Clinton Aide: Primaries "Great" For Dems

(CBS)  In spite of widely-voiced fears that weeks of negative comments between the Democratic presidential candidates may lead to irreparable divisions that could hamper the ultimate nominee, Hillary Clinton's communications director said today that the primary contest "has been great for the Democratic Party."

Appearing on Face The Nation, Howard Wolfson told host Bob Schieffer, "We have seen record turnout in states that Senator Obama won and we've seen record turnout in states that Senator Clinton won, most recently in Pennsylvania. Democrats are enthused. They're excited. They want to send a Democrat to the White House."

Wolfson did not think that supporters of the losing candidate would fail to back the winner following the Denver convention. "I think that both the Obama campaign and the Clinton campaign are absolutely committed to coming together at the conclusion of this process, coming behind whoever the nominee is, and enthusiastically supporting that person."

David Axelrod, chief strategist of the Obama campaign, concurred: "We do have a party that is very, very focused on winning. We understand that a continuation of these Republican policies would be disastrous for people across Indiana, across North Carolina who are sitting there this morning watching this program and going through their bills and wondering how they're going to pay them and know that we can't afford more of the same Bush economic policies.

"But the question is how we get to that change," Axelrod said. "We do have to come together not just as a party, but as a country. We have to get past our divisions. We have to push back on the special interests in Washington.

"I think there's a hunger for change in this country. I think people are going to come together in a great coalition for change. I think it's important that that change be not just change of party, but a change of politics in Washington."

Schieffer also welcomed former CBS News correspondent Roger Mudd (author of a new book, "The Place to Be: Washington, CBS, and the Glory Days of Television News") to the studio, who discussed the evolving role debates have played in presidential contests, with the main change being their proliferation.

"If you remember, you didn't get a debate until after the convention, after the parties had picked their two nominees," Mudd said. "There was the Kennedy-Nixon great debate in 1960. Johnson refused to debate; Nixon refused to debate.

"It was not until Gerry Ford and Carter got together, and there was a series of debates and there was a mistake in each one of them that damaged that candidate: Gerry Ford said Poland was free, and Ronald Reagan came and said to Carter, 'There you go again,' and to Mondale, 'I won't use age as a weapon against you.' And they caught George Bush looking at his watch.

"But now the debates are all the time, and those debates now furnish the raw material of the coverage. The question is whether those debates are, in fact, genuine debates or whether they're practiced, professionally coached spinning. I mean, I watched you interview Mr. Wolfson and Mr. Axelrod, and they didn't lay a glove on you, Bob, did they?"

"No," Schieffer agreed. "They didn't get off the talking points. I mean, they were like little boys in Sunday school. They've been told to behave themselves on Sunday morning. I find that a little bit striking, because this campaign, how really harsh it has become."

---

Read the full "Face the Nation" transcript here.

[acolton1]

When it comes down to election time and the vote it''s going to turn out to be Democrat because the Republicans have followed George W Bush with blinders on and he has just destroyed everything.

[acolton1]

I think that the primary contest "has been great for the Democratic Party."

The focus is on Clinton and Obama and it seems that McCain is getting no coverage at all. It does not matter anyway the Bush Administration has neglected the US Economy and not it has fallen into the toilet and George is just now addressing the Price of Gas and Housing issue. It''s all just LIP SERVICE from George W. Bush and shift the blame on to Congress. George Dousch Bag Bush is 100% TO BLAME in so many countless ways, good ridance to the Bushies and his Jacked up Administration. This election is going to be a LAND SLIDE anyway Just like Regan and Carter and this time a Democrat is going to win and YES taxes are going to go up, somebody has to pay for the Trillion Dollars that went to this failed war and for George Bush being such an IDIOT, I dont know who ever let George Bush out of his Group Home in Texas Anyway he is a total ****.

[carenza-2009]

The view in Europe about Americans is that a huge majority act dim....I don''t share this view myself as I actually quite like Americans (I am in the minority here), but I have to say you guys are living up to this "dim image", let me see if I get this right, Hilary has $109 million (that we know about), she is not convinced enough about her electability to use her own money like Rommney did, but she is asking poor uneducated people to fund her campaign while she gets interest @ 2% on the $5 million loan to her campaign....ingenious....a fool and his money are soon parted......

[jerry rubin]

I believe and even the revered Roger Mudd are wrong. The news is not the story any more, it is a distortion of the information that is important to the life blood of the American Constitution.

You play clips of Sen. HRC saying snipper fire and there was no snipper fire. You play a shortened version of Rev. Wright''s sermon which was a total distortion of the whole speech as seen on PBS with Bill Moyer''s the Journal.

So, I would say the "NEWS" is no longer a media of information it is a blog-o-shere of talkers. The information is the short version and corporate distortion of what someone''s agenda might be who owns your company, just like the blog-o-shere is a short rant of someone''s trivial pursue.

If you want news, don''t look at President HWB''s watch and make something about it, or Nixon''s sweating at the debates. Deal with real problems like the unemployment, loss of jobs, or healthcare, the War which you did a poor job to stop before it got going. You always seem to be to late at real news and too good at junk news. Maybe it is best if you just report on Cindy Lohan and Brittney Spears.

[libra127]

POLL: CLINTON HAS BETTER CHANCE THAN OBAMA OF BEATING McCAIN
By Liz Sidoti, Associated Press

Hillary Rodham Clinton has a better chance than Barack Obama of beating Republican John McCain, according to a new Associated Press-Ipsos poll that bolsters her argument that she is more electable in the fall than her rival for the Democratic nomination.

The survey released Monday gives Clinton a fresh talking point as she works to convince pivotal undecided superdelegates to side with her in the drawn-out Democratic primary fight.

Clinton, who won the Pennsylvania primary last week, has gained ground this month in a hypothetical head-to-head match up with the GOP nominee-in-waiting; she now leads McCain, 50 percent to 41 percent, while Obama remains virtually tied with McCain, 46 percent to 44 percent.

[suzyku]

Clinton does NOT have this "big" political experience. It is another of her lies. Being first lady does not mean she''s more experienced or more ready than Obama! The long and drawn out primaries are hurting the party, she''s selfish and egotistical, has a sense of self entitlement. She needs to STOP and for once, think of the party and the people she falsely professes to care about. In reality she only cares about herself!

[hofkurz]

Of worthy note is Mr. Axelrod''s question of how do you go from inevitable nominee to not winning 2/3 of the primary? Yes, indeed. What is inevitable about that after all?

[jockh]

Hillary may have more political experience than Obama, but old Hillary, with 35 years of experience and the advice of an ex President behind her, still voted to go to war in Iraq.

Like Obama, and like millions of ordinary people, she knew that the Iraq threat was a pack of lies but the problem was that she had her eye on the future Presidency; and I think she did not want to be painted as someone who is afraid of war just because she is a woman, this would have damaged her future presidential bid; so she chose the political expedient thing to do, lets go with the flow, lets not rock the boat.

So, to fulfill her personal ambitions, she now has the blood of 4000 US servicemen on her hands and she can never wash that away, no matter how she spins it.

Even to this day, she never uses her own judgment; she says whatever she thinks the audience wants to hear and changes her stance according to the state she is in. That%u2019s why polls show that voters consider her to be the most dishonest politician.

If Hillary is the nominee I would reluctantly vote for her; but I prefer to have a leader who has the integrity to stand by their beliefs rather than go with the flow, even if that means they have to stand alone in a crowded room.

[craigh9]

The only good thing is that Hillary is totally wearing out her welcome with the party nationally - so once she finally quits - we will never have to deal with her again in a presidential election.

[craigh9]

It''s great in the eyes of Hillary because if the democrats really wanted to unite she would be on the outside looking in - she will be anyway, but she may quit too late for the party to come together for a national election