Similar Plotlines In Dem Debate Sequel

(CBS)  This analysis was written by Vaughn Ververs, senior political editor for CBSNews.com.

---

This is the summer of sequels at the box office and Sunday's Democratic presidential debate fit right in. The scenery and local audience in New Hampshire was far different than these candidates addressed in South Carolina last month and the dramatic tension reached a slightly higher level. But the basic plotlines remained unchanged.

Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards cast himself once again in the role of the aggressive progressive, determined to claim the party's anti-war, anti-Bush mantle, mostly at the expense of front-runner Hillary Clinton. The senator from New York stuck to her script, refusing to apologize for her 2002 vote authorizing the invasion of Iraq and parting ways with Edwards on the war on terrorism. And Barack Obama stayed true to his practical idealism, with a twist of added policy heft and quick wit thrown in.

Just minutes into the debate, the three found themselves in a sharp exchange over the war in Iraq and terrorism when Clinton pointedly disagreed with Edwards' characterization of the war on terror as a "bumper sticker" and a mere "political slogan." Clinton not only refused to endorse that view, she came dangerously close -- for a Democratic candidate -- to complimenting the Bush administration. "I believe we are safer than we were" before 9/11, she said before adding: "we are not yet safe enough."

As it has been for nearly the past four years though, it was the war which provided most of the spark and starkly demonstrated one of the major fault lines in the Democratic race.

While Clinton and Obama sought to explain their recent votes against the Iraq funding bill, Edwards struck hard, criticizing both of the senators for "quietly" opposing the administration's policy on timelines for withdrawal, insisting: "it's the difference between leading and following."

For her part, Clinton sought to cast the war as a unifying issue where Democrats have the upper hand, despite nuances in their approach. Noting that nearly all the Republican presidential candidates support the war, Clinton said, "the differences among us are minor. The differences between us and the Republicans are major."

But it was Obama who took offense at Edwards' line, refusing to cede any ground in the staunch anti-war camp. Alluding to Edwards' original vote for the war, the senator from Illinois told Edwards: "The fact is that I opposed this war from the start, so you're about four and a half years late on leadership on this issue."

Edwards returned to the original authorization for the war when he and Clinton were both asked to explain how they felt comfortable enough to vote for it when they did not read the entire National Intelligence Estimate first. Clinton tried to brush past the issue, saying she had enough information while Edwards explained in more detail, adding: "one difference we do have is I think I was wrong."

• 1
• 2
• Next Page »

[madash3ll]

I guess some of these posts prove just how useless polls are. Small snapshots of just a sampling of our society can bring some strange results. In reality, the only poll that matters is when we're all asked to participate.

Watching that debate left impressions on those who actually paid attention...to me:

Obama was lifeless...he may be Presidential material when he ages, but only time will tell.

Clinton is a fence-sitter...can't trap her into specifics on anything but criticism of others.

Edwards is so fake he's annoying.

Most of the rest of the field might as well not have been there except for Biden...he really did well and came across as knowledgeable, honest, and decent. If the choice were down to those on that stage, Biden would have my vote.

Tonight there are 10 other voices to be heard. I for one am hopeful that there will be one other voice out there that can match the integrity that Biden has shown. In picking a President, I prefer a choice%u2026and I feel if you've made up your mind already, you're actually part of the problem with today%u2019s political environment.

P.S. As a veteran also; I apologize for our 71 model...the logic appears flawed.

[toddpw01]

With the amount of time they wasted on Wolf repeating questions to spin them, and letting the top-tier candidates yammer as much as they wanted, it's a wonder the other 5 candidates were able to get much of a word in at all!

It's obvious the media wants to favor the front-runners already. ***, we have a year and a half to go!!

[bigdadpatrio]

It's so sad that the Democratic Party has become a party of "give-a-way" programs and is comprised of so many different small factions of far left groups. Each group has its own agenda and its own wants and special needs. Truly, it has become a Party of "ask not what you can do for your country, but ask what my country can do for me". I only pray that the MAJORITY of Americans wake up before the next Presidential election and refuse to elect a Democrat into the White House. We no longer can afford the war nor can we afford to give away everything to their supporters. We need to focus on things like crime, true social needs, homelessness, and taking care of our elderly. It's time we quit supporting the "takers" of this great country. That will never happen if Democrats are elected.

[lestb35]

The Democrat Debate consisted of nothing but promises, promises, promises. I heard a promise for universal health care, universal daycare, universal preschool, elementary school for 100 mil kids around the world... let's see what else, I may have heard universal health club membership but I'm not sure, universal 6wk vacation (may have been dreaming) and universal weekly night out on the town (my idea and a very good one). That's all I can think of but there must have been more promises. What the Dems don't realize is that a broken promise is worse than none at all.

[processor2]

Whatever happened to the DEMOCRAT party concept of:

"Ask NOT what your party can do for you, but rather, what YOU can do for your country"

?????

Hillary sounds to me like she is plagarizing the "communist manifesto"
Hillary also sounds like Venezualan's communist president, Hugo Chavez, when she speaks of nationalizing the health industry and energy, too.

LET'S BRING BACK
"Ask NOT what your country can do for you, but rather, what YOU can do for your country"

...

[hypnotoad72]

There's a terrific poll about Hillary here:

http://yitbos96bb.mydd.com/story/2007/6/1/104448/6146

The peoples' comments are eye-opening too.

[opfor311]

Recent polling shows that an election held today between ANY of the GOP Candidates and a Democratic head of lettice, tomato, or dead squirrel, would result in a loss by the unnamed GOP Candidate by at least 40%.......I wonder why that is????..........can you say, Bush/Cheney Crime Cartel????.....I knew that you could.....
Posted by veteran71

However, the same poll showed that every Democratic presidental candidate was 60 to 80 points behind any given Republican candidate and the the most likely winner of the 2008 presidental race if the election were today was a 6 year old female Chocolate Labrador Retriever from Nebraska.

Seriously, it is MUCH too early to make any informed predictions in the 2008 presidential race. There is still a lot of time for any of the candidates to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Let's just use this time to find out the positions of the candidates, and decide who would be the best choice for our votes.

[realpatriot1]

infidel_US,

That's interesting about the oil companies making 8 cents per gallon. What's your source?

Even if you're right the operating statements show that the oil companies are currently making the largest corproate profits in history. My sources are Business Week, NBC, CNN, and ABC.

The first President to propose a windfall profits tax on the oil companies was Nixon. Was he a socialist?

[winsors1]

Why am I wasting my time???? Here we are going into one of, if not, the most important political elections [decisions] this country has had in three to four decades and people using this forum don't get it! HELLO!!!!! These individuals running for office are going to decide our future as a country. Not just during their tenure but for 4-8-12 years after their gone. This is not some High School political debate. It's our future we're putting in their hands. We are going to be putting our economy, our heritage, our history as a world government, and our childrens childrens future at state. We need to focus folks... Not only is our freedom as a county at stake, but the freedom of counties around the world. Please do not take this election lightly, or the people wanting to run this country. Your life may depend on it!

[heartlight3]

I find it so interesting how these comments reflect the personal bias and preconceptions of the person writing the comment. You almost wonder if we all watched the same debate. It indicates the number of people who seem to have their minds made up prior to the presentation of the facts. Why do you even bother to watch the debates if you are not interested in what the candidates actually have to say?
And what's with the multiple posts of the same comment? Do you think it emphasizes your point? Sorry, but it causes me to just disregard your entire post as a senseless rant. I thought this was supposed to be commentary on the article. What does it serve when it gets off onto subject matter that isn't even peripherally related to the subject at hand?