From the Fact Check Desk: Clinton's Questions Question

And oh yea, I also got to shake his hand. It really was a pretty awesome experience.

Well I went and saw Bill Clinton speak tonight in Ohio and if everyone went to see him speak in person you might get a a more honest portrayal of his campaigning for her. He was awesome. He is one powerful speaker folks. I think if they played his entire speeches on television people might get a more accurate picture then what the media likes to portray to you. This was a man who was up there being as genuine as he could be. He actually was quite believable and said many many things that made a whole lot of sense. I think everyone should go see Bill Clinton speak at a rally. I think if they portrayed Bill the way they should be portraying a former president campaigning for his wife then everyone would be voting for Hillary. This man knows what the hell he is talking about, flat out. Go see him if he comes to your town, you'll see.

Jake,

The debate in Texas... she was asked almost every question first... he had two minutes to think about it, slam her at the end, she had no chance to rebut it, on to the next question.

If Hillary can manage to pull off at least TX and/or OH and RI on March 4th, then her campaign will get a big boost. If this were to happen I'd love for them to schedule another debate before the PA primary which isn't until April 22nd. But this time, Hillary should only agree to a debate if they can be in sound proof booths next to each other. That way, she can answer all the questions first and not have to worry about him copying her answers because he won't be able to hear them. Only the moderators and the audience will. I bet we would all notice a big difference in his performance.

If Hillary is afraid of tough questions how would she come up with tough solutions if she became president??? The easiest of all solutions she is likely to face from now on is to reveal her tax returns. If she can't do that instantly, then who can trust her with ambigious instructions and decision- making

What's the difference who gets the first question? Is she just upset that being asked first, she doesn't have as much time to formulate a convincing lie?

Vickie, you are blaming the moderators because Hillary got all the tough questions????

Obama was AGAINST NAFTA.
Obama was AGAINST the Iraq war, even when it was considered Politically Incorrect.
Clinton lied about her support for each, UNTIL Russert called her on HER very own RECORD.
She finally admitted somewhat to both but almost immediately after her admission on the Iraq war she said, "But I have been against it from the beginning"?????

A little later she said something to the effect that her campaign was about "Change" and "Hope"????? That coupled with her moronic "Celestial Choir" skit is ample proof of her hypocrisy.

Little green men from mars must be running her Campaign because that terrible mess certainly can't be her fault. Nothing ever is. (sarcasm)

So Hillary, in the extremely unlikely event you win the nomination, what happens when we find out (from your Tax Return) that you had foreign Contributors? McCain gets elected by default,or you are confident you could show once again that the laws do not apply to you?

I'm still trying to figure out why you weren't sent to prison for hiding Vincent Foster's records that were so incrimination to your Co-Presidency, even AFTER having been in YOUR possession for all those months. I guess you didn't do enough editing?

Satish, How about some reasons *YOU* are supporting Clinton??? It is kind of hard to believe that College Educated kids haven't bothered to do a little research.....

Honesty and Forthrightness?
Tax Returns..Hillary, NO Obama, YES
Hillary has a long history of refusing to turn over SUBPOENAED RECORDS.
Obama has no such problem. Since a Candidate can be disqualified based on those records, they should be mandatory BEFORE even becoming a candidate.

Refused to acknowledge during NINETEEN Debates that she had made a mistake in voting for the Iraq war. Effectively took back the acknowledgement she FINALLY made in her 20th dabate, within minutes of making it, by saying she "was against this war from the beginning." ??????

Obama has made very, very, clear his opposition to this war from the very beginning, even when it was Politically Incorrect to do so.

Not to mention that the Co-Presidency of the Clintons accomplished the MOST Military Actions in History. 30 plus.
At one point, they used up all of the Strategic Missile Stockpile of the United States, aiding Kosovo into becoming the Heroin Capital of the world. (Afganistan now holds that title)

It is bad enough that the Clinton Supporters know nothing of HER History, but turning a blind eye to her making a disaster of her own campaign, thinking she should win an election on pity, her emotional instability to the point of embarassment, and her inability to understand that there are many Americans who either know or can esily check up on her lies, were what did her in.

The press reports the facts. (Tell me one thing they have said about her that wasn't true) She is responsible for those facts. If she can't take the heat, her best bet is to get out of the kitchen.

In fact, the Press could write a book on the scandals of this woman. I think they are far too easy on her.

Well, Hillary was getting 56% of first questions and Barack 44%. If that were an election, it would be called a 12% margin of victory and it would certainly be called significant.

You need to analyze not just the number but which questions. Hillary gets more of the tough policy questions. She lays out detailed answers and then Barack can just say "what Hillary said" and look thoughtful and generous. Barack gets more easy ones like "when did you feel most tested." It makes a big different.

rlwainright:
>>Ummm, no. 23+18 = 41. The difference between them was 5 questions. 5/41 = 12.2% - nowhere near 30%.

Hey thanks for the math lesson. You correctly point out the difference is insignificant to cause such a stir (sorry, basic math skills have always been just beyond my grasp!)

My larger point was that Hillary's interpretation of these situations is colored by her (apparent) eroding status in the race. Her campaign seems to be in a bit of a mess; who knows, maybe even quicksand. So, her distress is understandable, whether or not you like or support her political candidacy, and whether her complaint is based in objective or even significant facts.

I think it goes back to her white house era. I had read that the strongest connection the Clintons had as a couple, was that they believed that everyone was out to get them, and the only people they could trust were each other.
I just wish she would have more definitive plans (don't pander to your audience), release your tax returns, and don't expect evertyone to push the "I believe" button when you offer vague solutions

Why just tepidly denounce the anti-semitic remarks? Why not the racist and gay bashing stances? This was a time to truly show leadership in race relations and he FAILED. He should have been adament that I don't approve of any of Farrakan's positions. Farrakan is the equivalent of the Grand Dragon of the KKK. Would Obama not staunchly oppose the Grand Dragon's endorsement?

Whoever you are for in this election cycle you should be outraged at the way much of the press has been on a crusade to drive Hillary out of the race. It has been the most one-sided, advocacy I have ever seen in any national election by the fourth estate. It has amounted to millions of dollars in free negative advertising for Obama. And if a candidate calls the media on it, they're subject to more abuse. Really shameful.

My daudhter and her boyfriend are in college and are big Obama supporters. I asked them and some of their friends why are they supporting Obama. Their answer was because he is "COOL". Not one of them knew what he stands for. Oh yes they also knew he stands for CHANGE. Just like Obama they were clueless what that means.

No sooner had the bell rung starting the Ohio debate, then the reporters came charging out at Clinton. All of the questions, that's right all of the questions in the first 40% of the debate were aimed at Clinton. In some cases, Obama had followup answers.

Excuse the long post, but this shows how the questioners banged unrelentingly at Clinton out of the gate

"MR. WILLIAMS: A lot has been said since we last gathered in this forum, certainly since -- in the few days since you two last debated. Senator Clinton, in your comments especially, the difference has been striking. And let's begin by taking a look...

MR. WILLIAMS: Senator Clinton, we're here in Ohio. Senator Obama is here. This is the debate. You would agree the difference in tone over just those 48 hours was striking.....

MR. WILLIAMS: On the topic of accurate information, and to that end, one of the things that has happened over the past 36 hours -- a photo went out the website The Drudge Report, showing Senator Obama in the native garb of a nation he was visiting, as you have done in a host country on a trip overseas.

Matt Drudge on his website said it came from a source inside the Clinton campaign. Can you say unequivocally here tonight it did not? ...

MR. WILLIAMS: I -- well, here's another important topic, and that's NAFTA, especially where we're sitting here tonight. And this is a tough one depending on who you ask. The Houston Chronicle has called it a big win for Texas, but Ohio Democratic Senator Brown, your colleague in the Senate, has called it a job-killing trade agreement. Senator Clinton, you've campaigned in south Texas. You've campaigned here in Ohio. Who's right?

.....
MR. RUSSERT: I want to ask you both about NAFTA because the record, I think, is clear. And I want to -- Senator Clinton. Senator Obama said that you did say in 2004 that on balance NAFTA has been good for New York and America. You did say that. When President Clinton signed this bill -- and this was after he negotiated two new side agreements, for labor and environment -- President Clinton said it would be a force for economic growth and social progress. You said in '96 it was proving its worth as free and fair trade. You said that -- in 2000 -- it was a good idea that took political courage. So your record is pretty clear.
Based on that, and which you're now expressing your discomfort with it, in the debate that Al Gore had with Ross Perot, Al Gore said the following: "If you don't like NAFTA and what it's done, we can get out of it in six months.

The president can say to Canada and Mexico, we are out. This has not been a good agreement." Will U.S. president say we are out of NAFTA in six months?
.....

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, on the issue of jobs, I watched you the other day with your economic blueprint in Wisconsin saying, this is my plan; hold me accountable. And I've had a chance to read it very carefully. It does say that you pledge to create 5 million new jobs over 10 years.

And I was reminded of your campaign in 2000 in Buffalo, my hometown, just three hours down Route 90, where you pledged 200,000 new jobs for upstate New York. There's been a net loss of 30,000 jobs. And when you were asked about your pledge, your commitment, you told The Buffalo News, "I might have been a little exuberant." Tonight will you say that the pledge of 5 million jobs might be a little exuberant?
......

You can cite all the stats you want, but the transcript of the debate says it all on this matter.

Neither Hillary nor Obama can win in November. Many Obama supporters will not vote for Hillary if she is the nominee and likewise many Hillary supporters will not vote for Obama if he is the nominee. Passions seem to be very strong and will get stronger as this fiasco goes on. I hope the super delegates will reject both of these egotists and come up with a better qualified nominee with less baggage and can win in November.

Sam: Have you watched all of the debates? We have been paying close attention in all the debates. Obama has been very prolific in agreeing to the previous candidates' stance on an issue, agreeing with it, then spinning and rearranging to make it appear the original thoughts were his. That way, he does not have to be at a loss for substance on the issues. He did it with John Edwards and others, but especially with Hillary. Who else knows the issues better than she? And who published plans on many of the issues three months before Obama gave out similar or look-alike plans? Hillary, of course. She is the work horse and the one who never gives up. She's tough!

Some of you forget that the media was claiming that Obama would win some of the earlier primaries, when Hillary did, and it made the media look like idiots. The medias were the ones whinning, and the only way they can soothe their idiotic media coverage is to strike back at Hillary and her family. When Hillary complains about something, the media claims she's whinning. I believe in the dictionary the words complain and whine, have two totally different meanings. But, if Obama complains, he has a right to do so, and its not whinning. I would call this double standard, ones a woman and the others a man.The buzzword for Obama's campaign is "change". He tosses it around without saying what this "change"is. Just like last nite's debate.......how can one vote for a candidate that can't tell the people what or how he will help America with this word "change". Is this change going to be that Washington is to become the new Hollywood of America, since the media seems to think that he's the new Rock Star.

Jake, Did anyone give you any information on all the Democratic candidates. I know that in the earlier debates, Obama would tend to agree with Hillary, Edwards, and others, then add his words and rearrange to look like those were his original thoughts. He has gotten a little smoother in rearranging words to look like his own, but it is still very noticeable to me.

to those who plan to write in hillary's name if obama gets the nomination - i hope you'll consider voting republican instead. i've never voted republican before, and have been voting since mcgovern's race. but i'm voting republican this year. writing in hillary's name, or voting nader, is a good symbolic act, but actually voting for mccain is the only way to be sure obama doesn't get elected. not only must obama lose votes, but mccain must get more than obama does. just my suggestion,,,,,,,