Horserace
November 16, 2007 7:30 AM

Starting Gate: Clinton Calls – And Raises -- In Vegas Debate

(AP)
New York Senator Hillary Clinton went a long way toward regaining her political footing in last night's Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas. In an exchange that was once again focused on the front-runner from the opening gun, Clinton for the first time engaged her opponents and defused much of the criticism they’ve aimed at her in recent weeks.

Declaring that she had on her “asbestos” pantsuit, Clinton also demonstrated that she could pack a little heat of her own. She dealt with the first question of the evening, about the recent shots taken at her candidacy by saying, “I'm perfectly comfortable leaving these assessments up to the American people to make their judgments among us.”

But when Barack Obama followed by asserting that she has not been delivering “straight answers to tough questions,” Clinton shot back. Obama “talks a lot about stepping up and taking responsibility and taking strong positions,” she said. “But when it came time to step up and decide whether or not he would support universal health care coverage, he chose not to do that.” In the back-and-forth that followed the candidates argued about their health care plans, a rarity for Clinton, who has up until now sought to stay far above such frays.

Next up was John Edwards, who hit Clinton on a variety of fronts, accusing her of trying to be on all sides of important issues and of defending a “rigged” and “corrupt” system. “I don't mind taking hits on my record on issues,” Clinton retorted, “but when somebody starts throwing mud, at least we can hope that it's both accurate and right out of the Republican playbook.”

In those opening minutes, Clinton seemed to disarm her two toughest Democratic opponents – or at least knock them off balance. While both continued to try and chip away at Clinton for the rest of the debate, neither had as much success as they did in the last debate, where the front-runner stumbled several times. Twice when Edwards appeared to be inching toward criticizing Clinton, he was met with a smattering of boos from the audience.

And Barack Obama turned what should have been an easy question into a tortured discourse on immigration policy. It was Clinton, in the last debate, who appeared to both support and oppose a proposal to provide driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. Given that the issue has been a major topic of discussion for the past ten days, it would seem likely that the candidates would be prepared. But when asked whether he would support or oppose the idea, Obama said he would support it then launched into a lengthy discussion of comprehensive immigration until CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, the debate’s moderator, said, “this is the kind of question that is sort of available for a yes or no answer.” When Clinton was asked, she simply said, “no.”

While Obama and Edwards struck familiar themes and sought to differentiate themselves from Clinton on issues ranging from Iran to Social Security, they were unable to maintain the offensive they had coming in. Save the early exchanges, and a couple minor scrapes along the way, Clinton kept most of her criticisms aimed at President Bush and once again made the argument that she’s the most experienced candidate. It was solid performance following a period of time that saw her slip a bit from her front-runner’s perch. When asked about allegations that her campaign has played the “gender card” to gain sympathy, Clinton disagreed. “I’m not playing the gender card,” she said, “I’m trying to play the winning card.”

Joe Biden and Chris Dodd turned in solid, impressive performances. Biden, who has grown into the role as the respected elder statesman and part-time comedic relief, showed his chops of foreign affairs matters, particularly on the issue of the unrest in Pakistan. Dodd waxed eloquently and knowledgably on education and trotted out his impressive grasp of the Spanish language. For all the attention on the three big candidates, Biden nearly stole the show, with Dodd not too far behind. Bill Richardson, who is fourth in most polls, pressed his message of total withdrawal in Iraq but again didn’t jump out of the crowd.

But this remains a three-way race by all measures and the red-hot start to this debate showed that starkly. Outside of Clinton, Obama and Edwards, no other candidate spoke for nearly the first 30 minutes of the debate. And, like the last debate, there was something new in play – Clinton’s willingness to directly engage her foes. For the night, at least, she got the upper hand. Editor's Note: This post has been updated


Tending The "Plants: In the debate last night Edwards jokingly asked whether one of moderator Wolf Blitzer's questions was "a plant" -- a reference to the controversy that erupted last week over the revelation that Hillary Clinton's campaign had planted the audiences at her events with questions she would be prepared to answer, sometimes over the objections of the people asking the questions.

It probably won't be the last time Edwards makes the joke. His campaign is behind a new Web site, Plants for Hillary, complete with "endorsements" from people with actual plants for heads. One, named Pogonatherum paniceum says, "I work a lot with seedlings who are concerned about global warming. But Hillary's staffers told me that wasn't in the script. So I wilted and asked one of the questions they had listed in their book."

The botanical puns, for better or worse, don't stop there, and the site also includes a "field guide" to spotting a Hillary plant, the top 10 questions plants should never ask Clinton (like "How can you change Washington when you keep defending a broken system?"). Visitors are also able to submit their own planted questions and the site promises the chance to buy t-shirts claiming "Questions are hard... so plant them."

In a release promoting the site, the Edwards campaign says the site is a "grassroots" effort that will "bear fruit"...you know, just in case you still don't get the joke.


Testing The Message, Skirting The Line: The AP reports that voters in Iowa and New Hampshire have been getting calls raising the issue of Mitt Romney's religion. Residents of the two early states report being asked if they are aware Romney is a Mormon, if they knew that he had received a deferment while serving as a Mormon missionary and that Mormons did not accept blacks until the 1970s.

The calls were traced to a firm in Utah, Western Watts, which denies conducting "push polls" – calls disguised as polling surveys which are designed to disseminate negative messages about a candidate. Western Watts has worked in the past with GOP pollster Ed Goes, who is currently working for Rudy Giuliani but Goes vehemently denies any connection to the Romney calls.


Around The Track

  • CNN host Lou Dobbs has turned into quite a crusader on the issues of immigration and trade and now might be thinking about a presidential bid, according to the Wall Street Journal's John Fund who reports that Dobbs may indeed be considering running as an independent candidate. Fund writes: "Don't be surprised if you hear more rumors about a Dobbs candidacy. Even if he doesn't enter the race, any such discussion would serve to boost his ratings."

  • Another poll shows Mike Huckabee climbing in Iowa. The ARG poll has Romney leading the former Arkansas governor by just two points, 26 percent to 24 percent.

  • Karl Rove is surprised by Rudy Giuliani's staying power in the GOP contest and impressed by Romney's campaign.

  • Dodd has closed his Nevada headquarters as he focuses nearly all attention on Iowa.
  • Tags:
    Debate ,
    Clinton ,
    Obama ,
    Edwards
    Topics:
    Starting Gate
    Add a Comment See all 31 Comments
    by aajo1 November 15, 2007 10:42 PM PST
    The whole debate was a big scam. This was delibrately staged perhaps to make Hillary look good. Unfortunately, they forgot that not every body in this country has less than high school education.
    How could you be asking Hillary questions like what do you prefer to wear? Purple or Yellow?
    She answered since I have been ---- I like them both. What kind of of thing is this. This is another planted question. A high school drop out may not know but most of us know -- planted questions. What a mockery to the whole process.
    Reply to this comment
    by aajo1 November 15, 2007 10:43 PM PST
    The whole debate was a big scam. This was delibrately staged perhaps to make Hillary look good. Unfortunately, they forgot that not every body in this country has less than high school education.
    How could you be asking Hillary questions like what do you prefer to wear? Purple or Yellow?
    She answered since I have been ---- I like them both. What kind of of thing is this. This is another planted question. A high school drop out may not know but most of us know -- planted questions. What a mockery to the whole process.
    Reply to this comment
    by drgarynord November 15, 2007 11:04 PM PST
    Ummm, I am a doctor, which is more than a high school education, and hands down, Hillary Clinton won the debate.

    Maybe you weren''t watching with the sound turned up.

    In any case, Hillary showed that she is definitely the most experienced and capable leader. She has my vote!
    Reply to this comment
    by mbs06854 November 15, 2007 11:29 PM PST
    Gonna do this, gonna do that...been there, heard that. Politicians don''t change so politics must be changed.
    Reply to this comment
    by ptrella November 15, 2007 11:51 PM PST
    Why is it that Biden''s "impressive performance" is only mentioned in the 7th or 8th paragraph of the story? While Hillary, Barak and Edwards slap fight each other, Biden sounds like he actually knows enough to be President. Now if only the media would give him 1/5 the attention it gives the other 3!
    Reply to this comment
    by tgstk2-2009 November 16, 2007 1:55 AM PST
    I didn''t learn very much from this debate that I didn''t already know about the candidates. Partly that may be because of the candidates%u2019 responses. Mostly I think it is because of the poor job of CNN, and in particular, of Blitzer. Candidates should be given more time to answer questions and should not be forced into a simple "yes" or a "no". The issues facing our nation are mostly quite complex. I would prefer to know the principles and reasoning behind a candidate%u2019s decision than simply "yes" or "no". Give Americans credit, we can listen to an answer that is more than sixty seconds long.

    The debates tend to cover too many questions in the time allotted. I would prefer to hear a debate covering fewer issues if it means that the candidates will be given more time to explain their positions. That would help the voters get to know the candidates in depth. How much depth can be packed into a one minute response?

    With a less frenzied pace to the debate, we could see which candidates have a genuine thoughtfulness and wisdom versus which are simply well coached or good at delivering one-liners. From what I''ve seen so far, candidates such as Sen. Obama and Sen. Kucinich and Gov. Richardson have lots of interesting and good ideas but due to the short time for responses, they get cut off. Thankfully, the internet provides a way for use to learn more in depth about all of the candidates.

    www.barackobama.com
    www.dennis4president.com
    www.richardsonforpresident.com
    Reply to this comment
    by ronaldloui November 16, 2007 2:02 AM PST
    Mudslinging is talking about things like "Monica" and "Whitewater", not talking about inconsistencies. Edwards was by no means slinging mud. If people don''t want to be fair, they should at least be accurate.

    I didn''t think the prepared "asbestos" line went over very well. I thought the "winning card" reference to the setting, Las Vegas, was cheezy. Wolf Blitzer had trouble with the way he framed the driver''s license question. Obama, Edwards, Dodd, ... they all wanted to smack Wolf B for his wedging.

    The diamonds or pearls question will probably backfire badly, as will Hillary''s "can''t stand the heat"-slash-kitchen reference. Ouch. Hillary says it was all the progress in her lifetime that brought her to this stage, but I think Susan B. Anthony would not be happy to hear that.

    The most interesting moment was when Obama sat and looked a bit guilty for administering the mortal wound to a stunned and dazed Hillary, who had to field the question of whether she could unite the country, partner with independents and Republicans, and govern effectively. The question was a most cruel mirror. I don''t see the clip posted anywhere on CNN, but if Hillary does not recover from this uppercut, look to this moment as an historical event.

    The other priceless moment was when Biden was shaking his head and smirking as Hillary said (herself chuckling) that she had respect for everyone on the stage!
    Reply to this comment
    by samthetvcat November 16, 2007 3:57 AM PST
    It''ll be interesting to see whether the polls move after this debate . . . I''m guessing the people who think she ''won'' were already planning on voting for her. This 30 second format where Hillary can complain about ''mud-slinging'' even though she''s the worst mud-slinger on stage seems to really work to her advantage, but Iowans who have actually met with the candidates at length may see past the limitations of the format and not be swayed. Maybe she''ll get a slight boost, but I don''t see her fully recouping the points she lost in the last debate.
    Reply to this comment
    by samthetvcat November 16, 2007 3:58 AM PST
    The other priceless moment was when Biden was shaking his head and smirking as Hillary said (herself chuckling) that she had respect for everyone on the stage!

    Posted by RonaldLoui

    LOL - missed that one . . . classic! LOL
    Reply to this comment
    by jetranger7 November 16, 2007 6:29 AM PST
    I didn''t care for Edwards Comments and Slander on the others, Quite Obviously, he out of touch, and wayyy to insteaded in cutting down others, insteaded of focusing on his agenda as President. As far as Obama, I wasn''t Impressed with him or his answers or views either, so to me they''re both out of the race entirely, no way for those 2.
    Reply to this comment
    by jetranger7 November 16, 2007 6:32 AM PST
    I''m gonna vote for Gomer Pyle, Shaaazzaamm, Shazzzaammm !!!
    Reply to this comment
    by rowdytexan2 November 16, 2007 8:48 AM PST
    "The whole debate was a big scam. This was delibrately staged perhaps to make Hillary look good..."

    What, like the last debate was couched to make her look bad? Can''t have it both ways. I remember questions in the last debate like ''what are you going to dress up like for Halloween.''

    Hillary did a great job. I agree about Biden, who has a tremendous experience promulgating bi-partisan legislation. I find it hard to believe that Edwards and Obama are top contenders above him.

    Obama doesn''t do well in debates. He fires up in prepared speeches, but fumbles extenporaneously. Edwards shrillness comes off like junior high school. He can''t ride his own record, so he tears down everybody elses. His record goes with the flow, and his hedgefund contributors leave him wide open when criticizing for lobby dollars.

    Go Hillary! Go Joe!
    Reply to this comment
    by jack3213 November 16, 2007 9:10 AM PST
    I agree. The debate looked like th ultimate scam and it was pathetic that the male candidates were refrred to as "boys" I would like a "man" to lead not a "boy" I certainly don''t want a "woman" as most foreing countries will not respect a woman who cannot lead a country. We will be doomed if Clinton wins!
    Reply to this comment
    by debbs7 November 16, 2007 10:09 AM PST
    I watched the debate and while Edwards is my candidate I was proud of Hillary. She can more than take her part and demonstrated this last night.

    John Edwards is just my guy. He says the things I want to hear and he is believable.

    Obama says the things you want to hear but is NOT believable
    Reply to this comment
    by debbs7 November 16, 2007 10:09 AM PST
    I watched the debate and while Edwards is my candidate I was proud of Hillary. She can more than take her part and demonstrated this last night.

    John Edwards is just my guy. He says the things I want to hear and he is believable.

    Obama says the things you want to hear but is NOT believable
    Reply to this comment
    by dbl06 November 16, 2007 10:12 AM PST
    Joe Biden Joe Biden Joe Biden Joe Biden on everyone issue his insight is unmatched. The clarity of his answers unparalleled. Campaign slogan for Biden in the general election. "I AGREE WITH JOE". It will rank right up there with "I Like Ike".
    Reply to this comment
    by amontenegro November 16, 2007 10:24 AM PST
    jack3213.....
    You said the world will not respect a woman as the leader of a country....
    Do you really believe the world respect us with our current president (may i remind you our leader is a man?)
    Reply to this comment
    by amontenegro November 16, 2007 10:28 AM PST
    I say.....Clinton/Biden or Biden/Clinton.
    They are the only ones that have the intelingence and the power to lead this country.
    Reply to this comment
    by pepperp1 November 16, 2007 10:46 AM PST
    Senator Clinton took her opponents out and there is no doubt they knew it from the look of on Obama face which made him look like a little spoiled kid who did get his way and Edwards pure pansy who just got punch and whose dirty little play book came up empty for him. I was pleased that she was gracious and deadly but did not take the WWW republican political punditry that brought you the machismo politics of Bush Cheney an approach advocated by those ratings loser like Wolf and Russert but still deftly slitting the whinny Edwards political throat, Edwards bad Hillary she acts like a politicians but I am almost almost pure as snow bunk look desperate and weak, whah whah whah whah my guess she just ran him out of the race which is good for Dems in general he has not benefited the party and is little more than a token Southerner. Obama is looking more and more well not deep, he has a problem writing his own material it would seem if its not a one liner. Biden fun and capable but not Presidential, Kucinich seems odd.
    Reply to this comment
    by samthetvcat November 16, 2007 12:41 PM PST
    I''ll agree that Hillary kicked the competition''s butt last night, but she lied to do it. Obama''s tax increase does not add up to $1trillion worth of revenue, and she had to have known that. Her plan DOES NOT ensure the welfare of social security either, so she also lied about protecting the interests of the middle class.

    I think if you vote cognizant of the fact that her primary interest going into the White House will be to ensure that she is able to get re-elected 4 years later, but that the trade-off will be worth it because she''s a woman who''ll increase the level of respect men have for women you might end up disappointed in that department too.

    Not saying the alternatives are much better, but I think it''s important to be realistic about HOW her ''wins'' in these debates are being achieved.
    Reply to this comment
    by samthetvcat November 16, 2007 12:42 PM PST
    Oops!

    The clause below "but that the trade-off will be worth it" should read "but THINK taht the trade-off will be worth it" :)
    Reply to this comment
    by amontenegro November 16, 2007 1:30 PM PST
    Bottom line is.......anything is better than what we have right now.

    But no Repubs please....We already have one. And what did we all get from THAT?
    Reply to this comment
    by gangesdak November 16, 2007 2:34 PM PST
    The Vegas debate will be the watershade for Clinton. This is where the audiance booed her opponents. And this audiance is diversified, unlike Iowa and NH. She played her hands superbly. She is my girl.
    Reply to this comment
    by kdnc November 16, 2007 3:21 PM PST
    Clinton was poorly prepared for the question about the "boys club" and her fumbling long-winded answer just proved critics right regarding her attempts to play the gender card.
    Reply to this comment
    by kdnc November 16, 2007 3:30 PM PST
    For those who think anything is better than what we have now let me just remind you that for almost 30 years now we have had a Bush or Clinton in the White House. If you think Senator Clinton will provide something substantively new you are fooling yourself. Think about it, 30 years of the same two families, IT IS TIME FOR REAL CHANGE.
    Reply to this comment
    by armywife02-2009 November 16, 2007 3:31 PM PST
    I''m so sick of the candidates talking in circles they can''t answer questions they always babble on and on and don''t get to the question. I feel that us Americans should ask the questions not Wolf and I want straight answers. Nobody gave straight answers at all it doesn''t make me hopeful of our next president- Just seems like they are all saying what we think we want to hear but Im not hearing anything but babble. Obama still didnt say what he was going to do about the nuclear waste and when wolf questioned him again he took offense that''s cause he didnt know I would have preferred him saying such instead of beating around the bush, Hillary needs to stop contradicting herself with her decisions it''s either your against it or not, and Edwards needs to focus on the country he wants to run not Hillary.
    Reply to this comment
    by amontenegro November 16, 2007 3:48 PM PST
    I can only say that during the Clinton era I was able to pay my bills and have food on the table without depending on my credit cards. Those days are long gone...
    Reply to this comment
    by threeleos November 16, 2007 4:12 PM PST
    So Barack and Johnny decided that the way to show their manhood was to bash the front-runner. Once again, the Democratic Party is being asked to support people who do the opposition''s job. The number of sound bites that can be used by the Republican candidate should Senator Clinton be nominated grows each Democratic Debate.

    Could they possibly be told about the Kennedy-Nixon election, when the most telling ad against Nixon was an informal interview with President Eisenhower where he pretty much dismissed his Vice-President as a total lightweight. For those who think Bush I invented the negative political ad, take a look at the collection at Museum of the Moving Image.

    Whoever came up with the massive debate schedule has done a disservice to all the candidates.
    Reply to this comment
    by sierra20071 November 16, 2007 5:01 PM PST
    Hoo-Ray for Las Vegas! The Las Vegas audience directed this debate and chose to take the informative high road rather than the angry Jerry Springer Avenue. (nothing against Jerry but this is a political debate)I am so proud of Las Vegas. The debate was not a borefest, none of the blustering, red-faced angry hypocritical candidates, and when it seemed to go there...Las Vegas said..."Oh No you don''t with there Boo''s!!
    Reply to this comment
    by mudrose-2009 November 16, 2007 7:20 PM PST
    I can only say that during the Clinton era I was able to pay my bills and have food on the table without depending on my credit cards. Those days are long gone...

    Posted by amontenegro

    You can thank Bush Sr. for that. When and if Hillary arrives, you can kiss that good bye forever.
    Reply to this comment
    by mattcat25 November 17, 2007 9:36 PM PST
    Bush has barrowed, not taxed he%u2019s mortgaged the entire country, and has blown $450 Billion US Dollars on one huge party for his %u201CPrivate Sector Contractors%u201D in Iraq.

    No one%u2019s talking about how the United States is going to re-pay The Peoples Republic of China for George W. Bush%u2019s drunken night out?
    Reply to this comment
    See all 31 Comments

    About Horserace

    Description for Horserace

    Add to your favorite news reader
    google
    yahoo
    msn
    • MOST POPULAR
    • Viewed
    • Commented