Clinton Digs In; Romney Takes Foes' Digs

CBSNews.com's Vaughn Ververs: Clinton, Romney Try To Rebound From Iowa Losses During Back-To-Back Debates

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

---

Fresh from the triumphs of two newcomers in Iowa, presidential candidates in both parties put on intense, do-or-die debates in New Hampshire just three days before that state's primary. Three Democratic candidates are now engaged in a tight race that has captured the imaginations of voters and they confronted each other head on. The Republican field is still more scrambled and so their debate was less focused, though Mitt Romney was the chief target of attacks.

It took little time for twelve months of tension between the top three Democratic candidates to burst out into the open. Coming off a loss in Iowa and badly needing a win in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton wasted little time in going afterBarack Obama, sparking a blunt discussion about the basic dynamic of this campaign - change versus experience.

Accusing the Illinois senator of changing positions on health care and funding for the Iraq war, Clinton said "what we're looking for is a president we can count on." Obama responded, "I have been entirely consistent."

John Edwards appeared to be looking to help deliver a knockout punch to Clinton, saying that Clinton's questioning of Obama is "not the kind of discussion we should be having." Edwards tied himself to Obama as an agents of change and cast Clinton as part of the status quo fighting change. Edwards pointedly accused Clinton of attacking Obama after her loss in Iowa. Clinton loudly interjected, saying, "making change is not about what you believe, it's not about a speech to make, it's about working hard. … I'm not just running on a promise of change, I'm running on 35 years of making change."

It led Bill Richardson, the only other candidate invited to the debate, to quip, "I've been in hostage negotiations that are a lot more civil than this."

When asked about the view that she is unlikable and Obama very likable, Clinton responded by saying, "I don’t think I'm that bad." Clinton actually said that the question hurt her feelings, a rare moment of vulnerability for a candidate often described as tough and robotic.

The New York Senator benefited from the reduced field - this debate had just four candidates instead of the usual seven or eight. Fewer participants meant more time for her to elaborate on her more complex argument of experience and to show off her policy chops.

Clinton took the opening question to again try and demonstrate her depth on the issue of Pakistan. Clinton laid out a series of considerations that would have to be taken into account before the United States moved into Pakistan to get Osama bin Laden, something that Obama has said he would advocate. In response, Obama again cited the decision to invade Iraq - and indirectly Clinton's vote for to authorize the war - as being an important reason why Pakistan has been ignored.

All the candidates tried to straddle the line when asked what they would do the day after a hypothetical nuclear attack on a U.S. city, almost as if they didn't want to sound too much like President Bush. Edwards said he would retaliate against whoever was proven responsible but cautioned that a president should not over-react. Obama agreed about retaliation but said in order to prevent it, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty needs to be revitalized. Clinton went a bit further, saying that nations who allow terrorists to operate within their borders should be on notice that they will face retaliation.

---

The Republican N.H. Debate: Romney Takes Most Fire
The Democratic N.H. Debate: Clinton Challenges Obama

---

In the most aggressive debate of this campaign to date, the dynamic was new. It now appears to be two-on-one battle, as Edwards tries to hitch his wagon to Obama's message of change. Clinton did not alter her insistence on the virtues of her experience. Time after time, Clinton made her case with increasing vigor.

According to the network entrance polls in Iowa, the "experience" argument was a losing one. New Hampshire voters will reach their verdict on Tuesday.

Among Republicans, Mitt Romney took by far the most incoming fire - and the most personal. Time and again, Romney's changes of position on key issues were the targets of enemy fire.

At one point in a discussion over foreign policy, Romney said to former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, "Don’t try and characterize my position." Huckabee: "Which one."

Later in the evening, after Romney described himself as the candidate of change in the GOP field, John McCain said, "We disagree on a lot of topics, but I agree, you are the candidate of change." Romney at times appeared exasperated at the attacks, saying, "The continued personal barbs are interesting but unnecessary."

McCain engaged in a long, heated debate with Romney on immigration. It's one issue that has dogged McCain throughout the campaign. McCain argued with Romney over whether his support for the now-defunct immigration reform bill amounted to amnesty. When Romney insisted his television ads did not describe McCain's position that way, McCain bristled "you can spend your whole fortune on these attack ads, but it doesn't make it true."

Huckabee, the big Iowa winner, spent most of his air time, which wasn't much, on defense. He had to explain, for example, his past criticism of the Bush administration's foreign policy as "arrogant." Huckabee was quick to assure GOP voters that he supported President Bush on the war in Iraq and asserted he was among the first to support the current troop surge strategy. "When I made those statements, there were times that we gave the world the impression that we were going to do whatever we wanted to do," he said.

Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson, unlikely to be key factors in New Hampshire's primary, appeared relaxed. Thompson frequently chimed into the discussion with asides and comments and gave some of his most comprehensive answers to date on health care reform and foreign policy. Giuliani once again used Ron Paul as a foil on national security issues and chimed into the immigration debate by pointing out that the GOP's modern-day patron saint, Ronald Reagan, once issued amnesty to illegal immigrants.

In New Hampshire, Romney and McCain are locked in a battle in which a loss could spell the end of either campaign. McCain came out on top of this battle, if only because Romney was besieged by all sides.

But even if one of those two fall in New Hampshire, the overall picture will stay foggy. Moving on to South Carolina, Florida and the mega-state primaries on February 5th, a case can easily be made for one of at least four of the men on stage for winning the nomination. Only at the moment, the cases are slightly stronger for Huckabee, McCain and Giuliani than Romney.

In an interesting twist, Obama became a big part of the Republican debate, with candidates seeking to tie themselves to his campaign message. Romney noted that he and Obama are the candidates talking about "change." Mike Huckabee spoke of the desire among voters for the kind of "vertical" leadership the Democrat is offering. Ron Paul went to far as to claim he and Obama are very similar because they both have attracted young people to their campaigns.

Unlike Hillary Clinton, who Republican candidates are quick to use as a foil, Obama received nothing but praise from Republicans.

[trinitron01]

Hello People! You have a real chance to get the best man in office with a perfect record in congress-- none of them come close to Dr. Ron Paul. I have compared them. I didn''''t know who was who and didnt trust the media machine. Look up ronpaul2008.com and his issues and record, and you will see for yourself. Don''''t be fooled by the imitators, there is only one guy that can really make a difference for the people. Also Dr. Ron Paul is on TONIGHT WITH JAY LENO - Tonight!!!

[infidel_us]

Saying the "surge" worked is like saying Rolaids can cure a stomach ulcer. It can get the antacid down for the moment--but the problem that causes the burning, hasn''t gone anywhere.
Posted by b-easy63 at 07:06 AM : Jan 07, 2008

And if you had your way, it would never be allowed to, right? All because you hate George Bush. What a pathetic lot you libs are.

[infidel_us]

Just been listening to Hitlery shedding faux tears....what a pathetic excuse for a human being. Anyone who would support her is as much of a loser as she is.

[sgtrds]

Saying the "surge" worked is like saying Rolaids can cure a stomach ulcer. It can get the antacid down for the moment--but the problem that causes the burning, hasn''''t gone anywhere.

Posted by b-easy63 at 07:06 AM : Jan 07, 2008

Bravo! Perfect analogy!

[prinzowhales]

What does this Bush clone have to say about the Israeli spies and their Turkish and Pakistani associates who ARE STEALING US NUCLEAR SECRETS?!!

http://antiwar.com/justin/

The TIMES ON-LINE has reported on this in the UK...
Ambassador Grossman has already been named and Sibel Edmonds, the FBI translator whistleblower says that more high level traitors would be facing criminal trials if the tapes she translated were released. She has had an unpredented national security gag order placed on her by the Regime judiciary.

Meanwhile the Regime goes slow on its prosecution of the AIPAC traitors!

Down with Bush and the treasonous dogs around him!

The silence on this from CBSNBCPBSFOXCNNABC is deafening!!

[b-easy63]

Jury is in dude....please dig elsewhere for the ''''truth'''' because it''''s pretty common knowledge that the surge worked. Don''''t know anyone or any place to go to give you the real lowdown? Too sad.

Posted by likeitis5050 at 05:42 PM : Jan 06, 2008


The purpose of the surge is to provide enough respite for the Iraqi government so that they can enact policy shifts, repair the infrastructure and reconcile their country. To date, they have done none of those things.

No one doubted that the surge would stop a lot of the violence. The problem was and still is, that when we let up (and someday we will have to, because we will be too broke to keep it up) all of the violence will be back if Iraq does not get itself together. So the real question is--are the Sunni defectors really on our side? The other question is, have the militia factions been disbanded? The last question is, has the Shia controlled gov. stopped playing favorites and are they repairing infrastructure and providing basic necessities to Sunni areas also? If the answer is still no--then the surge has not worked--it just did what everyone thought it would and what each "surge" has done--brought a lull in the violence, while the real problem waits for the next let up to come roaring back to the surface.


Saying the "surge" worked is like saying Rolaids can cure a stomach ulcer. It can get the antacid down for the moment--but the problem that causes the burning, hasn''t gone anywhere.

[b-easy63]

"Unlike Hillary Clinton, who Republican candidates are quick to use as a foil, Obama received nothing but praise from Republicans."

Which will only last until if/when they have to run against Obama--then...they will have to explain how being "like him" was good--but all of sudden, why they are not like him and he is "bad". Politics--the liars'' club.

[libra127]

"When asked about the view that she is unlikable and Obama very likable, Clinton responded by saying, ''''I don%u2019t think I''''m that bad.''''" That bad? Apparently, even Clinton thinks she''''s bad. Opps!

Huh ? Having trouble understanding English, eh ? She says quite plainly that she DOESN''T think she''s unlikeable.

[brundage3]

After a 35 year career in broadcast and print Journalism, i find this article to be "inaccurate by omission."

Had I not watched the Democrats''debate, I would believe that there was angry statement after angry statement. This writing creates in me the impression that I would have seen scorning faces, pointing and stabbing fingers, raised shouting voices."NONE OF THAT OCCURED.

But adjectives in this bad writing, do create those pictures in the mind. AND there is no quotation of Mrs. Clinton immediately preceding her points on Obama''s record saying, "I think we all should be questioned thoroughly on our records." And,,, "Heaven knows I have been questioned on a large variety of issues"and, O am more than willing to answer any questions on my record anyone wants to bring up."

THIS IS ONLY ONE EXAMPLE of ommission which changes the truth. Senator Obama said in the middle of one DISagreement, something very close to, "Look. Every one of the four of us up here is a very good person who has worked hard and successfully for very good issues. It''s just that we Do have differences as to HOW to accomplish some of these things."

[iceman_1960]

Cookies loading. Please wait.

[ioweign]

"The wall between the FBI and the CIA has/had existed prior to Clinton. - IOWEIGN

The department of home land security was developed shortly after 911, in part in order to aleviate this problem. To create co-operation among all security agencies.

Posted by speakinup at 04:56 PM : Jan 06, 2008

I know speakinup - someone posted that the "friction" between the two departments (CIA and FBI) was caused by Clintion. The friction has existed since the CIA was created back under wasn''t it Truman from the old OSS.

[ioweign]

"Ask General Fallon who only supports Betrayus because he has to...he knows the surge didn''''''''t work. - RowdyTexan2


Thirdly, to address your point of Adm Fallon not thinking the surge worked: The Admiral has not trusted the General''''s judgement - even before he had reason to not do so. The Admiral thinks it is good policy to send a rear-admiral to gather facts for him, unbeknownst to the good General, instead of relying on his men in the field. And, using this Rear Admirals'''' impressions, decided the exact 180 of what General Peteraus has so successfully implemented.

Not only that, but then the admiral makes a very unprofessional characterization about his subordinate calling him "an azz-kissing little chickensh|t" and added, "I hate people like that".

So, the Admiral showed his unprofessional side BEFORE he knew the good General. Moreover, the admiral was upstaged, and publiclly shown to not know what he was doing by the general.

So what would you expect from this wanna be?

Grow a brain before spitting out your opinions will you.

Posted by speakinup at 04:49 PM : Jan 06, 2008

And Petreaus showed his unprofessionalism back on 9/25/2004. Admirals don''t come by their positions the same way Generals get theirs. Fallon knew about Petreaus and his "AZZ-KIZZING" prior to Petreaus and his "bump".

[alanrobisch]

The Regan/Bush administration were warned about the Talaban they just didn''''t listen.

See a pattern that was already forming even back then.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by antoniof123 at 04:34 PM : Jan 06, 2008

I think you missed something the taliban was supported by america to oust the russians from afghanistan. they were not anti american.

[alanrobisch]

Personally, I hope I am wrong, but neither the history of the region, nor the capacity of America''''s leadership give me much to hope for in that regard.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Prinzowhales at 05:53 PM : Jan 06, 2008
+ report abuse

Talk about being optimistic. I love your objective comment calling John Mccain a warpig whatever that is. Obviously you substituted a form of cursing for actual ideas. Try ideas next time

[prinzowhales]

Oh, yes! Barney''s protege, General Betrayus, is back in the news as there is a lull in the fighting and he can prance about in Iraq like Barney sniffing about a slaughter house for a bone...or like Bush and Giuliani crunching the bones of the first responders under their feet as they mug for photographers.

General Betrayus has yet to account for the thousands of ''misplaced'' weapons for which he was responsible...
It is way to early to register the surge as a success in anything more than providing us with a temporary, tactical advantage...some breathing space that will, of course, be used by the Washington Regime to take the pressure off of its War Pig candidates. Personally, I hope I am wrong, but neither the history of the region, nor the capacity of America''s leadership give me much to hope for in that regard.

[likeitis5050]

Only 1 part of the "Surge" was even close to calling it any sucess, the very limited security in some area''''s.
-----

Posted by j-whitman

Jury is in dude....please dig elsewhere for the ''truth'' because it''s pretty common knowledge that the surge worked. Don''t know anyone or any place to go to give you the real lowdown? Too sad.

[denn034]

From the story: "When asked about the view that she is unlikable and Obama very likable, Clinton responded by saying, ''I don%u2019t think I''m that bad.''" That bad? Apparently, even Clinton thinks she''s bad. Opps!

[speakinup]

"The wall between the FBI and the CIA has/had existed prior to Clinton. - IOWEIGN

The department of home land security was developed shortly after 911, in part in order to aleviate this problem. To create co-operation among all security agencies.

[formrusmcsgt]

Posted by andywahr at 04:33 PM : Jan 06, 2008

If that''s how you feel, why do you post here and give CBs additional "hits" from which to generate additional revenue?

Or don''t you understand how "hits" relate to advertising revenue?

[speakinup]

"Ask General Fallon who only supports Betrayus because he has to...he knows the surge didn''''t work. - RowdyTexan2

First off, the NAVY doesn''t have generals, RT. Fallon is an Admiral, and as CENTCOM, is General Petraeus''s boss. He has the power to make or break the General''s career.

Secondly, why do you feel it is necessary to emulate moveon.org''s unpatriotic spelling of a fighting man ? Could it be you don''t respect those that are risking their lives for you. (Ungreatful little sh|t that you are.)

Thirdly, to address your point of Adm Fallon not thinking the surge worked: The Admiral has not trusted the General''s judgement - even before he had reason to not do so. The Admiral thinks it is good policy to send a rear-admiral to gather facts for him, unbeknownst to the good General, instead of relying on his men in the field. And, using this Rear Admirals'' impressions, decided the exact 180 of what General Peteraus has so successfully implemented.

Not only that, but then the admiral makes a very unprofessional characterization about his subordinate calling him "an azz-kissing little chickensh|t" and added, "I hate people like that".

So, the Admiral showed his unprofessional side BEFORE he knew the good General. Moreover, the admiral was upstaged, and publiclly shown to not know what he was doing by the general.

So what would you expect from this wanna be?

Grow a brain before spitting out your opinions will you.