Comments on Poor Hillary

i don't even want to vote for obama at all anymore, not even if he's the nominee. too bad the repubs are all so insane.

OH SNAP! Gobama!

Watching the streaming video of the debate online, Hillary came across a little bit negative, divisive and desperate. Obama was the most "presidential". All four were generally good-- better than the whole crop of R's. If Obama is the nominee, it will be nice for once to be genuinely excited and inspired by a candidate in the general election...after Kerry and (the old) Gore...and Dukakis, etc. I predict Washington State will go bonkers for Obama!

vamos con obama....

va-mos con oba-ma

VA-mos con o-baaaa-MA

Va-mos con o-baaaa-MA!

You're not a reporter, Golob. Go back to measuring things.

Seriously, you should at least PRETEND to not take a HUGE.SIDE. (even using shrill??? WTF?) if you are going to try to write on what the big kids do.

oh no way, i think edwards totally won that.

Why would she want to associate herself with Bush rhetoric?

Uh, because it works? Because Democrats not blinded by ideological hatred recognize that Karl Rove was the most brilliant political stratigist of the era?

"Likable" or "likeable" doesn't take a hyphen.

They were all likable, and obviously would be better than Bush, with maybe the exception of Hillary. But how hard is it to be better than Bush? I have never bothered to watch a Dem debate, because of their complete failure to lead this country out of war and bankruptcy, so I was a little surprised they did not seen noticeably evil, with the exception of Clinton. I am a little peeved at Richards for laying into Edwards about the necessity of getting out of Iraq right away, when out of the big three only Edwards has committed to complete withdrawal, where as both Clinton and Oboama have made no such commitment.

they're showing the debate now on ABC.

.... @9:

out of the big three only Edwards has committed to complete withdrawal, where as both Clinton and Oboama have made no such commitment.

There's a common thread between John Edwards's "get the hell out now" position on Iraq now and his "get the hell in" position in 2002. That thread is John Edwards's political ambition and his failure to imagine the elective adventure in Iraq in any terms other than the "hawks vs. doves" dichotomy presented by Bush/Cheney/Rove.

Barack Obama had plenty to lose politically in 2002, and yet he, like Al Gore, saw past that false choice. He wasn't afraid to look weak on national security because, like Al Gore, he understood the truth about Iraq and our national security.

For Edwards to be presenting himself now as the champion of the anti-war left displays an absolutely Romney-esque level of chutzpah.

From Frank Rich's column in Sunday's New York Times:

It’s safe to assume that these same voters did not forget that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Edwards enabled the Iraq fiasco. Or that Mr. Obama publicly opposed it. When Mrs. Clinton attacked Mr. Obama for his supposedly “irresponsible and frankly naïve” foreign policy ideas — seeking talks with enemies like Iran — she didn’t diminish him so much as remind voters of her own irresponsibility and naïveté about Mr. Bush’s Iraq scam in 2002.

Speaking of Romney-esque chutzpah, consider this line from Edwards:

“The people of New Hampshire need to hear this message,” Mr. Edwards said. “We’re up against millions and millions and millions of dollars.”

Hey, Mr. Hedge Fund Sellout, the reason Barack Obama has millions and millions of dollars in his war chest is that millions of ordinary Americans like me have given his campaign $10 and $50 and $100.

I want us out of Iraq as much as anyone, maybe more than anyone. I opposed the war from the get go and I don't give a shit about saving face. The U.S. deserves to be humiliated. However, I'm skeptical about Edwards' promise to get us out immediately. Iraq descending into even more chaos would be a very bad thing for everyone. It would be nice to figure out a way to extricate ourselves without making the situation worse than it is.

Until now I have resisted the charm and intelligence of John Edwards - no longer. So now I see an Edwards/Obama ticket and the Republicans should be Very Afraid.

I didn't support Clinton before tonight, as I think Obama and Edwards are more electable and more inspiring (in that order). But before her condescending performance tonight, I still thought she'd be a strong candidate. After tonight, I'd vote for her only because the Rs all suck so bad.

@11
Cressona, I am not some partisan hack that is goo-goo eyed for Edwards. I am actually a socialist with a deep hatred for our two party system, and the complete failure of America on a thousand different fronts. That said, what Bush and his cronies have conjured up, with this war and cutting taxs, is a massive depression that is going to stick this country to its knees. I think they wanted it to hit after he left office, but it seems to be starting now. The war costs us 2 hundred million a day, and it is being charged on the national credit card.
Whatever Edwards did in the past, he is obviously repentant., and he wants us out of Iraq immediately. Oboma and Clinton not so much. I think Edwards is sincere in protecting the middle class, something needed if capitalism fails like in the 30‘s.
Oboma’s mentor in the senate was Jo Lieberman. Do you know who he is, and what he has done? I do not know if you are young or if you are old, and I love how Oboma inspires the youth, but my impression is you are all going to be disillusioned if he becomes president. I hope I am wrong.

Neither were shining moments for her, but I think that it's unfortunate that standing up forcefully and rationally for her record against accusations of being an agent of the status quo is likely to get turned into a Dean Scream by a media already hostile to the Clinton campaign.

ugh, this debate was not hillary's best moment. obama was passive aggressive and condescending. edwards actually looked good, richardson gave the best answers. in other words, this debate just made things curiouser and curiouser. also, what the hell is with charlie gibson's tude?

my favorite part was the transitional shots between D's and R's, and ron paul was talking crazy talk to richardson, who was looking at the camera like, save me.

I cringed when I read that Obama said H was "likeable enough" but when I saw the clip I actually had the weird feeling he was jumping in to defend her, am I nuts? He didn't say it in a snarky way, or a joshing way, but in a kind of peeved way, like he didn't even think the subject was couth to be discussed. Ok that's the first time I've ever said "couth".

I agree that Obama didn't seem to be jumping on the band wagon of "Hillary's not likeable." That particular moment of the debate made Hillary human for a moment, and Obama's comment suggested to me that she/voters shouldn't be terribly concerned about that type of polling.

How can Hill rant about being an agent of change for 35 years? Hasn't she been a senator for only a couple more yrs than Barack?
She can't run on her husband's record- that will sink her with too many people. And yet she seems to be doing that.Anyone else feel this way?

@20: Yes! Hillary's "executive experience" is not her own, as Richardson was pointing out. Not a good tact for her, either substantively (she wasn't president for eight years, but it seems like she thinks she was) or politically (it draws attention to the dynasty/"restoration" factor).

krlock--when she talks about the 35 years, she's referrring to everything she's done since she got out of yale, which is mostly focused on ensuring that children and their mothers are well taken care of, health care and education-wise. then there were the years when bill was governor of arkansas, when she used her status as governor's wife to lobby for kids and families (again with the health care), and then when he was president (again with the health care), and then as senator, when she's finally spread out and covered some other issues.

nothing would piss my inner feminist off more than to think the one viable woman was running on her husband's record. i, for one, don't think that's the case. i think she refers to it mostly when the debate moderators pointedly ask her to address her husband's record. but, i think she gets to call out her husband's record now and then because she was there to see how it all came to be, in a way that her opponents were not. but i don't think, when she refers to her experience, that she's referring to what her husband has done. believe it or not, a woman with a powerful husband is still capable of accomplishing her own remarkable things.

she's done quite a bit, that was only made higher profile because of the fact that her husband went into politics. she came out of yale law and went to work for a non-profit to help kids, and then calculatedly unfolded her career from there. granted, the majority of the work is on health care and education, but she's tried to balance that out in the senate by working on the foreign relations committee, and dealing with other issues.

granted, and i can sort of agree, it doesn't look like much in terms of governance when you look at someone like bill richardson, who has had actual real experience working with heads of state for years and years. he really is the only one of the four who fits the resume of a president, if there is such a thing (certainly GWB doesn't fit that resume). but, she has, technically, been helping and serving people for the greater good for 35 years.

i think the experience thing would be irrelevent if obama called out his state legislature period and his organizing experience a little more. it's a different kind of experience than what she has, but it's as much and as relevent. he just doesn't refer to it....ever. personally, i prefer her kind of experience more, but i don't think it's more extensive than anyone else's.

It's interesting that you would never use the term "shrill" to describe a male candidate, but I've heard it of Hillary more than once now.

I disagree, Golob. The "likeability" question (lame question, by the way--why was the second half of the debate all filler and no substance?) was HRC's best moment in the debate. Her response was human, even adorable. Obama's rejoinder could go either way (I saw it as friendly pushback at a stupid question, my boyfriend thought it was rude), so I think it hurt him slightly.

HRC was never shrill, but her pop-eyed frustration will not endear her to male voters. Unfortunate, but probably true.

I can't believe there are still 6 republicans to chose from but only 4 democrats.

Dennis Kucinich needs to get himself back into the debate circuit.

Sorry for the long blockquote but I unfortunately must wholeheartedly agree with it:

Bush and his cronies have conjured up, with this war and cutting taxs, is a massive depression that is going to stick this country to its knees. I think they wanted it to hit after he left office, but it seems to be starting now. The war costs us 2 hundred million a day, and it is being charged on the national credit card. Whatever Edwards did in the past, he is obviously repentant., and he wants us out of Iraq immediately. Oboma and Clinton not so much. I think Edwards is sincere in protecting the middle class, something needed if capitalism fails like in the 30‘s. Oboma’s mentor in the senate was Jo Lieberman. Do you know who he is, and what he has done? I do not know if you are young or if you are old, and I love how Oboma inspires the youth, but my impression is you are all going to be disillusioned if he becomes president. I hope I am wrong.