperate to more to Illinois?
It must be obvious how much hope and change Obama has brought to the state. It MUST be blatantly different then the quagmire the rest of us subsist in.
Where are the jammed highways full of desperate emmigrators?
Where are all the marches in the streets, waving thank you signs in the air?
Why are Obama’s solutions to the troubles of hunger, homelessness, and illness, why are his solutions NOT universally adapted to ALL states?
Why hasn’t the government and the media noticed this revolutionary Illinois Nirvana?
Why?
Because it is all bs. It never happened. It’s not presently happening. And if Obama repeats his Illinois performance for the nation, it is NEVER going to even be close to happening.
So, where are all you Illinois converts? All you success stories? All you drug addicts free of drugs? All you hungry people now fed? All you unclothed people warm and covered? All you poor folks homeless now sheltered? All you unemployed people now working?
WHERE ARE YOU?
You are figments of our hero’s ambitious, ego-maniacle imagination.
PS – dictionary.com will help with those big words, Obama grads.
Posted by: 2009 Where Are You? | January 31, 2008, 7:50 pm 7:50 pm
I am so happy that Obama raised 32 Million. The MSM will take note of this and continue to give him his FREE RIDE because he will advertise on their media and keep them employed. I am turnign to John McCain as the Democratic party is being sold out for a druggie. BTW, I am not a Hillary Supporter and was a John Edwards supporter but not supporting BO.
Posted by: tim | January 31, 2008, 7:55 pm 7:55 pm
To the Clinton staffers oh sorry I mean supporters check out the lates poll for CA Obama within 3 of Clinton. How many more delegates will she get than Obama in CA. Also I think raising $32 million in 1 month shows a lot of organization capabilities to me.
Posted by: Evan | January 31, 2008, 7:57 pm 7:57 pm
Maybe that’s why Edwards dropped out of the race yesterday…he wanted to be at the game tonight and not the debate!!
Posted by: Louise | January 31, 2008, 7:59 pm 7:59 pm
The Obama campaign now quotes a Student Newspaper to prove that his plan is “Universal”. That’s right, he can’t find one healthcare advocate or legitamate source that believes that his plan provides Universal coverage.
Posted by: Ture Democrat | January 31, 2008, 7:59 pm 7:59 pm
2009,
First, your demands on the leadership of one state senator in a state with a corrupt governor are far too high.
Second, if Hillary’s experience is the main reason to vote for her, why did she vote YEA for the Iraq war? Why did she vote to label the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization? Why did she vote for the bankruptcy bill?
Third, if you’re going to use big words like “egomaniacal”, I invite you to use dictionary.com to double check your spelling.
Cheers!
Posted by: Jake | January 31, 2008, 8:00 pm 8:00 pm
yeah I type fast sorry
At least she was there to vote for those ideas. Barrack was hiding.
As for a lot to ask, he is promising the world. He hasn’t delivered this uniting revolution in his own state. No point in battling that. He hasn’t made the change in his own back yard, let alone being able to do it across the nation.
Posted by: 2009 Where Are You? | January 31, 2008, 8:06 pm 8:06 pm
to JOHN;
how in heaven’s name can you say in all honesty that this blog and others are not completely biased AGAINST sen. clinton? i am so tired of the negativity by the MALE-stream media. the woman is extremely accomplished and can truly run this country, this is not a racial problem facing these candidates, but, a gender one.but, keep on talking-every woman, including your own mother will come out in full force to vote her into office.
Posted by: stephanie | January 31, 2008, 8:11 pm 8:11 pm
sorry again, I mangle my typing.
Of course I could say that as you are supporting a Harvard grad, with a very white accented voice, no southern dialect AT ALL EVER. Accept that is when pandering to black audiences about MLK.
So I will accept my typos and misspelled words. I will not accept pretend blathering like you were a civil rights activist in the deep south in the 1960′s, rather than a well off, half black half multi-racial, harvard grad, who speaks like a spokesman from the midwest.
I think it is phoney. I think it is on purpose. And I think that people that want to make BO into JFK and MLK need to worry less about typos and more about reality.
This is an Obamathon. An unspecific, indirect, dodgy, distracting, ducking, hiding, distorting mess is being put upon us here, and though the words are lovely, they are as empty of facts and details as George W’s brain.
Posted by: 2009 Where Are You? | January 31, 2008, 8:17 pm 8:17 pm
You ever hear about parents who are getting divorced trying to convince the kids that they’re the cool parent the kids should live with? I feel like that’s what I’m watching with the two-pronged Edwards suck up.
I LOVE YOU, EDWARDS SUPPORTERS
NO, I LOVE YOU MORE, EDWARDS SUPPORTERS.
Sheesh.
Posted by: Jake | January 31, 2008, 8:20 pm 8:20 pm
but notice how all the spellcheckers don’t answer any of the questions I posed. None. They never do.
They have no answers. Illinois is not revolutionary.
The Ethics Bill in Obama’s ads wasn’t his.
He slams Hillary and Wal-Mart while his wife takes money from a company connected to Wal-Mart.
He talks about donations from Mr. Hsu, while he received funds from Mr. Hsu.
He talks about change and Illinois is no different. He talks about being positive and has been as nasty as he could, twisting statement into race (It does take a President to sign into law, the law, not matter what you people think MLK could achieve on his own).
He talks the good talk. He has no results and hasn’t even finished the job he was elected to do before he was letting his ego and ambition drive him to a position he has no business even attempting until he has been in office at least one term.
Clinton didn’t run in 2004 when she could have, but she knew she needed one term complete and a re-election under her belt.
He doesn’t seem to think any of this counts or applies to him. He is above all that drivel. He KNOWS he is ready.
Posted by: 2009 Where Are You? | January 31, 2008, 8:22 pm 8:22 pm
Stephanie: I don’t think the msm is anti-Clinton. I just think she’s their second choice.
Posted by: Sylvia | January 31, 2008, 8:26 pm 8:26 pm
2009: Clinton received a total of $873,000 from Norman Hsu. Obama got $5,000. I suggest a more substantive line of spin/attack, my friend.
Posted by: Mark | January 31, 2008, 8:29 pm 8:29 pm
the figure is irrelevant. Obama will not admit it. Now, how about the other things I have mentioned.
What’s the Wal-Mart excuse, because there is ALWAYS an excuse from the Obamathon. It is always everyone elses misconception. Misrepresentation. Distortion. Distraction.
What about the Ethics Bill. That ad is a lie. And ‘I am Barrack Obama and I support this ad’.
Posted by: 2009 Where Are You? | January 31, 2008, 8:31 pm 8:31 pm
Rick, haven’t read your liveblogging DURING a debate till now – you’re doing a great job. Good to get the instant take as it goes along.
Posted by: stevej | January 31, 2008, 8:33 pm 8:33 pm
What is the cost of healthcare for illegal immigrants??? What abiout the cost of medical lawsuits and malpractice insurance?? What about Wall Street making millions on our retirement accounts???
Posted by: Joan | January 31, 2008, 8:34 pm 8:34 pm
Hillary’s health care plan is very similar to Mitt Romney’s: EVERYONE is forced/required to buy health care coverage, while Obama’s plan provides greater choice and flexibility, making affordable care available to ALL, but requiring only that ALL CHILDREN be covered.
Posted by: Mark | January 31, 2008, 8:35 pm 8:35 pm
2009: To the contrary; the figures in this case ARE NOT “irrelevant,” least of all simply because YOU declare them so.
Posted by: Mark | January 31, 2008, 8:37 pm 8:37 pm
13 minutes is all I could take. They are in fairy land.
Posted by: MarinesCallmeDoc7 | January 31, 2008, 8:38 pm 8:38 pm
Obama seems to be getting the first question all the time allowing him to come up with the popular anti-republican line and therefore getting the applause before Hillary
Posted by: Louise | January 31, 2008, 8:41 pm 8:41 pm
they both have some great ideas and i like that they r being civil. and the way they will pay for there healthcare plans is great.
Posted by: free.nation | January 31, 2008, 8:42 pm 8:42 pm
Rick — I’m not too worried about the RNC; if I recall the polling correctly, a majority of Americans consistently favors overturning Bush’s massive tax-dollar giveaway to the uber-wealthy….
Posted by: Mark | January 31, 2008, 8:44 pm 8:44 pm
Wow!! Obama is looking very presidential on this debate tonight..Im very impressed to say the least. Hillary come across like she has so much anger…What a shame..Im a John supporter who will now shift my support for Obama. Hes so eloquent and to the point…Wow!!!!
Posted by: Mr Herry Grace | January 31, 2008, 8:47 pm 8:47 pm
Obama is not answering the question about ‘humane’…if Obama is going to say something then he needs to defend it.
Posted by: Louise | January 31, 2008, 8:47 pm 8:47 pm
Great. So, all those people who have been waiting patiently in line to immigrate here, get stiffed. What would be th eincentive to saty in the queue? They would be more likely to say, “forget it,” and just come here illegally, cross the border and gather enough funds to pay the fine. It would be alot quicker than coninuing to wait in line! So, we end up rewarding those who broke the law! Very, very, bad idea.
Posted by: Dennis | January 31, 2008, 8:48 pm 8:48 pm
Obama, refreshingly, is actually answering questions. Clinton has yet to provide a direct response to a question. She also runs on and on saying nothing.
Posted by: David | January 31, 2008, 8:50 pm 8:50 pm
Is this taking place in Mexico or Cali .. oh – same difference! Of course they’re going to go easy on immigration issues. Lies lies and more lies! Open up your pocketbooks people – here come the Dems to decrease your take home pay!
Posted by: Dorf | January 31, 2008, 8:50 pm 8:50 pm
Obama the Anointed one by Oprah, if Oprah endorsed him, who are we to think otherwise?
Posted by: Patty | January 31, 2008, 8:51 pm 8:51 pm
You don’t deport but let immigrants leave through attrition. Hillary is makin git sounds like deportations the only other option. Narrow minded solutions. If you go after the employers, and don’t give benefits, they will have to reason to stay illegally. Then we reward those who are trying to come here “legally” –fancy that?!
Posted by: Dennis | January 31, 2008, 8:53 pm 8:53 pm
Clinton respects the dignity of every human being? Three pinochios to Clinton.
Posted by: David | January 31, 2008, 8:54 pm 8:54 pm
Seriously – I don’t get it .. Dems look at things like this. IF you’re making not so great money and struggling the govt should take care of you .. and let those who’ve busted ARSE and are successful “well, sorry” you’re going to take care of them by paying higher taxes?? Exactly what’s wrong with this country .. promotes laziness!! If you can’t make it in this country – give up!
Posted by: Mike | January 31, 2008, 8:55 pm 8:55 pm
Riddle me this , How does a candidate win a State (FL) without a single delegate? I do not get this one!
Posted by: magman | January 31, 2008, 8:55 pm 8:55 pm
Absolutely, Neal, you got it right. Hillary has substance and class. This debate will seal the nomination for her because Americans can draw clear differences now and will appreciate their votes for her. Go Hillary! Go!!
Posted by: Anka | January 31, 2008, 8:57 pm 8:57 pm
I have to admit, Im came in a Hillary supporter but after looking at the dabate tonight, Borack looks so much like a presideny. I fell that hes right on target when it comes to issues thats affecting our America. I agree with the previous coment.
Posted by: Anthony Penrose | January 31, 2008, 8:58 pm 8:58 pm
Rick, if the knock on Obama is “style without substance”, how can they not be thrilled that he’s more than holding his own in a policy-centric debate?
Posted by: Jake | January 31, 2008, 8:59 pm 8:59 pm
mike—— u dont get it i know alot of people that work 60 hours a week and have no insurance because there company doesnt offer any, and at there $10 an hour they cant afford it on there own when it cost so much. my wife and i have are own insurance for the two of us and two kids it cost $700 a month and doesnt cover crap. between the two of us we work 5 jobs.so i am not lazy and i would bet 75% of people needing insurance are not lazy. they just work for small companies that dont have insurance.
Posted by: free.nation | January 31, 2008, 8:59 pm 8:59 pm
Free – why would you even consider working for a company that doesn’t offer insurance?? My God – this is America and you’re free to work for whom you choose!!
Posted by: Mike | January 31, 2008, 9:02 pm 9:02 pm
Why does it seem like the moderator is so one-sided and to Clinton? She’s getting much more airtime than he is – and better questions that “support” her. Like the question about her experience as first lady. Hillary is as much of a snake as Bill was. She talks out of both sides of her mouth and talks a good game but she is a master manipulator and God help us if she actually manages to get elected!
Posted by: Kelly | January 31, 2008, 9:06 pm 9:06 pm
My DSL home page, just provided some early details of the Bush 2008 budget which we all inherit. He is going to reduce the defict by guess how – slashing at Health Care costs in the US! Of course. Still money for war. Hope all of you and particularly soon-to-be or the retired have money left over to buy private health care. Else you are like to be hurting. Have either one of them given us cold hard facts – like how much? I like to know ahead of time. This elderly lady does not worship at anybody’s altar just because… I’m not senile so do not just pat me on the head or talk down or assume my vote. Earn it!
Posted by: tcnz | January 31, 2008, 9:08 pm 9:08 pm
HILLARY IS IT! A WOMAN IN THE WHITE-HOUSE, THAT WILL BE THE ULTIMATE CHANGE.
Posted by: Anka | January 31, 2008, 9:09 pm 9:09 pm
No one should ever vote for a woman to become President because the candidate was a woman or vote for a black to become President because the candidate was black.
Posted by: David | January 31, 2008, 9:09 pm 9:09 pm
Mike, your comment is just ludicrous!!! You can definitely be working your as* out and not make enough money to make a living or at least afford health insurance. And there are tons of people who have plenty of money and spend the whole day at the beach!
Posted by: Matthew | January 31, 2008, 9:10 pm 9:10 pm
well there is no other jobs around and the jobs in my area r under $10 an hour.and what you say is what everyone with your opinion says(and there r very few of you). unless you havent been watching the news and listening to all politicians, the economy sucks there are very few jobs for the working class, and i know you will say well go to school get some training,better yourself. well if all the people in my situation went and got extra schooling we would still find that there is not enough jobs in higher educated fields. and alot of the working class are not smart enough top get extar education they are hard working people but not college material. so with that said they still have health care issues. what about them???
Posted by: free.nation | January 31, 2008, 9:11 pm 9:11 pm
Kelly…You’ll be alright once she’s in the Oval Office, so take an aspirin and chill! GO HILLARY!! HILLARY 08!!!
Posted by: Neal | January 31, 2008, 9:13 pm 9:13 pm
I could be wrong (wouldn’t be the first time), but in many of the “pro-Hillary” comments on here tonight, I think I sense a number of folks trying to convince *themselves* of how well she’s doing. Yes, she’s strong and smart, poised and prepared, but certainly no more so than Obama. In fact, I predict there’ll be quite few pro-Obama surprises come Feb 5: for example, today’s fresh Rasmussen poll now has Obama within THREE POINTS of Clinton in California — well within the margin of error!
Posted by: Mark | January 31, 2008, 9:13 pm 9:13 pm
A clever line re needing a clinton to clean up for a bush. But Barack I think can clean up bush as well.
Posted by: steve | January 31, 2008, 9:16 pm 9:16 pm
Mike: It is a fact, google on it, that many companies have cut back on group health plans as costs go through the roof and on retirement plans to cut back on costs to be able to run a business. And, not everybody can just pick up and go to another town or State to find a job. And, don’t we have a problem brewing with job losses-like unemployment creeping up. And, I definitely heard somebody in DC who shall be nameless say that small businesses are critical to our economy.
Posted by: tcnz | January 31, 2008, 9:16 pm 9:16 pm
Matthew .. umm – ok. How long do you continue to do that and complain about it before you make some changes OR is that the governments job? Now I can’t wait to hear this because you’re talking to someone who lost his father when he was 8 and his mother at 20 .. and NO there wasn’t an inheritance!! I went in the military for 6 yrs to earn money for college and got off my rear .. I just have a hard time feeling sorry for people who don’t realize what it takes to survive in this world!
Posted by: Mike | January 31, 2008, 9:17 pm 9:17 pm
She is quick witted and continues to trash the Bush regime but her husband disgraced our country with his extracurricular activities in the whitehouse and his perjury on the stand. She supported him only because she had an agenda – she wanted to use him to further her career. Which she did when he pardoned the people who financed her senate run. Obama is way too polite. He doesn’t want to bring up the negatives but she has no problem getting her digs in…especially when she can trash his experience or lack of. Well, wasn’t her husband fairly inexperienced when we elected him president?
Posted by: Kelly | January 31, 2008, 9:17 pm 9:17 pm
Barack by a landslide?? Seriously?? I thinks it pretty close with Hillary nudging it…
Posted by: Louise | January 31, 2008, 9:18 pm 9:18 pm
As to experience, Clinton will never bring unity in the House or Senate despite her alleging that she has done so at times over the last alleged “35 years.”
Posted by: David | January 31, 2008, 9:19 pm 9:19 pm
What are they going to do to bring jobs back to America? manufacturing,appliances, Electronics, Automoble, textiles, toys. Everything is being made cheaper overseas: Good paying jobs are lost. We are losing our middle income america due to downsizing and moving jobs overseas.
Posted by: Jerry | January 31, 2008, 9:20 pm 9:20 pm
No Anka, having a woman as President wouldn’t be nearly as much change as having a black President. Let’s face it, we’ve had far more women in high power in administrations than African Americans. Ironically enough, when it comes to that, the Republicans have had a far more diversified field in those positions–look at Rice, Powell, or Thomas for Supreme Court and so on.
We already have Pelosi currently #3 in power. We’ve never had any African American this high. But, regardless, we shouldn’t vote based off of gender or race, but real change which is what Obama offers. Hillary represents the old school status quo of division and demonizing the opposition. No more Bushes, no more Clintons.
Posted by: Jackson | January 31, 2008, 9:23 pm 9:23 pm
I am a retired middle income american. my stocks are losing value. my CD’s, bonds, etc are nost making any money for me. What can be done to help the working man. he pays the bills for the welfare and other aid to the poor. he must have help.
Posted by: Jerry | January 31, 2008, 9:23 pm 9:23 pm
mike—— could you answer what i said?
and what tcnz said? this is a government statistic that my boss showed me he got from the fed gov… half of all employers in the usa dont offer insurance…….that is a fact.
Posted by: free.nation | January 31, 2008, 9:23 pm 9:23 pm
mike—— could you answer what i said?
and what tcnz said? this is a government statistic that my boss showed me he got from the fed gov… half of all employers in the usa dont offer insurance…….that is a fact.
Posted by: free.nation | January 31, 2008, 9:23 pm 9:23 pm
If Hillary gets the nod, I’m voting Republican – I don’t care which one wins. McCain or Romney would be better than another term of the Clinton regime. Doesn’t anyone see the corruption with her and Bill.
This moderator – The guy – is hardly unbiased. Another comment – Hillary, I believe that swipe was at you. Does anyone else see the bias in this moderation? The pleasure in the years – the experience as first lady, now the swipe comment. He should be fired.
Posted by: Kelly | January 31, 2008, 9:24 pm 9:24 pm
Hillary Clinton may have more “experience” (if that’s what you want to call such endeavors as sitting on the board of Wal-Mart and disasterous health care flubs), but Obama has experienced much better judgement (voting against authorizing the War in Iraq).
I personally want a president who gets it right the first time. OBAMA got this California girl’s vote!
Posted by: jenny | January 31, 2008, 9:25 pm 9:25 pm
Rob-is-Right .. how long have you been working on Obama Husseins campaign?
Posted by: Bruce | January 31, 2008, 9:26 pm 9:26 pm
Absolutely not David… I think Senator Obama makes a very good point by noting McCain’s willingness to continue the policies set by the Bush Administration for as long as it takes. I don’t think there’s such thing as pointing things like this too early in a hotly contested democratic primary such as this.
Posted by: Evan | January 31, 2008, 9:26 pm 9:26 pm
I think it’s perfectly natural and highly desirable for Obama to mention McCain at this point because, according to every poll I’ve seen, he’s the only one on that stage who can compete successfully for those same independents voters McCain would be relying upon for his own victory this November, should he be the GOP nominee. Democratic voters need to keep this fact firmly in mind when selecting their candidate.
Posted by: Mark | January 31, 2008, 9:28 pm 9:28 pm
Free – if you’re telling me it’s NOT worth going to school OR changing the field you’re in because it won’t pay off .. then that’s just a cynical and defeatist attitude!! Trust me .. it’s worth it.
Posted by: Mike | January 31, 2008, 9:30 pm 9:30 pm
I sense that Clinton is making an opening to have Obama as her VP–she needs the voters he would bring. She’s been nodding her head to his Iraq answer now for about 3 minutes.
Posted by: Julie Stuart | January 31, 2008, 9:32 pm 9:32 pm
I sense that Clinton is making an opening to have Obama as her VP–she needs the voters he would bring. She’s been nodding her head to his Iraq answer now for about 3 minutes.
Posted by: Julie | January 31, 2008, 9:32 pm 9:32 pm
Posted by: Anka | Jan 31, 2008 9:09:21 PM: HILLARY IS IT! A WOMAN
“All change is not growth, as all movement is not forward. ”
OBAMA is the change I want to see in the world.
Obama ’08!
Posted by: jenny | January 31, 2008, 9:32 pm 9:32 pm
In other words FREE .. you’d better take the horse by the reins and increase your odds (with education) of obtaining a job WITH a company that offers insurance! Why would you even accept that .. half of all US employers don’t offer insurance? If I’m calculating correctly that leaves a hell of a lot that do.
Posted by: Mike | January 31, 2008, 9:33 pm 9:33 pm
I’ld like to know how he’s going to change Washington? That is his arguement,isn’t it?
Posted by: trishia | January 31, 2008, 9:34 pm 9:34 pm
Clinton seems to be leading the unifying statements on the war. That is going to be key if the Dems expect to win the election.
Posted by: dawgler | January 31, 2008, 9:35 pm 9:35 pm
Senator Clinton’s vote did *indeed* grant Bush his “authority for preemptive war.” She can never spin or nuance that one away! Better to make peace with it.
Posted by: Mark | January 31, 2008, 9:35 pm 9:35 pm
Wow.
Clinton isn’t even hitting the backboard with that answer about Iraq. Isn’t she one of those who didn’t bother to READ the report she was given? And ow on earth is it possible to KNOW if she had been President she wouldn’t have authorized the war?
Blew that answer bigtime IMO.
Posted by: korey | January 31, 2008, 9:35 pm 9:35 pm
i am not acually complaining for my self oi dont mind hard work. but you didnt answer my question. over half of the people in this country work for businesses that offer no insurance and they are payed so little that they cant afford insurance on there own. what should they do? not all of them can get more education and still find jobs. there is not even that many jobs in high skilled jobs available. i work with 2 guys that have 4 years of college behind them they cant find jobs in what they went to school for.
Posted by: free.nation | January 31, 2008, 9:35 pm 9:35 pm
Evan, I’m missing your point. Please state again why you think Clinton can bring unity in the House and Senate. I think Obama can do so, but not Clinton.
Posted by: David | January 31, 2008, 9:36 pm 9:36 pm
Hillary seems to be allowed more time to answer. The questions are biased to her favour too. CNN is netoriously pro
Clinton as is Wolf. Ebarassing.
Posted by: Dennis | January 31, 2008, 9:38 pm 9:38 pm
Free – I’m in NO way trying to degrade you .. I’m just saying what every adult already knows – it’s hell out there bud. I don’t have any clue of your situation and I wish you all the best.
Posted by: Mike | January 31, 2008, 9:38 pm 9:38 pm
Clinton cannot unite this country she is as polarizing as Bush. There are a whole lotta folks who loathe the Clintons. She’s the road to gridlock. Not saying it’s her fault but the fact is she cannot unify this country.
Posted by: korey | January 31, 2008, 9:39 pm 9:39 pm
Obama does’t try to unite. He is however dividing.
Posted by: trishia | January 31, 2008, 9:40 pm 9:40 pm
Talk of Iraq has grown a bit stale perhaps, but still it cuts to the heart of Clinton’s argument re Obama’s alleged “lack of experience”: If Senator Clinton’s “experience” is of such superior value, how then did she manage to get snookered into Bush’s Iraq debacle in the first place?
Posted by: Mark | January 31, 2008, 9:41 pm 9:41 pm
find the interview with Elias Bermudez, ex-mayor in Arizona. It is very interesting and tells alot about what the illegals are really thinking.
Posted by: kelly | January 31, 2008, 9:43 pm 9:43 pm
I agree w/ Corey 100% and disagree w/ Trishia 100%. Obama’s accomplishments evidence his ability to unify folks. Can he continue? I think yes.
Posted by: David | January 31, 2008, 9:46 pm 9:46 pm
mike —-thank you for that. amd i hope all goes well for you. i know it is hell ot there. i just think that we need to help the less fortunate,and i dont meen some kids in africa, i know 10 families in my home town that are just about starving. and have no health care they have a kid that has aids from a blodd transfusion. the dad was working at a factory that closed and moved to china. now he has no insurance for the help his son needs. he is working 2 part time jobs because there is no other work. its for people like him that i will vote for a democrat. the republican want to just write people like him off and say well tough luck buddy. god bless you. and leave him and family to suffer, that is not right, not in this great nation
Posted by: free.nation | January 31, 2008, 9:46 pm 9:46 pm
Who is this Politico panelist? She’s and embarrassment to journalism.
Posted by: Sylvia | January 31, 2008, 9:47 pm 9:47 pm
I agree: Unless she chooses an infinitely unifying running mate, whether her fault or not, Senator Clinton will prove a polarizing, divisive figure in the general election, thoroughly energizing dispirited Republicans. And if she does eke out a November win, it’ll likely result in 4-8 more years of the 51%-49%, “red state/blue state blues.”
Posted by: Mark | January 31, 2008, 9:47 pm 9:47 pm
But at the end of the day, if it’s lonely in the White House and the POTUS has to make the call, how can she say she has substantive experience as First Lady? It’s one or the other and can’t be both.
Posted by: Jake | January 31, 2008, 9:49 pm 9:49 pm
My take on the discussion tonight:
Clinton – cute sound bites, no substance.
Obama – preciseness in answers, the clear winner.
Thanks Rick Klein and ABC News!
Posted by: David | January 31, 2008, 9:50 pm 9:50 pm
Hillary Im deeply sorry. I came in your supporter and now I change my mind. I will vote for Borack. Hillary you were flip/floping the issue on the Iraq war..When asked a question you dance around it like its a joke!!! Obama not only answer the issues more sincerly, he looked and acted much presidential than you…Who ever say debates dont matter well think again…Borack Obama 2008…
Posted by: Mrs. Grace | January 31, 2008, 9:51 pm 9:51 pm
Trishia, let’s explain this to you. Obama changes Washington politicss by not so quickly, conveniently, demonizing the all opposition and polarizing the electorate on every issue as the Clintons have thrived on –remember “vast right wing conspiracy” and other such nonsense? Obama is personally a lot more honourable in his relationships than the Clintons have been; he is not known for an outrageous tongue and language or underhanded slime politics as the Clintons are known for too. Republicans can even find honour in someone as liberal as Obama because he is an essentially good man, could never be said for Hillary. Even those close to the Clintons know they are anythign but.
Posted by: Jackson | January 31, 2008, 9:51 pm 9:51 pm
Oh gosh, what a boring debate. I hate to admit it, but think Clinton had the upper hand.
Posted by: Jackson | January 31, 2008, 9:53 pm 9:53 pm
Free – I understand your viewpoints .. I really do and unlike most I can disagree with someone (OR a solution to it) without arguing and name calling. Keep doing what you feel is best and hang in there! Good luck to you too!
Posted by: Mike | January 31, 2008, 9:57 pm 9:57 pm
that was one of the best debates i have ever watched and i have been watching them since the 70,s. and that last moment really looked honest and sincere. obama even pulled out hillary,s chair when they were getting up. WOW!!!
Posted by: free.nation | January 31, 2008, 9:57 pm 9:57 pm
Note this passage from a different ABCNews.com piece about how unhappy and ambivalent Republican voters feel toward their candidates: “With dislike of McCain and distrust of Romney, some say only one candidate could unify and energize conservative voters: Hillary Clinton.”
Posted by: Mark | January 31, 2008, 9:58 pm 9:58 pm
Romney puts all of these candidates in the shade when speaking on the issues. Hillary and Obama have the combined mental capacity of a 5th grader.
Posted by: Ken | January 31, 2008, 9:58 pm 9:58 pm
Well, Ken, I see you’ve studied at the Mitt Romney School of making friends and influencing people! Good luck with that!
Posted by: Mark | January 31, 2008, 10:00 pm 10:00 pm
Shame on you, Bruce. ; ) Personally, I think “Mrs. Grace” and her “husband” are actually Clintonistas trying to make Obamans look bad. Seriously. I mean, “Borock?” Give me a break.
Posted by: Mark | January 31, 2008, 10:03 pm 10:03 pm
Rick,
You clearly like Hillary more.
Your coverage of the entire debate was slanted to her side.
Next time, stop telling your personal leanings and stick with something that has just a bit more journalistic intergrity.
Posted by: Duane | January 31, 2008, 10:04 pm 10:04 pm
Obama seems like a nice guy, but the only thing he’s ever “changed” is his clothes. As for Hilliary, have you ever seen a more detestable and unlikeable person? As I was watching the debate, even the hair on my dog’s back stood up every type Hillary opened her mouth.
Posted by: Ken | January 31, 2008, 10:04 pm 10:04 pm
Your live blog very well-well done and helpful. Please don’t ignore Blitzer’s remark to Hill about her “naivete” on her Senate vote which drew huge boos from the audience. It was a very inappropriate and offhand remark by Wolf for which I think he should acknowledge some regret. Hillary won the debate hands-down!
Posted by: Tom | January 31, 2008, 10:08 pm 10:08 pm
This election is going to swing based on independents. The bases will stay loyal so it will come down to the middle.
Which candidates are attracting the middle? Overwhelmingly Obama and McCain. If the Gop goes with Romney they will lose if the Dems go with Clinton they will lose.
Obama v McCain would be interesting
Posted by: korey | January 31, 2008, 10:10 pm 10:10 pm
korey: I believe you’ve stated it perfectly — I wouldn’t add a thing. ‘Night all!
Posted by: Mark | January 31, 2008, 10:12 pm 10:12 pm
Korey,you are absolutely right abou the middel vote and the candidate election match up results.
Duane, I have to defend Rick. Especially considering it’s ABCNews, I think Rick is very fair, with astute, brilliant analysis and writing. I really think he tries to be as balanced as anyone can be, even when commenting on Republicans. I’ll look forward to “The Note” tomorrow!
Posted by: Dennis | January 31, 2008, 10:15 pm 10:15 pm
Mark…. Only slippery politicians, Repubs and Democrats quite frankly, are the ones who need to make friends and receive endorsements. Romney’s campaign is about the issues, not bloated rhetoric from Washington glad-handers and panderers. (See McCain, Hillary and Obama.) You can bet all those McCain endorsements will be followed by someone with their hand out if this old fool becomes President.
Posted by: Ken | January 31, 2008, 10:16 pm 10:16 pm
I think Hillary is opposite to Bill and Obama has to prove himself yet. But folks ELECT SOMEONE FROM MIDDLE CLASS. America have suffered a lot from this family dictatorship of Bushs. Bill was good coz he had exposure of Middle Class Families and their Problems. Hillary and Romani are too rich to understand a Middle clas American.
Posted by: AMERICAN | January 31, 2008, 10:27 pm 10:27 pm
I understand Hillary is planning on asking Obama to be her VP
Posted by: a.copley | January 31, 2008, 10:29 pm 10:29 pm
Ken, I got a real audible laugh off of your post:
Obama seems like a nice guy, but the only thing he’s ever “changed” is his clothes. As for Hilliary, have you ever seen a more detestable and unlikeable person? As I was watching the debate, even the hair on my dog’s back stood up every type Hillary opened her mouth.
LOL!!
Posted by: plainsmm | January 31, 2008, 10:29 pm 10:29 pm
Mike: I have no personal axe to grind since I am a County employee with both a group health plan and defined benefit plan and we work hard. But, our health costs shot up and County is a big negotiator. Got laid off along with thousands by Bush 1st in 1990 during 7.6 unemployment rate and thousands uncounted because their benefits had run out. I do not believe in free handouts but I have lived despair and seen it all around me through decisions over which I had no control. I am fortunate with some college so got an entry level job again finally at $950 gross a month in ’93. Better than that now thank you! I did not have kids. Americans used to be, and past tense, known as the most generous people as individuals but a sourness has crept in. The International United Way. No! But this business of “I’m alright Jack so up yours!” When did that happen?
Posted by: tcnz | January 31, 2008, 10:39 pm 10:39 pm
I am the first Evan not to be confused with the Clinton staffer using my name.
I say to Mike who say he joined to army to pay for his college tuition, for him to get a better life. I also am a ex-military man. The first thing that you learn in the military is that you always take care your weakest link. Because not all soldiers are a potential Medal of Honor recipient, an Army is only as strong as its weakest link. So if a soldier is suffering for whatever the reason then his or her commanding officers duty to spend whatever is needed to ease that soldiers suffering that he or she can be all that they can be.
Therefore in civilian life the commanding officer is the gov. Working families in the USA are suffering, cannot afford health care are losing their jobs to China or India and you sit on your high horse saying that they are lazy. Where did the money for you to go to college come from? The American Tax payer.
Now because the gov. may use some of your tax dollars to help those hard working families who need health care you say they are lazy. HAVE YOU NO SAME? How can you live with yourself? Then again it is men like you who are in the White House who are turning the USA into a second rate nation.
A society is judge by not how much money it makes but by how it treats its less fortunate.
I hope you can sleep well in the cookoo land that you live in.
Posted by: Evan | January 31, 2008, 10:50 pm 10:50 pm
Hillary did an excellent job of explaining why she voted as she did on Iraq. And to her credit, she actually took a stand back in 2003 on the Iraq issue. She didn’t look for a way to get out of having to make a decision.
Posted by: Mary | January 31, 2008, 11:20 pm 11:20 pm
I was impressed with their incisive discussion of the real issues, such as who creates our money, as debt, with constantly mounting interest, and randomly adjusts interest rates, and thereby has control over hundreds of millions of people’s well-being.
Hillary and Obama really tore the fed apart! It’s refreshing to see some politicians not ramble about themselves and pretend to have difference when they agree on every major point, but instead get down to the nuts and bolts! They REALLY want to see sound money and lower taxes so Americans can live with dignity again!
And they are STICKLERS for our individual rights!! They HATE the Patriot ACT, etc.! You have to admire these two who have studied the American tradition and understand the true meaning of liberty!
Posted by: Barack H. Obama | January 31, 2008, 11:23 pm 11:23 pm
Sorry–you Hilly supporters, but Obama is the most logical, common sense, rational, brilliant candidate. Concerning Chicago, the Illinois governor is a pathetic little madman. Obama should not be blamed for Blago’s corruption and inability to be a governor. I am voting for Obama, I want a president that will NOT go off half-cocked. Obama ’08
Posted by: CS3539 | February 1, 2008, 7:11 am 7:11 am
Hillary was oh so presidential. She demonstrated by her actions how a president acts in difficult situations. IN this debate she showed that she not only TALKS of unification she IS unification. Obama was good as well, but I think the difference is in their maturity, poise, and inherent knowledge which can only come from years of seasoned and tough experience. Hillary is indestructable–she has handled criticism and extremely adversarial experiences with grace and tenacity. Isn’t that what we need in a president? HILLARY 2008!!
Posted by: Hillgirl | February 1, 2008, 8:10 am 8:10 am
Obama is the best!!!
hillary didn’t ansvered the question about CLINTON DINASTY
SHE IS NOT BEING SINCERE
Posted by: odalis | February 1, 2008, 9:51 am 9:51 am
I don’t see what’s wrong with changing your position on an issue like the war on Iraq. Hillary looked at the evidence then made a decision. She later looked at the facts after they were revealed and changed that position.
I’d rather have that mentality any day over George Bush’s “strong but wrong” stubborness which has been running this country into the ground for the last 7 years.
Posted by: TeeLow | February 1, 2008, 12:46 pm 12:46 pm
Sorry Obama supporters, but Hillary’s performance was much better than Obama.
We need someone who is a doer not just a talker. I have also noticed that Obama doesn’t speak as well in Q&A scenario as he does in a rehearsed speech.
Posted by: Kay | February 2, 2008, 3:30 pm 3:30 pm
Maybe Obama can inspire. But inspiring does not mean a good leader, look how many people Bush inspired to vote for him and you see where were at now.
What accomplishments has Obama made?
And he just can’t seem to forget about her vote for Iraq.
If thats all he’s got then he hasn’t inspired me, infact just the opposite.
We need someone who is a doer not just a talker.
I have also noticed that Obama doesn’t speak as well in Q&A scenario as he does in a rehearsed speech.
It takes more than a nice speech to give him my vote, I am very surprised that so many are being swayed because of his speeches.
Posted by: C.K. | February 12, 2008, 11:41 pm 11:41 pm
Obama was just ambushed by former CLINTON aide—George Stephanopoulos—–with this question about this air’s guy–ABC how do you let someone who is clearly in cahoots with the Clintons lead this debate??????
Notice how Hillary-just smiled and then added her two cents–this was all PLANNED BY the Clintons and Stephanopoulous—
Shame on you ABC—-
Posted by: Sam Rose | April 16, 2008, 8:52 pm 8:52 pm
Where is Hillary’s flag pin? and why doesn’t Charlie ask her about it?????
ABC–This is very one sided–Clinton–
Again, SHAME ON YOU ABC……..
Posted by: Sam Rose | April 16, 2008, 9:07 pm 9:07 pm
George Stephanpoulos started his questioning of Obama very hositle and made his own personal comment about Obama campaign visible. Why didn’t George Stepnanpoulos comment on Clinton negative campaigning. It’s obvious that George Stephanpoulos interview was bias because he worked for the former President Clinton. And Charlie I have lost all respect for your interviewing tactics, shame on you. Why didn’t Charlie question any of Clinton’s policies? I predict Obama poll numbers will improve after this three-on-one tag team.
Posted by: Lena Shacks | April 16, 2008, 9:20 pm 9:20 pm
since health care has been a key issue of this campaign, we been hearing that the government is planning to cut funds for Home Health care. do Obama and Clinton have any plans for Home health care?
Posted by: Indu | April 17, 2008, 12:38 am 12:38 am
Why was McCain standing in front of Obama?? He is sooo rude… what croonies. McCain and Palin are the worst republicain in history. He doesnt give to two cents about middle class ppl. You have to think about this should something happen to Old Grand Daddy McCain then Palin takes over…that woman doesnt know her nose from her toes.
give me a break she doesnt represent me just because she has kids and is a woman doesnt encourage me to go out and vote for her.
Posted by: taylor | October 7, 2008, 9:21 pm 9:21 pm
What will happen to us/those who have already been caught up in the mortgage system and who has been offered fixed rates with the higher fixed interest rates prior to and even during the Presidential campaign, do you plan to offer the same option to re-evaluate these loans and offer assistance to have them lowered?
Posted by: Gloria | October 7, 2008, 9:26 pm 9:26 pm
Hey Im doing a survey on the presidential candidates and their policies on education, its only 10 questions and would be great if you took part in it! http://www.quia.com/sv/222027.html thanks plenty
Posted by: Jon | October 18, 2008, 8:00 pm 8:00 pm