Live Blogging from Democratic Debate

Subscribe to this blog's feed

« Previous | Main | Next »

Live Blogging from Democratic Debate

June 03, 2007 6:15 PM

9:00 pm: It was fun, gang. Read tomorrow's Note for more complete analysis, and I'll be back -- same time, same place -- on Tuesday for more live blogging. Talk to you then.

8:53 pm: It actually took a while in this debate for Sen. Clinton to talk explicitly about her husband's presidency -- but this is a natural advantage for her.

8:40 pm: It's worth paying some attention to the candidates' answers on the Sudan -- it could be a voting issue for a lot of folks. And did Edwards say that "America no longer has the moral authority to lead"? I know what he's getting at, but maybe a bit sweeping?

8:34 pm: More applause for Clinton for not engaging in hypotheticals. Not a typical applause line, but her message again is that she doesn't want the candidates on stage needlessly clashing.

8:23 pm: Good example of Clinton sounding presidential on Iran.

8:14 pm: Good points, ryan. But I think Clinton is doing what she sought out to do -- riding slightly above the conversation on stage, and weighing in forcefully when necessary. Her answer on the National Intelligence Estimate, though, seemed a tad glib to me.

8:13 pm: Interesting to have them sitting for Part Two. Makes it seem more conversational, but I bet they're losing viewers quick...

8:05 pm: Halftime analysis: Clinton is looking very good. Obama was tentative at first, but has delivered a few good, distinctive points. Edwards clearly wants to mix it up, but I'm not sure it's working. Among the rest of the field, Biden is having the best night. Thoughts?

7:57 pm: I don't get the fascination with what Bill Clinton would do in the next administration.

7:46 pm: Interesting how Clinton is handling some of these exchanges -- like she did with healthcare, she's welcoming the rest of the field to where she has been for some time. Makes her look, dare we say, presidential.

7:40 pm: That's twice now that Edwards has offered kinds words for Obama. What's the strategy there? Tap into the energy and enthusiasm he's engendering, and try to own it?

7:35 pm: Only one hand on the official language question - Gravel. But Obama saw it as an opportunity to talk about his message of unity, drawing applause: "This is the kind of question that is designed precisely to divide us." One gets the sense that he was going to use this line tonight no matter what.

7:28 pm: None of the candidates can like having Mike Gravel on stage -- he just announced most of the people on stage to be unqualified to be president because they supported the war.

7:26 pm: So Clinton still isn't apologizing for her war vote -- notwithstanding her recent vote to cut off funding. That says: Strength. Edwards, meanwhile, calls that a distinction between them, since he has apologized. That says: I'm the anti-war candidate.

7:23 pm: Biden was forceful again: "We're funding the safety of those troops there until we can get 67 votes." He sees this as a breakthrough issue for himself, clearly.

7:16 pm: It didn't take much prodding for Edwards to name names there -- blasting Clinton and Obama for going "quietly" to the Senate floor to oppose funding, but not, in his words, "leading." But Obama had a sharp response, playing to his strength as the only major candidate to have opposed the war from the start: "You're about 4 1/2 years late on leadership on this issue."

7:13 pm: Agreed SCounty Parade -- this is not Obama's best format.

7:11 pm: Interesting how Biden said he wasn't attacking his colleagues while drawing a key distinction: "I knew the political vote, but I tell you what, some things are worth losing elections over. . . . I cannot and will not vote no to funding."

7:07 pm: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton draws first blood: After former senator John Edwards repeated three times his line about the "war on terror" being a "bumper sticker," Clinton said she rejected that notion, citing her position as a senator from New York. "I have seen firsthand the terrible damage that can be inflicted on this country by terrorists."

6:57 pm: We're moments away -- here's hoping that the somewhat looser format of this debate will encourage some interesting exchanges tonight. And the town-hall-style questions are always unpredictable.

6:15 pm: Hey there, Rick Klein here from ABC's The Note -- online from drizzly Manchester, N.H. Here's a little secret: almost all of the several hundred journalists here to cover the debate aren't actually in the debate hall at all. Except for a small "pool" of reporters, and a bunch of folks from sponsor CNN, we're in a big gymnasium just down the road from the hockey arena where the debate is taking place.

I'll be back in about 45 minutes, and look forward to you being part of the conversation via the comments section. In the meantime, for what it's worth, Sen. Joe Biden won the (very unscientific) count of signage on the way to the debate site. And Gov. Bill Richardson was well-represented, too (along with a bunch of 9/11 conspiracy theorists and a few dozen assorted protesters). Not sure if the sign count translates into much of anything, but all the campaigns like to show the depth of their support (or the energy of a few supporters) with signs outside debate sites.

June 3, 2007 in Tancredo, Tom | Permalink | User Comments (14)

User Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Obama seemed nervous.

Posted by: SCountyParade | Jun 3, 2007 7:08:51 PM

Gravel is tonights ron paul

Posted by: ronpaulfan | Jun 3, 2007 7:34:34 PM

I wonder who else will want to claim Bill?

Posted by: dawgler | Jun 3, 2007 7:59:43 PM

Hillary looks presidential because she is "welcoming" the others into her point of view? in other words, she doesn't have a distinct plan - she has no idea what she's doing on healthcare, which is UNpresidential.

I hate that everyone wants Bill to be a diplomat - he presided over Rwanda and Yugoslavia and pushed way too hard on Israel/Palestine, forcing them to refuse to compromise.

Hillary is NOT looking good: she is lying about her position(s) on Iraq and has yet to give an answer that separates her from everyone else. Her only good response was about the official language.

Posted by: ryan | Jun 3, 2007 8:12:51 PM

Enjoyed Hillery's comment as to how to use former presidents

Posted by: jcane | Jun 3, 2007 8:18:05 PM

I hate this question.

They are all going to be forced because of politics to answer that they would take bin Laden out. (poor Kucinich). It's both illogical and immoral: bin Laden should be punished because he killed innocent civilians and killing civilians is wrong. And you're going to correct that breach of morality by killing innocent civilians? It's unfortunate that Americans won't support a candidate who wouldn't take bin Laden out.

I'm glad everyone seems against regime change, though. It seems as though most will be more diplomatic than their Republican counterparts.

Posted by: ryan | Jun 3, 2007 8:33:07 PM

Edwards has the best tan and looks well rested.

Posted by: borntorun | Jun 3, 2007 8:35:42 PM

"We should not be borrowing from China to fund a war in Iraq" - Kucinich

That says so much. Well done.

Republicans accuse them of raising taxes: Bush has increased spending and decreased the government's income - if a CEO increased expenditures while decreasing revenue, he'd be fired.

Posted by: ryan | Jun 3, 2007 8:51:10 PM

With so many positive references to the Clinton Whitehouse it sounds as if we need another Clinton.

Posted by: dawgler | Jun 3, 2007 8:59:24 PM

I thought Obama won the first hour with his retort to Edwards on being against the war from the beginning and Hillary's slip (to Dem primary voters, at least) on being safer now than before 9/11 (and before Iraq).

In the second hour, Hillary came on strong, but so many of her better moments came in comparing Bill's administration to GWB's administration (e.g., balanced budget, use of diplomacy). That may go over well with a lot of Dem primary voters, but personally I'm not interested in continuing the Bush-Clinton double dynasty.

Posted by: PBS | Jun 4, 2007 12:33:14 AM

Hillary was exceptional. The more I see her, the more I like and respect her and think she is the best qualified to be President.

John Edwards just is not an effective bully. In fact, he's a wimp.

Posted by: Monica Jerry | Jun 4, 2007 3:50:11 AM

Kucinich just seems so 'dead-on right' about every issue he is permitted to speak on. Would that Wolfie had given him and the other truth-teller, Mike Gravel, a bit more air time and exposure!

Posted by: Sharon | Jun 4, 2007 4:29:34 AM

Hillary Clinton is my candidate and I think she was great. I'm still VERY willing to vote for almost any of these candidates in the general , but just one disagreement in terms of the "last tier" candidates: I thought Kucinich, as usual, continued to sound brilliant, but, to me, Gravel just seemed like a bit of a fool this time around.

Posted by: Jan from NH | Jun 4, 2007 10:39:31 AM

John Edwards appeared to be a little cocky and leaning toward being the exact opposite of his last running mate, Kerry. Instead of being "on the fence" Edwards appears to be aggresive and extreme. An example of this behavior during the Iraq section of the debate:

http://www.thenewsroom.com/details/368371

Posted by: Matthew | Jun 13, 2007 2:56:13 PM

Post a comment