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.

[speakinup]

"Clinton Digs In"

Yeah - that''s good ole Presidential material all right. If the hole she''s in were any deeper - she''d pop out the other side.

[andersenme]

Anyone notice how in the New Hampshire debate tonight Hillary Clinton was very careful to point out that the Pakistani president was not, rpt, not running in the upcoming parliamentary elections? And why was that?

Because after Benazir Bhutto died, in two separate televised appearances, Sen. Clinton claimed that he was standing for election, even going so far as to say that he might arrange to be the only candidate on the ballot!

So much for her vaunted experience as First Wife.

In foreign policy, either you know it or you don''t, and no matter how scripted she was tonight, as Joe Biden pointed out last week, she clearly doesn''t.

Martin Edwin Andersen

Churchton, Maryland

[iceman_1960]

This is music to our ears:

"Friday, January 04, 2008

Voters continue to trust Democrats more than Republicans on most key issues, according to the latest data from a Rasmussen Reports tracking poll.

Democrats get the nod on nine of ten issues we asked about. They lead by double digits on six of the ten: the Economy, Immigration, Government Ethics and Corruption, Health Care, Social Security, and Education.

On no issue are Republicans more widely trusted than Democrats. The best the GOP can currently achieve is parity: 43% to 43% on National Security and the War on Terror, an area where they scrounged a bare two-point edge a month ago.

When the War in Iraq is isolated as a separate foreign-policy issue, Democrats enjoy an eight-point advantage of 47% to 39%, the same margin they held in November."

Source:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues/trust_on_issues

[jsilver2th]

Goodson is a joke- if I were any of these people I''d never return to ABC = playing GOP propaganga clips as neutral information then after the clip on Social Security Goodson never even asked a question about it- the pro "surge" spot was distorted and one-sided- what a pathetic attempt to manipulate public opinion- hang your head in shame ABC.

[iceman_1960]

Techno-bump.


Presto: the posts reappear

[iceman_1960]

"At one point in a discussion over foreign policy, Romney said to former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, "don%u2019t try and characterize my position." Huckabee: "Which one."

Not bad.

[speakinup]

AndersenME - yeah - I think I heard that last week. It doesn''t surprise me though.

I haven''t seen your name on the site too much, but if you do read posts on CBS''s blog - yo''d be amazed at how many far left bloggers act like Bush is going to run again.

They simply can''t resist getting their digs in. The usual parrot talk - you know - about how he lied, the high oil prices are his fault, how his ratings are so lousy (never mind that Congress as a whole is worse and Reid and Pelosi are almost negative.)

For the most part you need to gird your loins when reading on this site for total idiots. No wonder Hillary has such a big following.

I have asked, time and again, just what this person has done that makes her a great leader. No one has EVER answered.

Maybe they feel sorry for her, being publically humulated by Bill, with his affair while in office, but she stayed married to the jerk.

"Stupid is, as stupid does." is how I feel about her.

Frankly, I DO hope she gets her parties nomination. The person isn''t electable.

[danhansen888]

Ron Paul - the only mention of Dr. Paul in this article is as a "foil" for Rudy G. I thought his polemic on the effect that the devaluation of the dollar has on the price of oil in the United States was a masterpiece.

Ron Paul has drawn a strong distinction between defending ourselves against imminent threats from terrorist thugs and preemptive invasions of countries like Iraq. Much of Rudy G.''s argument relies on confusing these two - we did not have to invade Iraq in order to kill Al Qaeda. There were no Al Qaeda in Iraq prior to the invasion (but there are now).

We do not need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on bases in 130 countries in order to defeat Al Qaeda. It is unfortunate that this "Ron Paul wants to let the bad men come and kill us" argument carries as much weight as it does with people. But then again, many of these people believed that Iraq had nuclear bombs because that is what the current administration told them. I am hoping that Republicans will take a look at Dr. Paul and understand how sensible a non-interventionist foreign policy is.

[andersenme]

Here''s a bit of information about Sen. Clinton''s "experience" as First Wife and her patronage of Attorney General Janet Reno.

It should give anyone interested in good government pause.

I was the pioneer whistleblower in a security and corruption scandal involving senior Reno aides in the Criminal Division, including the person she appointed to "clean up" the INS and who at the same time was arranging to bring over two Russian women--one of whom he was sleeping with--on fraudulent visas.

(I eventually won the federal service''s highest award as a national security whistleblower, but that is for another time.)

Please check it out, then decide for yourself about Hillary''s judgment. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_30_18/ai_90753068

If Sen. Clinton became the Democratic nominee, she would be open to the same kind of charges they level against Rudy Giuliani about Bernie Kerik.

Martin Edwin Andersen

[PulSamsara]

Maybe your headline should read;

Frazzeled Former front-runner loses her cool.

Clinton tried to bait a fight... got a response back she didn''t like and flew off the handle.

Don''t dish it out if you can''t take it Hillary.

Not very Presidential at all.

[PulSamsara]

Digs into a hole.

[feelfree1]

Re: "It led Bill Richardson, the only other candidate invited to the debate..."

Why is that?

Dennis Kucinich is showing equal support to that of Mr. Richardson, according to recent polling. Why is Mr. Kucinich not invited to the debate?

www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm/

Is there a reason, CBS, that we are not being allowed to hear the opinions of Mr. Kucinich in this debate?

[nirak2-2009]

Leaving Candidates out of debates like Mr. Kucinich is what you call democratic in the US?

[wooha3]

That ol madcap prankster Hillary is up to her jokes again. Sarcasm, sniping, confrontational anger, direct attacks. Wow, not letting her staff do the dirty work anymore, just going for the jugular with venom and lies. Mark Penn must be proud.

Edward''s realignment with Obama really elucidates his fighter image. Desperation trumps chivalry.

Senator Obama - calm, informative,humorous.

[aburns8]

Forgot to put the part where Romney asked McCain (about his immigration bill) do they go home? Do they (illegals) go home?!

McCain said "some do, some don''t"

Ouch for McCain. If we are not even sending illegals home, then I guess it does offer amnesty to "some" illegals. I believed McCain until now on this issue, but that was a knockout blow.

Here in California, we care about illegal immigration. Not sure about the rest of you, but McCain will not get my vote.

[red_dragon7]

As a moderate Republican, I prefer Obama as a worthy Democratic opponent. Hillary Clinton is just OLD, tierd and wasted. She can''t even speak as good as a husband and make that emotional connection.

[red_dragon7]

As a moderate Republican, I prefer Obama as a worthy Democratic opponent. Hillary Clinton is just OLD, tierd and wasted. She can''t even speak as good as a husband and make that emotional connection.

[jedi08]

"That hurts my feelings". Awwwwwwwww so sorry we hurt your feelings Hillary. Maybe now BIll should come to your rescue again. That is not the attitude we need from a president, someone who''s feelings are hurt and Husband has to come to their rescue

[andersenme]

The Iowa caucus vote showed that the Democratic Party resoundingly rejected torture; Hillary Clinton got just 29 percent of the caucus vote. Let''s hope that trend is continued in New Hampshire, South Carolina and beyond.

As Milan Kundera wrote: "The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting."

See: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2007/09/28/2007-09-28_hillary_flipflop_on_torture_inspired_aft.html;

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2007/09/30/cnns-kurtz-sees-media-lust-hillary-does-full-ginsburg-flip-flop-tortu;

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0907/Hillary_and_torture_audio_version.html

Torture is as morally wrong as racial segregation and the historic treatment of Native Americans. The Democratic Party should not be led by someone whose moral compass is so weak that they are incapable of being a strong voice against this abominable practice.

[sgtrds]

Excellent debate! The republicans came across as what they are, senile old men and panderers who''ll appeared pathetic and the Democrats shine next to them. Any of the Democrats on the panel I would be willing to support over any of the republicans. The biggest laugh so far of course was Romney claiming to be an agent of change considering up until now he''s gone out of his way to promise to out Bush Bush.

As a side note Edwards won the debate on the Democratic side, but Obama is still the most inspiring.

[andor3]

"If we are not even sending illegals home, then I guess it does offer amnesty to "some" illegals."

Amnesty makes sense and any immigration proposal that does not include amnesty is not a serious proposal. Immigrants (legal or not) who have been in the country working and contributing absolutely deserve to be able to continue, and no paranoid anti-imm minority is going to have any influence to the contrary. We here in California agree with leaders from both parties: amnesty is essential and we will not listen to any of the "send them home" nonsense.

[wooha3]

How does ABC get off holding a Republican debate with a commentator who asks all Republican candidates to comment on what is wrong with the Democratic front runner when the front runner, Barack Obama is not even present to at least defend himself? This did not constitute a debate, but rather another cowardly attack on Obama.

The fact that the commentator asked Obama to respond upon the beginning of a separate Democratic debate, lame, lame, lame! I will not be tuning in to ABC for any future programs!

I would also like to protest the fact that Dennis Kucinich was not included in the Democratic debate.

[ac815]

Hillary Clinton did spectacularly in tonight''s debate. She had command of the issues, going into detail on Pakistan and Iraq and touching on complexities that Obama and Edwards didn''t seem to grasp. On the topic of nuclear terrorism, she was tough on national security and was the only candidate brave enough to say that nations that knowingly harbor terrorists could face retaliation after an attack.

She also showed off her personality: She was humorous when asked whether or not she was likable, even after Obama''s snide remark (which George Stephanopoulos called "peevish" and "small" after the debate).

More importantly, she was tough and feisty, holding her own while being attacked by both Edwards and Obama. When they tried to label her as the "status quo," Clinton fought back hard, saying that "words are not action" and that she has a long history of actually bringing about change through hard work, not simply talking about it. Bill Richardson came to her defense once, pointing out that change and experience are not oppositional when Clinton''s rivals tried to portray her experience as a negative.

Hillary was at her best. Some will try to spin things and label her as angry or against the ropes, but the reality of the debate is that she was relaxed, confident, and feisty.

She has a proven track record of leadership, intelligence, compassion, and willingness to fight for change (even when it isn''t popular). She won the debate, and I''m proud to support her as my choice for President.

[yougogirl08]

the fact that Republicans like Obama is enough reason for me not to vote for him. If they see him as a worthy opponent, their attack machine is ready and poised to destroy him. At leaset we know what they will say about Hillary. They have said it before and she is still there.

[ac815]

Hillary Clinton did spectacularly in tonight''s debate. She had command of the issues, going into detail on Pakistan and Iraq and touching on complexities that Obama and Edwards didn''t seem to grasp. On the topic of nuclear terrorism, she was tough on national security and was the only candidate brave enough to say that nations that knowingly harbor terrorists could face retaliation after an attack.

She also showed off her personality: She was humorous when asked whether or not she was likable, even after Obama''s snide remark (which George Stephanopoulos called "peevish" and "small" after the debate).

More importantly, she was tough and feisty, holding her own while being attacked by both Edwards and Obama. When they tried to label her as the "status quo," Clinton fought back hard, saying that "words are not action" and that she has a long history of actually bringing about change through hard work, not simply talking about it. Bill Richardson came to her defense once, pointing out that change and experience are not oppositional when Clinton''s rivals tried to frame her experience as a negative.

Hillary was at her best. Some will try to spin things and label her as angry or against the ropes, but the reality of the debate is that she was relaxed, confident, and feisty.

She has a proven track record of leadership, intelligence, compassion, and willingness to fight for change (even when it isn''t popular). She won the debate, and I''m proud to support her as my choice for President.

[ac815]

Hillary Clinton did spectacularly in tonight''s debate. She had command of the issues, going into detail on Pakistan and Iraq and touching on complexities that Obama and Edwards didn''t seem to grasp. On the topic of nuclear terrorism, she was tough on national security and was the only candidate brave enough to say that nations that knowingly harbor terrorists could face retaliation after an attack.

She also showed off her personality: She was humorous when asked whether or not she was likable, even after Obama''s snide remark (which George Stephanopoulos called "peevish" and "small" after the debate).

More importantly, she was tough and feisty, holding her own while being attacked by both Edwards and Obama. When they tried to label her as the "status quo," Clinton fought back hard, saying that "words are not action" and that she has a long history of actually bringing about change through hard work, not simply talking about it. Bill Richardson came to her defense once, pointing out that change and experience are not oppositional when Clinton''s rivals tried to frame her experience as a negative.

Hillary was at her best. Some will try to spin things and label her as angry or against the ropes, but the reality of the debate is that she was relaxed, confident, and feisty.

She has a proven track record of leadership, intelligence, compassion, and willingness to fight for change (even when it isn''t popular). She won the debate, and I''m proud to support her as my choice for President.

[feelfree1]

ac815,

Re: "She won the debate, and I''m proud to support her as my choice for President."

I did not see the debate, but many of us are tired of war mongers and Bush appeasers, like Hillary, and she plainly demonstrates that women can be just as bloodthirsty and greedy as men.

Yuck.

[ac815]

I think Hillary did spectacularly in tonight''s debate. She had command of the issues, going into detail on Pakistan and Iraq and touching on complexities that Obama and Edwards didn''t seem to grasp. On the topic of nuclear terrorism, she was tough on national security and was the only one brave enough to say that nations that knowingly harbor terrorists could face retaliation after an attack.

She also showed off her personality: She was humorous when asked whether or not she was likable, even after Obama''s snide remark (which George Stephanopoulos called "peevish" and "small" after the debate).

More importantly, she was tough and feisty, holding her own while being attacked by both Edwards and Obama. When they tried to label her as the "status quo," she fought back hard, saying that "words are not action" and that she has a long history of actually bringing about change through hard work, not simply talking about it. Bill Richardson came to her defense once, pointing out that change and experience are not oppositional when Clinton''s rivals tried to frame her experience as a negative.

Some will try to spin things and label her as angry or against the ropes, but the reality of the debate is that she was relaxed, confident, and feisty.

She has a proven track record of leadership, intelligence, compassion, and willingness to fight for change (even when it isn''t popular). She won the debate, and I''m proud to support her as my choice for President.

[ac815]

I think Hillary did spectacularly in tonight''s debate. She had command of the issues, going into detail on Pakistan and Iraq and touching on complexities that Obama and Edwards didn''t seem to grasp. On the topic of nuclear terrorism, she was tough on national security and was the only one brave enough to say that nations that knowingly harbor terrorists could face retaliation after an attack.

She also showed off her personality: She was humorous when asked whether or not she was likable, even after Obama''s snide remark (which George Stephanopoulos called "peevish" and "small" after the debate).

More importantly, she was tough and feisty, holding her own while being attacked by both Edwards and Obama. When they tried to label her as the "status quo," she fought back hard, saying that "words are not action" and that she has a long history of actually bringing about change through hard work, not simply talking about it. Bill Richardson came to her defense once, pointing out that change and experience are not oppositional when Clinton''s rivals tried to frame her experience as a negative.

Some will try to spin things and label her as angry or against the ropes, but the reality of the debate is that she was relaxed, confident, and feisty.

She has a proven track record of leadership, intelligence, compassion, and willingness to fight for change (even when it isn''t popular). She won the debate, and I''m proud to support her as my choice for President.

[andersenme]

ON WISCONSIN!!!

Even as the Democratic presidential candidates prepared to debate in New Hampshire, Sen. Barack Obama''s campaigned announced an endorsement from Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle.

Doyle said he was backing the Illinois Democrat because he believes Obama can build a coalition of Democrats, Republicans and independents to win in November and make changes in Washington.

[bob19951]

You know, I like McCain. He stands for something. He actually doesn''t accomplish anything, not in 25 years in the Senate, but at least his opinions are right on. And you know, I like Obama. He speaks great. I don''t know that he''s done much, nor what he plans to do, but it sure makes you feel good. And Romney. He''s the only one who actually accomplishes stuff...you gotta hand it to him, he''s got a golden finger. Everything he touches turns to gold.

[hhkeller]

I remember Obama voting for the Patriot Act and the IRAQ War continuing without questioning them like Kucinich. Eloquence is not enough for me. I will probably vote Clinton snce she tend to make less mistakes and more often says what she means. I hope Obama learns that we remember votes and pay backs a bitzch.

[ac815]

I think Hillary did spectacularly in tonight''s debate. She had command of the issues, going into detail on Pakistan and Iraq and touching on complexities that Obama and Edwards didn''t seem to grasp. On the topic of nuclear terrorism, she was tough on national security and was the only one brave enough to say that nations that knowingly harbor terrorists could face retaliation after an attack.

She also showed off her personality: She was humorous when asked whether or not she was likable, even after Obama''s snide remark (which George Stephanopoulos called "peevish" and "small" after the debate).

More importantly, she was tough and feisty, holding her own while being attacked by both Edwards and Obama. When they tried to label her as the "status quo," she fought back hard, saying that "words are not action" and that she has a long history of actually bringing about change through hard work, not simply talking about it. Bill Richardson came to her defense once, pointing out that change and experience are not oppositional when Clinton''s rivals tried to frame her experience as a negative.

Some will try to spin things and label her as angry or against the ropes, but the reality of the debate is that she was relaxed, confident, and feisty.

She has a proven track record of leadership, intelligence, compassion, and willingness to fight for change (even when it isn''t popular). She won the debate, and I''m proud to support her as my choice for President.

[samthetvcat]

pt 3) Hillary''s definitely tough, but people at this moment in time seem to want a conciliator, which Hillary is SO not as you point out. And didn''t Steph say that there''s bad blood now between Richardson and Hillary? Also, it''s kind of insulting for Hillary to try and claim she''s the agent of experience in the company of Richardson - only he''s too nice to say so.

pt 4) Hillary was probably at her best - I just don''t know whether that''s what people are looking for

pt 5) Hillary''s got such a track record of embellishing her accomplishments by trying to equate being first lady with being the President that I question how much she actually contributed to the accomplishments she touted. And what''s more, most of the changes she''s sought have been limited to girls the age of Chelsea. Like her empathy is limited to self-interest.

The big negative from tonight were when she lost it against Edwards and Richardson had to cut the tension with a joke.

[samthetvcat]

ac815

I think you make a solid argument in favor of Hillary''s strongest points. I think what many of us take issue with (as a matter of personal preference) are:

pt 1) It felt like her goal going into the debate was to demonstrate that she had greater command of the issues by going into detail and touching on complexities, so when she demonstrates these qualities it reinforces the perception of her as being calculating. Somebody with great command of the issues wouldn''t have made the mistake of thinking Musharraf was on the ballot against Bhutto. Also somebody aware of complexities shouldn''t have voted for the war in Iraq.

pt 2) Hillary''s girlishness wasn''t funny for people who don''t like her - it was majorly awkward and made us feel guilty. I can understand how her friends didn''t like Obama''s response though (Steph)

[andersenme]

Some headlines about Barack Obama from around the world:

"Sometimes miracles do happen" -- Jamaica Observer

"Obama''s rise, America''s renewal" -- Toronto Globe and Mail

"UK politicians should listen to Obama%u2019s message of change" -- Sunday Herald

"Obama-mania in New Hampshire as new poll shocks Clinton camp" -- Independent (UK)

"Panicked Hillary is tempted to turn dirty" -- Times Online (UK) Also ... "Obama bursts out as the liberal Reagan who can reunite America"

Martin Edwin Andersen
Churchton, Maryland

[PulSamsara]

AC815-

I think you demonstrate your maturity through your many many copied posts. Grow up.

Barack Obama for President of the United States of America.

[forbesf]

Did the writer Vince see the same debate I did?

Republicans were all over Obama that he''s too liberal on guns, and John McCain slammed Obama on foreign policy. That writer must have fallen asleep.

Democats have good choices and the polls are showing that. These are all excellent candidates, but the media is having a lovefest with Obama, and not asking the hard questions that Republicans will next year.

How is Obama going to go up aganist the NRA? Do all these excited young people thinking they''re creating their own 60''s type movement understand how the Republicans will clean Obama''s clock next year? Just wait until they get ahold of his very liberal voting record.

Remember everyone, Al Gore lost aganist Bush because of guns and Obama has propossed gun control. Also remember Iowa picked Kerry so I don''t think they''re record of picking nominees is all that great.

[ac815]

I think Hillary did spectacularly in tonight''s debate. She had command of the issues, going into detail on Pakistan and Iraq and touching on complexities that Obama and Edwards didn''t seem to grasp. On the topic of nuclear terrorism, she was tough on national security and was the only one brave enough to say that nations that knowingly harbor terrorists could face retaliation after an attack.

She also showed off her personality: She was humorous when asked whether or not she was likable, even after Obama''s snide remark (which George Stephanopoulos called "peevish" and "small" after the debate).

More importantly, she was tough and feisty, holding her own while being attacked by both Edwards and Obama. When they tried to label her as the "status quo," she fought back hard, saying that "words are not action" and that she has a long history of actually bringing about change through hard work, not simply talking about it. Bill Richardson came to her defense once, pointing out that change and experience are not oppositional when Clinton''s rivals tried to frame her experience as a negative.

Some will try to spin things and label her as angry or against the ropes, but the reality of the debate is that she was relaxed, confident, and feisty.

She has a proven track record of leadership, intelligence, compassion, and willingness to fight for change (even when it isn''t popular). She won the debate, and I''m proud to support her as my choice for President.

[samthetvcat]

"I remember Obama voting for the Patriot Act and the IRAQ War continuing without questioning them like Kucinich. Eloquence is not enough for me. I will probably vote Clinton snce she tend to make less mistakes and more often says what she means. I hope that Obama learns that . . . PAY BACKS A BITZCH" (emphasis mine)
Posted by hhkeller

There''s that vengeance angle!

Hillary and Obama''s votes with regards to funding and the Iraq war have been the same - I think once was the war was started (thanks to Hillary''s vote) Congress was reluctant to end it by withdrawing funding because of the carnage that resulted from the immediate withdrawal of troops from VietNam.

Another low point of Hillary''s during the debate was that she gave no consideration to what would happen to the Iraqi people when she withdraws troops from Iraq.

As for the renewal of the Patriot Act, Clinton voted for that too. So I''m not sure how she believes point out Obama''s voting record is supposed to demonstrate greater consistency when she claims that Bush''s ideas are the ones she''s going to change. How so?

A third negative she demonstrated in the debates was her need to always have a target - to show unity she''s always got to have an opponent. Like she can''t just say that all the Democratic candidates are great, she always seems to need to add that Republicans suck. Not the personality of a unifier.

[forbesf]

Two months ago I tuned into Sean Hannity''s sickening radio show to hear him talking to Iowans changing from Repubican to Independent to caucus aganist Hillary. It''s part of his "Stop Hillary Express."

I heard it myself. A lot of those Republicans claiming they love Obama and wanted to change party to vote for him are lying, lying, and the mainstream media is too stupid to pick it up.

[samthetvcat]

"Remember everyone, Al Gore lost aganist Bush because of guns and Obama has propossed gun control. Also remember Iowa picked Kerry so I don''''t think they''''re record of picking nominees is all that great."
Posted by forbesf

Didn''t Al Gore win? He just didn''t get to actually become President because of the Supreme Court (LOL).

Actually isn''t what cost him the Presidency generally attributed to Ralph Nader?

And I don''t see anybody who''s primary concern is preserving their 2A rights ever voting for a Democratic nominee. 37% of the country still thinks Shrub is doing a fabulous job - I highly doubt any of them are going to vote Democratic either (ever).

[justwaitand]

Part I

And while we%u2019ve been paying attention tonight to the debates, Mark Halperin%u2019s item over at The Page caught our eye, and we thought we should share it with you.

As Mr. Halperin reported, several members of the International Executive Board protested loudly in a letter to AFSCME president Gerald McEntee that an independent expenditure unit run by two people had been using funds solely to attack Senator Obama (and no other Democratic candidate). Keep reading this letter, posted on The Page, and keep in mind that it comes at a time when Senator Obama has emerged victorious out of Iowa and is in a very tight race here in New Hampshire.
We are writing to protest in the strongest terms the negative campaign that AFSCME is conducting against Barack Obama. We do not believe that such a wholesale assault on one of the great friends of our union was ever contemplated when the International Executive Board (IEB) made its decision to endorse Hillary Clinton.

[justwaitand]

Part II

In fact, when the vote to make a primary endorsement was taken by the IEB, there appeared to be widespread agreement that we had a strong field of Democratic candidates all of whom had made a very positive impression on the IEB Screening Committee. The argument for endorsing Hillary Clinton was not that her positions were better than those of the other candidates or that she would be the better president for working families, but rather that she was the clear frontrunner, the most likely primary victor, and the strongest general election candidate.
%u2026%u2026
We were therefore shocked and appalled to learn that our union-through %u201Cindependent expenditures%u201D%u2013is squandering precious resources to wage a costly and deceptive campaign to oppose Barack Obama. As Barack%u2019s standing in the polls has soared, according to numerous press reports AFSCME has spent untold dollars in Iowa and New Hampshire to send out mailings and run radio ads whose sole purpose is to undercut his candidacy. And now AFSCME has even registered a website with the explicit purpose of %u201Copposing Barack Obama.%u201D

[chitown639]

She has a proven track record of leadership, intelligence, compassion, and willingness to fight for change (even when it isn''''t popular). She won the debate, and I''''m proud to support her as my choice for President.

Posted by ac815

Paid for by the campaign to elect Hillary Clinton for president.

[sgtrds]

Ron Paul - the only mention of Dr. Paul in this article is as a "foil" for Rudy G.

Posted by DanHansen888 at 01:05 AM : Jan 06, 2008

That''s because Ron Paul has less chance of being nominated then Ralph Nader. Give up the ghost.

[justwaitand]

Part III
It is also worth noting that the campaign that AFSCME is waging against Senator Obama is fundamentally dishonest and inconsistent with past positions of our union, i.e. attacking him for not forcing individuals to purchase health care even when they can%u2019t afford it. The ads are misleading in attempting to give the impression that they are associated with John Edwards rather than Hillary Clinton and in their claims that Sen. Obama%u2019s health care plan will exclude 15 million people when in fact every person will have the opportunity to participate. This dishonesty is giving our union a %u201Cblack eye%u201D among many in the media and the progressive community.
Earlier this week, The Concord Monitor reported that voters had received emails criticizing Mr. Obama%u2019s health care plan as %u201Ca Band-aid solution%u201D that would leave %u201C15 million Americans uninsured.%u201D (We are pretty sure Mrs. Clinton has used the same term %u2014 Band-aid solution %u2014 to refer to plans that weren%u2019t hers.) These mails included comments by John Edwards that criticized the Obama plan, The Monitor said, which residents could have inferred meant they were backed by Mr. Edwards and his supporters.
But, no, they were financed by an AFCSCME committee. The Monitor reported that AFSCME had spent nearly $80,000 on such mailings recently. And it had paid for radio ads, as we mentioned earlier.

[justwaitand]

Part IVThe issue of primary endorsements has been loudly debated among labor unions. And in fact, some unions or their umbrella organizations decided not to endorse in the primaries %u2014 sometimes citing the fact that the field was fairly strong. Others, remembering how they were stung by supporting a candidate who lost in previous cycles, were still skittish this time around.
If you read the entire letter by members of the board, you can sense their concerns about such a scenario. It%u2019s pretty palpable.

[sgtrds]

justwaitand

Long multi-part posts are nearly as bad as posting the same thing over and over again. I mean come on, you get 1500 charters and if you can''t make a point in that amount then you need to work on it.

[justwaitand]

Posted by SgtRDS at 03:00 AM : Jan 06, 2008

Why don''t you tried reading the entire thing before commenting