Political Radar: Live Blogging on Campaign Returns, Democratic Debate by Rick Klein

Subscribe to this blog's feed

« Giuliani Pushes for Early Vote in Florida Before Others Arrive | Main | Romney Says Viva Las Vegas!!!! »

Live Blogging on Campaign Returns, Democratic Debate by Rick Klein

January 15, 2008 4:50 PM

11 pm: Final thoughts -- first, on the debate. Edwards again kept things most to his message, and Obama parried the race questions that dominated the first quarter of the debate -- he probably benefits to some degree just by having the discussion. Clinton deflected the tough stuff on race and got most aggressive on substance -- maybe the closest she's been to dominating the field in months.

And on the Republican primary in Michigan -- wow, what a mess it leaves the field in. Mitt Romney lives another day, and John McCain is again knocked off his front-runner's perch (he only got a week back on top). From the sound of it, Michigan may have given Romney his voice, the same way New Hampshire gave Clinton hers. Now we get to see what he does with it.

That's it for tonight -- but only a few more hours and you can read about it all in tomorrow morning's Note...

10:58 pm: Obama's children are "above average." Was that a Garrison Keillor reference?

10:43 pm: This is a real point of distinction for Edwards, and a valuable one in South Carolina, on guns. For as far left as he's tacked, it's not happening on the Second Amendment, and that could be worth a few points.

10:34 pm: "Not in Illinois -- they all voted for me," Obama says, about a split among black and Hispanic Democrats. he's had his best moments tonight rising above issues of race relations.

10:29 pm: Edwards finds his voice when he talks about money in politics -- it's effective stuff, to a point. The question is whether he's at that point already.

10:28 pm: On energy, an overall strong performance by Clinton. As soon as this debate turned to substance, she's turned it on.

10:22 pm: Sen. Clinton had the details ready to go on Yucca Mountain -- that's knowing your crowd. Edwards: "the science that has been revealed since that time . . . " Ooh.

10:14 pm: That was a strong swing at a curveball by Clinton, when asked about denying federal funding for colleges that don't allow military recruiters on campus.

10:07 pm: They're getting to some meat on Iraq -- but I didn't see any of the candidates distinguish him or herself. But I think Obama may have repositioned himself a tad, talking about stationing strike forces outside of Iraq, if possible.

10:02 pm: Clinton's question for Obama -- won't you co-sponsor my bill with me? (Couldn't she have asked that question in the Senate cloakroom?) This is her seeking to rise above her rivals, and make it look like Obama is following her lead on Iraq. Obama's answer was brilliant, though I'm not sure he even realized how brilliant it was: "We can work on this, Hillary."

10 pm: A good question from Edwards -- don't the people who are giving you money expect something? Obama's answer was fine, but little that didn't sound pre-packaged, even insidery.

9:58 pm: A funny moment -- the warning about going over their allotted time, and John Edwards to Hillary Clinton: "That's you." Now things get interesting -- questioning each other.

9:56 pm: Sen. Clinton is answering the questions on the economy with depth and range -- she's a policy wonk at heart.

9:48 pm: RNC oppo alert: Hillary Clinton just said she voted for a bill, but was happy it didn't become law. Bet that's on YouTube by the end of the debate.

9:46 pm: John Edwards doesn't like talking about votes he regrets, but there's no one in the business better at taking a tough question and turning it into a succinct summation of his stump speech.

9:43 pm: Brando -- you're right. There's a lot not to like in this debate, nearly half way through.

9:39 pm: From ABC's David Wright: Seems like the only debate so far is over whether Obama's messy desk is a sign that he's not up to the job. Obama arguing he has vision, but needs staff to handle the details -- the Type B president. Clinton did seem to get the better of him in that exchange, though he did score back a point or two in rebuttal. Not surprising he should lose that round.

9:38 pm: From ABC's Eloise Harper: Clinton, when asked if Bob Johnson's comments were out of bounds, said '"yes they were and he has said that."

Not exactly -- the only statement we have seen from Bob Johnson were defending his comments saying he was referring to community organizing - not to drug use. We have never head Johnson admit that he was saying anything inappropriate.

Here is the exchange:

   MR. RUSSERT: Were his comments out of bounds?

   SEN. CLINTON: Yes, they were, and he has said that.

9:30 pm: OK, I'm a politics guy -- but even I'm missing the substance. This debate is on the news, yes, and that's great -- but what about Iraq, or healthcare? So far, this debate is all about leadership qualities, politics of race, and other intangibles.

9:29 pm: ABC's David Wright is missing Kucinich: Would have been more lively. They're all so busy playing nice, there's no real debate going on.

9:23 pm: Intriguing question for Clinton about the negative things she's said about Obama -- what's it mean for the fall? "The issue is . . . who is ready," Clinton says. That does not constitute an answer; it is, however, a campaign message.

9:20 pm: What party is Mitt Romney in, railing against all of these problems brought on by "Washington"? Just about everything he's talking about was a shortcoming of a Republican president and the Republican Congress.

9:18 pm: Likeable enough? "I absolutely regret it," Obama said. But it was a joke -- why regret it?

9:17 pm: Anyone else notice that Romney didn't wait for McCain to finish speaking for him to start his own speech. And Romney's "victory of optimism over Washington-style pessimism" -- takes it right at McCain.

9:14 pm: ABC's Z. Byron Wolf is watching the debate and the Michigan returns and wondering if coming in lower than "uncommitted" will spell the end of Duncan Hunter's campaign. He doubts it.

9:11 pm: We are seeing Obama very consciously tread carefully on race. He's smart not to dwell or attack -- how could he play this as a victim and still look like a credible candidate? And ABC's Sunlen Miller points out that Obama was the first to work the word "economy" into a line.

9:09 pm: Obama throws his "overzealous" staff under the bus. He has done this fairly consistently in the campaign, when oppo research goes bad. This will get some play among the oppo researchers for other campaigns.

9:07 pm: So we're right into debate mode: Obama on race: "We can't solve these challenges if we can't come together as a people." He knows this topic is as dicey for him as anyone else in the campaign.

9 pm: ABC is able to call it right at the close of polls! It's a victory for Romney, followed by McCain and then Huckabee. This is HUGE for Romney -- his campaign couldn't say it, but this was their must-win state. Immediate reaction is this keeps things open more than ever, and Romney can make as good a claim as anyone to being the frontrunner. Disappointing for McCain to come in second, of course, and Huckabee can't be happy with being a distant third.

And oh, Clinton will win on the Democratic side, with "uncommitted" to take the silver and Kucinich in third. (Sorry, you still can't go to the debate.)

8:44 pm: Somebody forgot to tell Kucinich he lost his court case. This just in from his campaign: "Still awaiting a decision by the Nevada Supreme Court as to whether he will participate in tonight’s Democratic Presidential debate, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich will be broadcasting live from a satellite truck outside the Cashman Center beginning at 8 p.m. EST."

Guard the snack tent.

8:37 pm: Again, we're talking early returns -- but Huckabee is way back. He still needs to prove that Iowa wasn't a fluke, and there were indications that Michigan could give him that opportunity. Not so far tonight.

8:30 pm: Early returns -- though of limited worth -- are good for Romney.

8:22 pm: Results are trickling in, and end the suspense: Someone voted for Duncan Hunter. 605 people voted for other candidates.

8:16 pm: A piece of debate news: Dennis Kucinich has lost his legal case, and won't be on stage tonight in Las Vegas, per MSNBC. He will be missed.

8:13 pm: From ABC's Bret Hovell, who is with the McCain campaign tonight in South Carolina: "About 250 people are in a ballroom in downtown Charleston, next door to McCain's hotel. He is watching the returns from the hotel, and will walk over here to deliver a speech win, place, or show in the Michigan primary."

8:08 pm: Results should start rolling in -- very slowly -- soon. This could take a while, unless it's a blowout. Consider this, though: It looks like nobody's going to get knocked out of the race tonight. For all the early talk about the early contests shaping things, sure, they've done that, but they haven't narrowed anything.

7:25 pm: The Clinton campaign fires back with a memo of its own: "Make no mistake -- the Obama campaign had no problems when its supporters and allies in Michigan ran radio ads and other campaign activities urging people to vote for 'uncommitted' as a way to register their support for Senator Obama -- and to give him a chance to compete for those delegates at the national convention. . . . Now, with polls in recent days showing that effort and their candidate running far behind in both states, the Obama campaign has shifted tactics to say that those who cast a vote in either state [Michigan and Florida] don’t matter. We couldn’t disagree more."

This is mostly navel-gazing, but as I said earlier, Clinton vs. Uncommitted will be a nice little sidebar out of this evening.

7:22 pm: Ed - I really don't know what you're talking about. We have reported extensively, on broadcasts and at abcnews.com, on the Democratic race, including the fight you're referring to. And later tonight, this blog will include extensive coverage of the Democratic debate. But it hasn't started yet, and so I'm blogging about what's actually happening -- a Republican primary election in Michigan.

7:14 pm: I see some commentary below about exit polls -- we at ABC don't report on the voter preference side of them until after the polls close, just FYI.

6:23 pm: Beyond winning and losing, if independents don't show up for John McCain today, what does that say about his broader appeal, and his chances in other states? Michigan, with all the Democrats taking a pass on the state, is his clearest shot to demonstrate his appeal beyond the GOP (part of his strategy for winning primaries on two levels -- with votes, and in presenting himself as the most electable Republican in a general election). If it doesn't happen in Michigan, where can he make it happen?

6:07 pm: Cool new feature -- an actual vote graphic, which we'll be updating throughout the night as returns come in. . . .

6:03 pm: ABC's John Berman has this intriguing nugget: "The Romney campaign seems to be hedging its bets on South Carolina. Instead of an all-out push in the Palmetto State, Romney is planning a swing through Nevada for at least parts of 2 days leading up to January 19th. Romney will head to Nevada on Thursday, and stay there Thursday night, leaving John McCain to fight with Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson in South Carolina."

I wonder if the strategy changes with a win tonight; knowing the Romney folks, they've already gamed out all the scenarios.

6 pm ET: Ernst -- our early read is that there are fewer independents and Democrats participating in the Republican primary (as a share of the total) than in 2000. Again, this is preliminary, so take as you will. So far, fewer than 1 in 10 Republican voters are identifying themselves as Democrats; the number was 17 percent in 2000.

5:42 pm ET: A first-blush (and still early) analysis of preliminary exit polls, from ABC polling director Gary Langer: "Preliminary exit poll results in the Michigan Republican primary indicate much less of a turnout among independents there than we saw in the 2000 primary – about a quarter of voters are identifying themselves as independents, compared with 35 percent in 2000, an extraordinary year for independent turnout in the primary."

And this: "The notion that Democrats might cross over and vote in the GOP primary, given the absence of a real Democratic contest, does not look like it's being borne out."

Also, this suggests that Romney's calcuation about how to run in Michigan (as the turnaround artist who could save the economy) was savvy: "The top issue by far on voters minds is the economy - more than half in the Republican race say it was the single most important issue in their vote, far above the war in Iraq, cited by two in 10," Langer writes.

But we shall see.

5:15 pm ET: Let the spin begin -- on the Democratic side at least. The Obama campaign just sent around a memo essentially urging reporters and pundits to entirely ignore tonight's Democratic results in Michigan, since Hillary Clinton is the only major candidate to appear on the ballot. "The Obama Campaign is not participating in the Primary and has not instructed supporters in Michigan whether or how to vote," the memo reads. "Therefore the results of the primary tonight have no bearing on the Democratic nomination contest."

This will not be the main storyline tonight -- but a sidebar will be how Clinton does against "uncommitted." Some Obama and Edwards supporters -- though not, to our knowledge, anyone officially connected to the campaigns -- have urged Democrats to vote for "uncommitted" as a means of sending an anti-Hillary message. (The New York Times this week reported on one such effort, engineered by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., an Obama supporter.)

Hey everyone -- Rick Klein from ABC's The Note here. I'll be online throughout the evening as results begin to pour in from Michigan, and then during the Democratic debate, which starts at 9 pm ET and will air on MSNBC. This is one of those special nights in politics -- great action in both contests -- so be part of the conversation here.

One factoid to get the discussion rolling: New numbers are out today from the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, showing that Mitt Romney has spent more money on ads in the Wolverine State than all of his opponents COMBINED. Romney spent about $2 million on ads, compared to $744,000 by John McCain and $484,00 by Mike Huckabee. If you're tracking such things, this marks the third state (out of three that matter) where Romney has spent more than all of his opponents combined. So far, he has two silvers to show for his millions. Can he afford a third second-place showing? (Maybe "afford" is the wrong choice of words for a self-funded candidate, but you get my point.)

January 15, 2008 in Vote 2008: Democrats, Vote 2008: Republicans | Permalink | User Comments (70)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/433071/25156608

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Live Blogging on Campaign Returns, Democratic Debate by Rick Klein:

User Comments

Ads spending is one thing but whatever to position papers? I remember when a candidate would put in writing their positions.

Posted by: GM | Jan 15, 2008 5:07:29 PM

Johnathan Martin at Politico said that Indies and Dems made up 36% of the voters in Michigan in the 2000 primary. 1/4 Indies + 1/6 Democrats... seems like what it will be this time, no?

Posted by: Ernst | Jan 15, 2008 5:57:22 PM

Thanks for the info Rick.

Posted by: Ernst | Jan 15, 2008 6:05:18 PM

Drudge put the exit poll numbers up... Romney 34, McCain 29, Huckabee 16.

Posted by: Ernst | Jan 15, 2008 6:45:37 PM

Ron Paul is THE anti Racist in this GOP race. He has most votes from the African Americans because they know he is going to restore their trust and not let them down!

Posted by: Aziz | Jan 15, 2008 7:15:53 PM

Well, ABC shows it's bias against Republicans once again. While they report about the three Republicans candidates there was not one word about the Democrats and the full-boil issue between Obama and Clinton's racist coments. I have never seen ABC not cover thre Democrats and their campaigns until now. It sickens me how ABC will never report on anything that happens with the Democrats if it is negative in anyway. If these racist remarks had been made by a conservative this story would had the lead story. I'm over it. Why can't people see that ABC along with CBS and NBC have political agendas favoring the liberals. Why do we put up with this kind or reporting? I will never watch ABC News ever again.

Posted by: Ed | Jan 15, 2008 7:16:28 PM

I HEARD THAT IF RUDY GUILIANI IS ELECTED PRESIDENT OUR TAXES WILL DROP LIKE A ROCK! KINDA LIKE OUR HOME OWNERS INSURANCE IN FLORIDA.

Posted by: Tina | Jan 15, 2008 7:32:48 PM

Why did the Dem's abandon Michigan, so they could call each others names elsewhere? Our Democratic Govenor can't even get the respect from her own party, but she blames Bush for all her troubles? I'm looking for the Democratic logic here. Is there any?

Posted by: Dick | Jan 15, 2008 7:33:52 PM

Aziz is totally correct in what he said about ABC and the others concerning their favoritism towards the liberals. Over the years, I've have found their biases more and more sickening. Personally, I'm tired of it and obviously I'm not alone. If these news stations think that their biases are all a big secret, they would be wrong. It is far too obvious, and they should be embarrassed.

Posted by: chase | Jan 15, 2008 7:38:30 PM

There's a remarkable illustration of Romney over on Flickr today. Mitt Romney Frankenstein, representing his patchwork of changed positions over the years, I assume.

Posted by: John C. | Jan 15, 2008 7:49:52 PM

I wonder how much would Ron Paul profit from the Arab population in Michigan. Ron being the only anti-war candidate has a big base of arab supporters

If actually 500,000 Arab Americans come out to vote because they think the Iraq war is dragging our economy and killing ppl who are defending their country against Americans then we might see some bump in Ron Paul's votes! Here is me hoping!!!

Posted by: Aziz | Jan 15, 2008 7:49:53 PM

John McCain is a war hero? I'm not sure I can believe that. I hope for his sake, that he is being honest and talking "straight talk" when he talks about his prisoner of war heroism. It would be hard to live with yourself if you are not completely honest about these kind of things. The truth will always be there.

Posted by: Ron | Jan 15, 2008 8:03:42 PM

Watch the total voter turnout in Mi today. Less than 20% of the 7 mil plus registered voters will vote today why?? Because now in Mi how you vote is now given out to the Dems/Reps Parties. What happened to your vote being secret. Not any more in Michigan. I'm 37 and haven't missed a vote until today. Thats why Michigander's are pushing for part time legislatures.

Posted by: ron | Jan 15, 2008 8:05:03 PM

Aziz....you got it my friend, Dr. Ron Paul is the only choice anyway we look at it. It's too bad a bunch of brainwashed Americans who need to be led around by the nostrils can't even comprehend what this great man is even saying.

Posted by: SlapYouBackToEarth | Jan 15, 2008 8:11:36 PM

Here's hoping that Michiganders who don't want Clinton vote "uncommitted". We Ganders are not happy with our party elite for taking our choices away from us.

Posted by: Robin Laurain | Jan 15, 2008 8:12:51 PM

I am an Obama supporter who lives in Michigan. I disagree with the previous comment about John McCain. I have read a great deal about the man and he had the chance to leave his POW camp, but didn't because he wouldn't leave his men there. He is a great American. I may not agree with him on policies, but you can't take away what he has done for his country.

Posted by: Robin Laurain | Jan 15, 2008 8:19:30 PM

Ron....McCain was a prisoner of war in the Hanoi Hilton for 5 years, 2 of which was spent in solitary confinement....I think he is a hero in every meaning of the word even though I don't think he would be a good President.

Posted by: SlapYouBackToEarth | Jan 15, 2008 8:21:55 PM

Romney has the experience to help michigan. This is Romney's night

Posted by: Christina | Jan 15, 2008 8:53:42 PM

McCain always says, "Let's have some
straight talk." McCain lies and the people
actually believe just because he says lets
have some straight talk, it suppose to actually be???????? You have got to be kidding me!!!!!!!!! McCain is the biggest
WARPIG and PRO-AMNESTY......McCain is a
big SELLOUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Tina | Jan 15, 2008 9:05:22 PM

Hey Rick,

We are 20 minutes in this debate and have only talked about race and gender...ughhhh....

Posted by: Brando | Jan 15, 2008 9:19:32 PM

Come on Rick...

I expect better from you.... Obama regrets it because it had a negative impact on his campaign; albeit it not having any ill-intent

I'm dissapointed

Posted by: Brando | Jan 15, 2008 9:23:32 PM

i think the writers strike has hurt this debate in that the moderators are asking some seriously boring questions. first the golden globes, now this. when will it end?

Posted by: asst regional mgr | Jan 15, 2008 9:37:49 PM

Wow we just spent 35 minutes talking about:
-race
-gender
-likability
-perceived personal strengths/weaknesses (to which Edwards and Clinton both highlighted weaknesses which were actually strengths)
and most baffling...
-the conspiracy theorists who think that a US Senator could lie about his religion, be sworn in on a Quran and not pledge allegiance to the flag and they are the only one's who know about it

Oh boy...this is a SERIOUS insult to my intelligence!

Posted by: Brando | Jan 15, 2008 9:39:04 PM

YAAWWWWWNNNNNN......Huh what..

Posted by: Lawrence | Jan 15, 2008 9:48:42 PM

She voted for Iraq.. and it did become law...

Posted by: Lawrence | Jan 15, 2008 9:50:28 PM

Woot, looks like Hill is taking a beating in Mich, over 30% of the vote for uncommitted. Once Edwards wakes and smells the coffee and stops splitting the anti Hill vote she will be toast.

Posted by: ragebot | Jan 15, 2008 9:51:04 PM

ding ding ding.. 1 for OBAMA .. opposing them both..

Posted by: Lawrence | Jan 15, 2008 9:52:30 PM

didn't Hilary just play the race guard...and try to elbow Obama out of the way as speaking for the african americans and hispanics..Obama pointed out that he voted against both is a nice moment ..but he didn't hot it hard enough...and he's cut down on saying folks so much..its beginning to sound like an echo...

Posted by: Gatsby | Jan 15, 2008 9:53:22 PM

Finally this debate is getting more meaty...

-Obama wants radical energy policies, thinking big
-Hillary counters by going small (and possibly more "realistic"

Thoughts Rick?

Posted by: Brando | Jan 15, 2008 9:53:33 PM

Internetsphere..is that a new word??

Posted by: Lawrence | Jan 15, 2008 9:56:29 PM

So biased! Obama won tonights debate.... big time!

Posted by: John | Jan 15, 2008 10:03:11 PM

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL NEVER ABANDON THE PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN. HILLARY WILL NEVER ABANDON THE PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN!

Posted by: tom | Jan 15, 2008 10:04:17 PM

that was a textbook question HILLARY..BUT IT DIDN'T WORK..

Posted by: Lawrence | Jan 15, 2008 10:05:03 PM

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL NEVER ABANDON THE PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN. HILLARY WILL NEVER ABANDON THE PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN!

Posted by: tom | Jan 15, 2008 10:05:52 PM

THANKS FOR SOME HUMOR OBAMA...

Posted by: Lawrence | Jan 15, 2008 10:09:26 PM

Congrats to Mitt!! Sounds like the same margin McCain won in N.H. I truly believe Romney (outside of the democrat rhetoric)has the capacity to bring real change to "from outside" of the Washington bureaucracy, the economy, and the fight against Global Jihadism, along with safety to our country. I actually wrote in on the ballot McCain in 2000, so I respect the man, but he's certainly one of the least conservatives on the ballot. Gang of 14, McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, his adamant support for "amnesty", and it WAS amnesty, no what he says. His experience in protecting America has warrant, but I believe Romney could provide just as well, with his commitment to a strong military and taking no B.S from jihadists. His plan to support moderate Islam nations to reject the radical is a very sensible plan. Huckabee? Not president material, except maybe for the Evangelicals and his "every day guy" thing will become tired soon. His pardons sealed it for me. Additionally, most respected most economists dismiss his tax plan as unworkable. Also his accomplishments in Ark, have been "doctored". Thompson seems to care less if he becomes POTUS or not, needs a nap, and a shot of B-12, though a very intelligent man. Rudy? We'll see if his Florida /Super Tuesday Plan ends up working. As far as being a true conservative, he seems to be a right-wing Domocrat, as does Huckabee as Fred so brilliantly pointed out during the last debate. As for the Demos, if I have listen to Barack Husein Obama mention himself, JFK and MLK in the same sentence again, I'm going to puke. Like first laddie, Bill, said "It's all a fantasy" But, Obama certainly has "her highness" thinking twice about the "inevitable" nomination. Wait and see on both sides, I guess. A very interesting election, indeed.

Posted by: Dave R. | Jan 15, 2008 10:09:35 PM

Finally some meat...

-I am glad that Obama, Clinton and Edwards really layed out the reality for Iraq

-and tsk tsk Hillary for that "question"

Posted by: Brando | Jan 15, 2008 10:11:36 PM

WHAT'S EVERYONE OPINION ON WHO'S WINNING THIS DEBATE?

Posted by: Lawrence | Jan 15, 2008 10:15:57 PM

Looking at the debates and reading what the blogger said, I think it is a dis-service to the American people. Pure lies and so biased.

Posted by: John | Jan 15, 2008 10:19:07 PM

Is Senotr Clinton the only person in the debate? Come on..............

Posted by: John | Jan 15, 2008 10:25:17 PM

Is Hillary moderating the debate???

Posted by: Lawrence | Jan 15, 2008 10:25:21 PM

Is Senator Clinton the only person in the debate? Come on..............

Posted by: John | Jan 15, 2008 10:25:37 PM

This debate is so bias to HILLARY...all the catch questions to Obama or Edwards and Hillary gets followup..that's wack..

Posted by: Lawrence | Jan 15, 2008 10:26:58 PM

This debate is so bias to HILLARY...all the catch questions to Obama or Edwards and Hillary gets followup..that's wack..

Posted by: Lawrence | Jan 15, 2008 10:27:02 PM

I am glad that I am also watching the debate live. Look at the blogs from this guy Rick Klein. More than 80% are about Clinton. Is this fair?

Posted by: John | Jan 15, 2008 10:28:21 PM

Is Hillary taking on the Obama YES WE CAN slogan now?

Posted by: Lawrence | Jan 15, 2008 10:32:30 PM

didn't Hillary just say we need a president who can summon the country?Isn't she saying that we need someone like Obama

Posted by: gatsby | Jan 15, 2008 10:33:15 PM

lol... answer the question Edwards...answer the question

Posted by: Lawrence | Jan 15, 2008 10:33:55 PM

ding ding ding.. what a quick thinker...

Posted by: Lawrence | Jan 15, 2008 10:36:07 PM

Dang HILLARY moderating again... step up NBC and take control

Posted by: Lawrence | Jan 15, 2008 10:40:00 PM

Opinion on who is winning this debate:

No one...

Obama- Presidential. Staying positive. Not taking the race bait. Good moments on Iraq. Good job bringing Latinos into the 100 Black Men question. Good job answering questions relatively straight. Good job staying meaty and providing substance.

Hillary- does seem experienced. good research on Nevada issues. good job bringing positive voting instances into this debate. good job in getting somewhat granular. however, watch out on growing such star contrasts and appearing negative.

John- nice job bringing in different candidates financeers. good job playing to your stump speech strength. good job trying to stay personal, sing folks names, etc...

Actually, I would have to give a slight edge to Obama, because he has avoided race, negativity and gotten pretty deep in issues. However, it is very close. Hillary had good energy moments, but needs to watch the negativity.

Posted by: Brando | Jan 15, 2008 10:46:20 PM

EDWARD YOU ARE NOT PRESIDENT.. JUMPING THE GUN LIKE THAT IS WRONG...

Posted by: Lawrence | Jan 15, 2008 10:57:00 PM

Man this debate was rough...let's get on to SC and the votes that count in the Feb 5th states.

Posted by: Lawrence | Jan 15, 2008 10:58:32 PM

Hillary answered every question. She was clear as a bell. Look Hillary is already doing alot of what we would expect of a President. She has not only the idea, but she has the action to back it up. She walks her talk..She has walked her talk for 35yrs. She has proven once again that she is the one to be our next President. Obama stumbled over his answers. And Edwards really does'nt have much of a clue. He is old school polictics and it does'nt play anymore.. Edwards time has ended. He is not the man for the U.S. pres. greg..

Posted by: greg | Jan 15, 2008 11:13:46 PM

This is one of the reasons I am supporting John Edwards: when taking his chance to question his rivals, Edwards pointedly mentioned the huge sums of money both Clinton and Obama have raised from drug and insurance companies, asking, “Do you think these people expect something, or are they just interested in good government?”

I would like to support a candidate who who is willing to speak up against corporate greed and who will fight for the middle class America.

Posted by: Rhoda | Jan 15, 2008 11:27:02 PM

Good performance by all but a rather dull debate, all thigns considered. I would ahve thought with 3 candidates tehy could ahve got more meaty. It felt like at least half of the debate was worthless and too much of the same old, same old.

I think it was completely wrong not to include Kucinich. He may not be a top tier candidate but he gets enough votes and is a serious contender, puts his effort in it. Personally, there isn't one thing I agree with him on as I'm a Republican but he is interesting and mixes thigns up in a way that makes the other candidates have to get more real. I appreciate that about him. Sahme on NBC for refusing to allow him to "debate," that is, as much 'debate' there is.

As for michigan, I don't really like McCain, none of them that much really, but I think it is great for the poltical process to be fleshed out further. We don't need a candidate baptized as teh leader after only 2-3 States. This is good for the democratic system. I hope the same happens on the Dem side.

Posted by: dennis | Jan 15, 2008 11:47:57 PM

Senator Obam was so impressive tonite...Plan and simple...

You don't have to raise your voice to be heard...With that said...I don't like Hillary at all but she didn't do to bad of a job....

But my vote for the winner is Senator Obama

Posted by: justwaitandsee | Jan 15, 2008 11:53:02 PM

I never really think that ABC could join the pack of negative stance media against Obama. Please stop thinking for us and stop taking decision for us. Just go ahead and be like C-SPAN, the only positively neutral media so far in this political dispensation. The media need to tell the well meaning Americans that their hate of Obama is not racial. Your president Bush was always a darling. Today, we can all see what has become of his preference, Yet the media is quiet. Why? Shame to you ABC. A couple of friends called me to say that Obama did well in that debate untill I went on ABC website and then I saw the negative side. Shame to you guys one more time.

Posted by: charloma | Jan 15, 2008 11:56:31 PM

Posted by: charloma | Jan 15, 2008 11:56:40 PM

So who won tonight's debate, imho? Hard to say. All had their moments. I guess I would give it to Edwards on delivery alone. I believe him when he says this fight is personal for him. clinotn was veryt strong withthe Yucca mountain issue; she did her homework but still, there is that uncomfortable feeling she is all political and very little real person. She comes across as kind of fake, and one can't help but notice just how many times she felt it necessary to beat up Bush. We're so tired of her polarizing rhetoric. She thrives (and relishes) on creating division. This plays to Obama's strength though. Yes, Obama fumbled on delivery, even in his closing comments, but still comes across as the most likeable, down to earth guy while maintaianing this visionary, inspiring aspect about his candidacy.

Posted by: Dennis | Jan 15, 2008 11:57:44 PM

The moderators definitely favored Clinton.
Most telling moment of this, when they told the candidates they could ask a question of their opponents, Edwards went first with a jewel. He asked Obama and Clinton if they thought taking money for their campaigns from corporations would lead the corporations to believe they were owed something by that candidate. Obama answered rather well, but the moderator cut in so Hillary wouldn't have to answer. He claimed they only had time to ask one candidate a question.
Overall I think Obama and Edwards did extremely well. They answered their questions honestly. Clinton, as usual, kind of skipped around a definite answer many times as well as repeated her '35 years' a dozen times! I honestly don't know how she takes credit for being a first lady as true political experience.
I really liked Edwards stating he would never okay building nuclear. I've read about it extensively and that is really dangerous and expensive. I also like his sincerity as I did Obama's when they talked about getting our troops out of Iraq.
Another unfair part of the debate was the filming afterwards. The camera shots were of Hillary most of the time as the candidates signed autographs for the audience. And then the pundits came on and commented mostly about Clinton. This is blatant favoritism and doesn't belong in a democratic debate.

Posted by: Lydia | Jan 16, 2008 12:06:52 AM

How true Lydia, but we should expect it. After all, Hillary is the establishment candidate more than anyone else on either side and has raised more money from corporations and lobbyists than any other candidate! Remember the media loved Bill most of the time, and they will surely feel some allegiance, unfair as it is, to Hillary. They aren't fooling anyone. That's why I generally stick to the source through unmoderated, truly neutral C-SPAN. Thank God we have that.

Posted by: Dennis | Jan 16, 2008 12:24:56 AM

Congradulations to Hillary Clinton as she took the "boys" to the wood shed. In the WWF verbal smackdown Hillary eased above the competition, befriended them, and made them her partner in her new administration. It was great to watch the expressions on Obama and Edwards faces' as she frankly out classed them, out talked them, and pulled out her record of achievements to back herself up. It was a wonderful two hours.

Posted by: Sandra Lea | Jan 16, 2008 2:30:45 AM

Obama did an excellent job during the NV debates. He showed style, class and great temperament. He definitely can and will bring the country together! He will not be divisive, over relentless or use slimy, race-baiting politics to win the nominee. The very candidates who voted for this war and used the status quo system to get rich off it, now are talking about changing it and using fear tactics (Republicans playbook) to justify their 35 year experience to the American people. Hyprocrisy at its best! Blame everyone (but themselves) including Bush bashing for their poor judgement!

Posted by: speakkup | Jan 16, 2008 3:50:45 AM

saraz: I don't know what polls your reading but you better magnify your glasses. Hillary is beating Obama Nationally by a big margin and where have you been? This generation thinks they know more about politics than the politicians themselves but from some of the comments I read they need to take a course. And if they are that smart why aren't they running for president? I see Oprah is keeping quiet on the subject of Obama due to the large backlash she got for campaigning for Obama. And Daley telling Obama act like the underdog. Is he a dog? Every white person in every state is not going to vote for Obama and there are blacks that will vote for Hillary. No one can tell who is going to win. Everyone thought Obama had it wrapped up in New Hampshire but look what happened. The news analylists got a slap in the face and a good one. You don't put the horse before the cart. This could happen again in other states. Nothing is for sure in this election. So wake up and smell the coffee.

Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | Jan 16, 2008 8:40:01 AM

you know all of thnk your so samart about obama and edwards and i guess none of you are old enough to remember 1972 and mcgoverns loss/debacle to nixon ,if you want a repeate republican president go ahead nominate obama or edwards because as for my wifw and my self we will either not vote or crossover to the other side and we are both fdr democrates/lunch box now .i do not want some in our white house that is too young too inexperianced or too unorganized ,look at obamas comment about loosing papers,ie GWB who in 2000 was the most likeable candidate,please give me a break! if you all really think obama can win in november i want some of what your smooking because if you did not like this little back and forth between obama and clinton was ugly wait until the republican machine really starts up middle america wont put in him in your dreaming wake up and smell the coffee instead of the weed.

Posted by: don tufts | Jan 16, 2008 10:12:41 AM

I watched the debate last night thinking what is best for me, our people, our country and our economy. We need a change. I beleive that Clinton can bring about that change. I have a bad feeling that Obama is a tool for later use kind of a trojan horse. He was basically an unknown not really impressive at all and all of a sudden he is running for President. Who is behind Obama? Who prodded him into running for President? Edwards seems sincere but the aurora is not with him either. America needs action now. I believe that Clinton's past years in the White House has prepared her for this Presidency. Very few canidiates either Republican or Democrate has come out with original answers to any of the questions in the debates so far. Clinton knows our country and our politics. Clinton's remarks don't sound canned. I don't belive the debate was bias towards Clinton. I believe she was the only one who knew what she was talking about.

Posted by: C Thornhill | Jan 16, 2008 10:47:28 AM

hi Mrs McConnell

Posted by: YaYa | Jan 16, 2008 11:11:16 AM

Posted by: don tufts | Jan 16, 2008 10:12:41 AM

Hey Don, many of us feel the same way regarding Hillary. You all will crossover if it is Obama or Edwards and the rest us will crossover if it is Hillary. So, the Republicans have won this then. Because niether side wants to see the other win. Just like you all don't care, niether do we! Like the other person said, let the games begin pal!

In other words, if we can't get someone other than Hillary, then you all sure aren't going to get her! Besides, she will be the easiest for the Repubs. to beat anyway. Our goal is to make it a very humiliating defeat for her and you all. You play with matches and you get burned.

Since you mentioned History, I suppose you remember what happened the last time the Dem. party split do you not? See, some of us don't care. We stand on principle. What do you all stand on?

Posted by: Mark S. | Jan 16, 2008 1:58:25 PM

Don, sorry but you are haplessly, incorrect and naive I'm afraid (for you). I'm an older social conservative Republican who isn't thrilled with our current batch of GOP candidates (in part, because of their personal lives) and actually find Obama honorable, and very inspiring. I may not agree with a lot of his policy but I think he would be good for the U.S.--he is the kind of candidate we need to take all of us in a new cross party direction. What we definitely don't need is Hillary! She is simply too polarizing and I think you massively underestimate jus the amount of visceral anti-Clinton sentiment there is in the population, even among many independents. If Obama is nominated however, many of us conservatives are willing to give him a chance but if it's Hillary, I'll vote for whoever the candidate is on the GOP side even if it's someone like McCain who personally I can't stand due to his immigration amnesty stance and such! I also don't think you realize just how many evangelical conservative Repubs like myself and my wife who are very seriously considering Obama. I can count at least 6 friends of ours who are politically like us, but respect and like Obama (and Michelle). He is a good man, honest, and has personal integrity and faithfulness to his spouse, regardless. Many of us will consider him. We simply do not wish to revisit the 90's and elect someone who relishes such division and spin as the Clintons. Personally, I think the Dems would be nuts to nominate Clinton (don't they get it?!)--there would be a huge electoral backlash and you guys will end up losing an election that is, unfortunately, all your's to win!

Posted by: Dennis | Jan 16, 2008 4:55:12 PM

Post a comment