« Previous | Main | Next »

Live-Blogging During Tonight's Democratic Debate

Share

October 30, 2007 5:50 PM

11:05 pm ET: Rick Klein wrapping it up -- Hillary Clinton gave a truly bad answer at the end, on illegal immigration, one that feeds the argument Obama and Edwards were making all night. Did Obama clear the bar he set for himself? Probably yes, but not with much room to spare. Edwards still seems better, though, at finding compelling ways to set himself apart. And other surprises -- how about Joe Biden taking on Rudy Giuliani? Is he the new George W. Bush, in terms of punching-bag status?

That's it for blogging tonight. Check out The Note tomorrow and ABCNews.com tonight for a more full recap...

11:04 pm ET: From ABC's David Wright: Okay I take it back about the lightning round.  UFO's, life on mars, driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, legalizing pot, and christmas toys from china.  Oddball questions that have, in the end, sparked some interesting responses.

11:03 pm ET: We're now talking about Halloween costumes. End this. Now.

10:59 pm ET: This talk of extra-terrestrials is argument enough to making these debates shorter. But Obama's answer about taking care of life on Earth, that's a good response to a weird question.

10:58 pm ET: Russert: "Did you see a UFO?" Kucinich: "I did." You can't make this stuff up.

10:58 pm ET: From ABC's Jake Tapper: Clinton parsing on the difference between "I think it makes a lot of sense" and "I agree with it" on Gov. Spitzer's plan to give driver's licenses for illegal immigrants -- confusing. And, whoa, Edwards just went in for the kill. Whoa - so did Obama.... A new issue just was born.

10:56 pm ET: It's rare that a highlight comes this late in a debate, but Edwards picks up on that inconsistency on immigration: "Sen. Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes." Obama: "I was confused on Sen. Clinton's answer." And Obama calls the Spitzer plan "the right idea."

10:54 pm ET: Sen. Clinton is actually engaged in a good debate with Sen. Dodd over illegal immigration -- harmed by the fact that her stance is less than firm. It's still not clear whether she supports the initiative of her own governor.

10:50 pm ET: ABC's David Wright: Whoever came up with the "lightning round" concept should be fired.  It seems we are in for 10 minutes of boilerplate in 30 second chunks.

10:35 pm ET: The last few minutes remind me of why debates should end at 90 minutes. Less energy on the stage, and fewer interesting things to be said.

10:29 pm ET: Clinton really doesn't want any part of Charlie Rangel's tax plan. She doesn't know the details -- and here's guessing she doesn't want to know them.

10:28 pm ET: The Clinton campaign provides documentation for saying that the healthcare records are available: "The only documents certain to be available at the opening of Clinton's library are 500,000 pages collected by the health care task force headed by then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. The task force's proposal for a universal health care system included closed-door meetings and led to one of Clinton's early first-term defeats. The closed meetings led to a federal court ruling that opened the documents nine years ago." [AP, 9/17/04 <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132789,00.html> ]

Newsweek, however, reported last week that "some key papers from her health-care task force" remain hidden from public view.

10:18 pm ET: From ABC's Jake Tapper: I think Obama's having a pretty good night. And though clearly Clinton's folks seem to have told her not to engage directly with Obama or Edwards - probably because they think it would only elevate them - I don't think that has worked. She's projecting "frontrunner" but I'm not sure it's projecting "frontrunner you should be content with." And boy -- LIHEAP? "Sense of the Senate"? Whoda thunk on a stage with Biden and Dodd that Hillary would be the one with Senate-it-is?!!

10:08 pm ET: Where was that Obama answer going? I'm sort of surprised he didn't have something more concise to say on Social Security, since he's identified it as a Clinton inconsistency.

10:06 pm ET: From ABC's Jake Tapper: All the Republicans are running against Clinton. All the Democrats are running against Bush . . . except for Biden, who is focusing on Rudy Giuliani. Interesting.

10:03 pm ET: Don't double talk around Tim Russert! Clinton is still maintaining that she has a real position on Social Security. "Fiscal responsibility" is nice if you want to try to balance the budget, but that does not -- and will not ever -- fix Social Security.

10:02 pm ET: Biden just had a great moment. He has lots of them. Maybe it won't ever matter, but maybe they add up.

10:01 pm ET: Biden knows Democrats love attacks on Republicans, and not just Bush, but Rudy Giuliani. Laugh line of the night: "There's only three things he makes in a sentence: A noun and a verb and 9/11. . . . He is genuinely not qualified to be president."

9:54 pm ET: Richarson is the one defending Clinton: "Pretty close to personal attacks." Now he's the one trying to rise above -- what's his play here? Then he attacks Clinton's electability, by pointing out that senators are rarely elected president. And really, governor, you don't agree with Sen. Clinton about a "majority" of the issues?

9:52 pm ET: Obama's answer about his own experience isn't bad, but why wouldn't he hit that one out of the park? The blizzard of bills he worked on -- he sounds like, God forbid, a senator.

9:50 pm ET: Another good Edwards line: "If people want the status quo, than they want Sen. Clinton."

9:48 pm ET: From ABC's David Chalian: Obama's cleanest swipe of the campaign on Clinton library records. . . Not turning the page -- you can't claim this as your experience and then be secretive about it. Republicans obsessed with HRC is a fight they are comfortable having."

9:46 pm ET: "All of the [healthcare] records, so far as I know . . . are already available." -- Clinton. That's just not true, and Obama calls her on it: "This is an example of not turning the page." "Part of what we have to do is invite the American people back in our government again." And here comes another fresh attack: "What we don't need is another eight years of bickering." SEE ENTRY AT 10:28 PM FOR UPDATE

9:44 pm ET: Clinton: "In a perverse way, I think the Republicans and their constant obsession with me obviously means they think I'm communicating effectively." Good answer, odd word choice.

9:37 pm ET: Edwards seems to be drawing sharp distinctions tonight as well. But look at Clinton's face -- it DOES NOT MOVE while he goes on the attack, even when it's not fair. Clinton's response: "I stand for ending the war in Iraq, bringing the troops home. But also know that it's going to get complicated, and it's going to take time."

9:35 pm ET: Now it's about "credibility" for Obama. He is taking Clinton on from so many different directions tonight, I've lost count.

9:33 pm ET: Clinton is strong, concise, and sharp tonight. She is finding ways to contrast herself with the Bush administration even while defending herself. That's not easy, particularly given the advanced publicity surrounding all the aggressiveness we're expecting.

9:30 pm ET: Not to harp on Richardson for this, but does he seem like he's playing outside his weight class when the discussion turns to foreign policy? Sort of surprising for a guy with that much experience in the realm.

9:28 pm ET: Give Biden bonus points for a deep answer as well on foreign policy. So far, this is some serious substance -- a wonk's dream.

9:25 pm ET: "You asked me if I would pledge, and I have pledged." -- Clinton, sounding, shall we say, Clintonian. Then Obama gets a bit deeper: "We have been governed by fear these past six years." THERE is the link to his campaign message that was missing earlier this evening. It does seem like the Obama camp has plotted this out a good bit this evening.

9:23 pm ET: Kucinich has a good line: "We have a number of enablers who happen to be Democrats." Then he brings up impeachment. Filling the Gravel role well.

9:22 pm ET: Where is Bill Richardson going in this answer? He just emptied the kitchen sink on Iran -- not the clear message he wanted in his first question.

9:20 pm ET: Edwards' line about how this "sounds familiar" is an effective way into the debate over Iran. "It literally gave Bush and Cheney exactly what they wanted." "Literally the language of the neocons." "How in the world is that . . . Democrats standing up to this president?"

9:18 pm ET: This actually is a real difference in foreign policy, though you have to wade through some deep spin to get there. The shorthand is Clinton as tougher than Obama, but Obama's more nuanced view does seem like the cleaner break from Bush.

9:16 pm ET: Obama: "I don't think we should be talking about attacking Iran at this point." Notice that Obama is talking about "the kinds" of foreign policy -- not just Bush foreign policy. In his formulation, Bush foreign policy IS Clinton foreign policy.

9:13 pm ET: Another thought on Obama -- he seemed to be shifting his message from "judgment" to "flip-flops." It may be a tough case to make against someone as well-known as Hillary Clinton, but it's definitely a different tack.

9:12 pm ET: So far, Sen. Clinton is acting as if she is alone on the stage. Clearly a strategy of non-engagement.

9:07 pm ET: Edwards is just as aggressive as Obama, but we're not hearing new language from him yet. Yet if tonight is going to be a pile-on on Clinton, who is going to come out on top? Edwards says "double talk," Clinton replies, essentially, c'mon, you know me. "I have a long record of standing up and fighting," she said. "On specific issues, I have very specific plans." (Though her "very specific plan" on Social Security really isn't anything beyond a "bipartisan commission." Good, poll-tested lines, but that's not an answer, senator.)

9:05 pm ET: Clinton chose not to respond on a personal level to Obama. She's doing what she normally does -- rising above. But can that last tonight?

9:03 pm ET: Brian Williams wastes no time -- jumps right in by asking Obama to back up his promise of being more aggressive. Obama: "Some of this stuff gets overhyped." Good Philadelphia reference with Rocky -- but WHO hyped this fight if not Barack Obama? And here it is: "It does not mean changing positions whenever it's politically convenient." NAFTA, torture, Iraq -- there's the beginning of your laundry list. "what we need right now is honesty with the American people."

8:51 pm ET: We're just about ready to rumble -- and what makes this debate different already is that we essentially know the storyline in advance. It's Obama vs. Clinton -- but how that shakes down depends on what happens on stage. And to make it fun, it looks like they're going to be next to each other on stage.

-----------

Rick Klein from ABC's The Note here -- I'll be online starting at 9 pm ET tonight, blogging from Philadelphia during the Democratic debate. All eyes will be on Barack Obama, as he seeks to deliver on his promise of a sharper series of distinctions with Hillary Clinton. But here's a fascinating piece of pre-debate spin: Clinton strategist Mark Penn is out with a memo seeking to define "the politics of hope" for Obama -- and claiming the label for Clinton herself.

Writes Penn, "Does the 'politics of hope' mean launching attacks on one candidate? Or does it mean laying out a vision for the American people? Does it mean questioning a rival's integrity? Or does it mean talking about the change we need?"

This is some serious spin -- what gives Clinton the right to define Obama's own term? Surely the Clinton campaign would consider any comparison an attack, but that's not a fair standard to judge Obama, John Edwards, or any other candidate on, is it?

Interested in your thoughts before we begin...

5:50 pm ET: I can't ever imagine this much pre-debate spin. The Edwards campaign fires back with its own memo, from campaign manager David Bonior: "Unfortunately, the Clinton campaign has made it clear -- through its choices, its words and its silence -- that it intends to defend the broken system in Washington, where the interests of the American people are bought and sold every day by an army of lobbyists, instead of taking the path that the American people want -– a path that leads to ending the corruption in Washington and bringing the big, bold change we need to America."

7:45 pm ET: We're a little more than hour out -- two quick pieces of buzz. First, and no surprise here, but the stakes are huge for Sen. Obama -- and he made them that big by building up expectations that he would go on attack. Here's a prediction: He'll be the storyline -- in a bad way -- if he doesn't have new things to say that really set himself apart from Sen. Clinton. And the other thing I'll share is that the best thing that could have happened to Mike Gravel is his exclusion from the debate stage. All the reporters I'm talking to are secretly wishing they could be at his mock debate, with him and a Tivo machine, down the street in Philadelphia.

October 30, 2007 in Tancredo, Tom | Permalink | User Comments (46)

User Comments

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

Richardson is obviously vying for a position on Hillary's cabinet or seeks the vice presidency in her administration. He is softballing her to ingratiate himself. He has no business running.

Posted by: Gary | Oct 30, 2007 10:01:19 PM

Even Kucinich gave some specifics: saying the US should get out of NAFTA and WTO, diplomacy and no march to war.

Posted by: Vargas | Oct 30, 2007 10:02:26 PM

Social Security isn't in crisis?
Maybe Clinton didn't listen to her husband, Alan Greenspan, or the current U.S. Comptroller. She refuses to give specifics on Social Security solutions.

Posted by: Vargas | Oct 30, 2007 10:06:50 PM

Our elections are a scam! Behind the scenes Bush is setting things up for Hillary to take over. Folks, wonder why the democrats(Pelosi) cannot seem to stop the war and the neo-con agenda? Well, it is because they are on the same team!! Work it out folks!

Posted by: a.copley | Oct 30, 2007 10:16:06 PM

Hillary states what she can without blowing smoke. If she makes specific statements without being privy to the facts and the situation the country is in at the time of accepting office she might find that those statements may bite her on the behind. Remember “read my lips”. She seems to be vary well prepared.

Posted by: dawgler | Oct 30, 2007 10:17:23 PM

I'm thrilled that you called Clinton on her flat-out lie about her archives. The truth is that anything remotely like a policy paper is kept sealed.

My question: Will you have the guts to highlight that in tomorrow's headlines?

This middle-aged Midwesterner is disturbed by Sen. Clinton's "trust-me" attitude. If she will cannot trust us with her archives, what does that say about her if President?

Posted by: JR | Oct 30, 2007 10:18:03 PM

I agree, Clinton seems well coached and very scripted. But what is she going to deliver, and how will she be more effective than other candidates? What will her mandate be? How can voters hold her accountable, if she won't be specific? Why should voters believe in Clinton, if she's afraid to deliver? How will she be able to reach across the isle to accomplish her objectives?

Posted by: Vargas | Oct 30, 2007 10:37:34 PM

Not only did neither Reagan nor Bush 41 put any controls on their wives' archives but Clinton's are far more broad.

Something tells me Bush 43 would be more than happy to open up her archives if the Clintons made the request. If she's truly a hardy veteran of GOP attacks, she should have nothing to fear.

It is because of this issue that this lifelong Democrat cannot hold my nose and vote for her

Posted by: JR | Oct 30, 2007 10:45:21 PM

Edwards's comments regarding tax policies that "redistribute wealth up" in this country are so cowardly and deceitful. He makes me want to puke, as do Tim Russert and Brian Williams for not calling him on his lies.

Far too few people in this country know that the top 10% of wage earners pay 65% of federal income taxes, and the bottom 50% contribute less than 4% (show me a tax hike they won't support). Yet these leftist punks demonize the "rich" and sell the ignorant on the "unfairness" of it all.

Posted by: Kookleft | Oct 30, 2007 10:49:38 PM

With Clinton holding a huge lead among Democrats in national opinion polls ahead of the November 2008 election, rivals Barack Obama, John Edwards, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson and Joseph Biden all took turns aiming shots at the New York senator in hopes of bringing her back to the pack.

Posted by: PollM | Oct 30, 2007 10:51:12 PM

No one won, especially the people of the United States. The Democrats talk the talk but don't walk the walk. I changing to Independent. I wish we had several more political parties. We need an American Political Party. One for the commen people. One that doesn't support PAC's, one that supports TWO Time Term Limits. Not one of the these people will talk about illegal aliens, mortgage forecloseures, high cost of gasoline, global warming. I vote for NO to all of them. Please someone, save our country because none of the people running for President can or will. God, help us all.

Posted by: Jo T | Oct 30, 2007 10:57:45 PM

Clinton and Obama believe that drivers license for illegal immigrants makes sense, but no specifics on immigration policy.

Posted by: Vargas | Oct 30, 2007 10:59:35 PM

I don’t think there was any clear winner. I do not think the attacks on Hillary were effective due to her preparation

Posted by: dawgler | Oct 30, 2007 11:02:38 PM

10 Trillion Dollar National debt, and we have questions about UFO's.. what a disservice to the American voter.

Posted by: Vargas | Oct 30, 2007 11:03:28 PM

Hillary reinforces the accusation that she is evasive and you never know what she stands for. This came across very strongly tonight. It will linger and continue to haunt her. I have been watching these debates for 47 years so I know what I speak.

Posted by: Gary | Oct 30, 2007 11:10:55 PM

Hillary's performance was the stuff for which the word "Clintonian" was coined. Slippery, evasive and deceitful, yet oh so sincere. Come on, America, are we really going to fall for this again?

Posted by: Kookleft | Oct 30, 2007 11:14:43 PM

I think most people understand what Hillary was trying to say concerning illegal immigrants. It’s one of those darned if you do and darned if you don’t. If she said definitively she was for giving Drivers Licenses to illegal immigrants she would be thrashed by the GOP. Instead, she said she understands the situation of the Gov. and it’s the best answer to a bad situation.

Posted by: dawgler | Oct 30, 2007 11:17:25 PM

You say what you believe relative to giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. What do you believe is the right thing for this country. You don't evade the question you answer it. I couldn't believe her incredible evasiveness. You don't give driver's licenses to lawbreakers.

Posted by: Gary | Oct 30, 2007 11:32:42 PM

she didn't so much evade the question as support it, then tell chris dodd she didn't support it (omg, noooo more i was for it before i was against it, please), THEN evaded answering when she was caught.

Posted by: Clueless1 | Oct 30, 2007 11:53:31 PM

Obama & Edwards were the clear winners tonight. Also, the American people were winners they saw first hand what a liar Hillary is, and a flip-flopper. She changes her answers to benefit her, but it didnot work tonight.
Kudos, Barack & John.
I am an Obama supporter and will cast my vote for him.
Obama 08!

Posted by: Mitty | Oct 31, 2007 12:10:43 AM

Post a comment