Clinton, Obama Engage in Bitter Debate

Good lord, it really is.

Is it November yet?

But I've got to admit, they had a great moment there about talking about race issues and not race itself. Good job candidates.

I don't know, I thought they came together incredibly well there once they had the honest moment. Once they stopped gaming one another (though, to be honest, they each pulled crap the whole time e.g. "Well, I've...."), things brightened up and it was possible to see Clinton holding out the olive branch (if she wins). I think Obama would as well, but Clinton almost certainly wouldn't accept (I think).

Look for those numbers to start moving before the SC primary. I've changed my mind now, Clinton cannot afford to cede South Carolina to Obama. There were moments in the debate where she was clearly challenging him on substance and couldn't seem to be playing politics and skipping the primary. I don't know that she could have avoided it and score the sorts of points she wanted (though I believe she got beat up more than she thought she might), but she took her shot and now she's got to pay the price. and that's a meaningful victory for Obama (something she could have avoided).

Ratigan: Don't forget that Jesse Jackson won 11 states in the 1988 primary and carried South Carolina in both 1984 and 1988. I (am from SC and) will be voting for Obama, however I feel that Clinton is the serious front-runner in this race and seemingly will secure the nomination, even though she will lose handily in South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and many of the southern states with a heavy black population. This is a shame, because I believe that Obama has the best chance against the Republicans in November. Whether or not Clinton and Obama will become running mates remains to be seen.

He did handle himself well. But not falling off the bike isn't the same thing as winning the Tour de France. Did he handle himself well enough to secure victory? That, I'm not so sure of.

I wish all it took was being the best cyclist. Wouldn't that be something? But what we have is a very screwed up system for candidates to get their messages out. He or she who gets the most money, and the most press, wins, even if he or she can't even ride a bike.

I see John Edwards as one of the best hopes we've had in some time. I'm also aware that the Iowa results and the New Hampshire results seem to translate into a kind of victory halo that has nothing to do with the actual number of citizens' preferences they represent.

And so he does have his work cut out for him. And he's a fighter. I just can't help but keep pulling for him. He's not out yet by a long shot.

He's not out yet by a long shot.

I agree. However, I think that's something Clinton is probably glad of, at this moment.

I would have to investigate more, Bill's dancing abilities and some of this other stuff before I accurately judged whether he was, in fact, a brother, " Obama said

Amazing!....How he [Obama] gets a free pass on racial profiling.
......"Dancing ability?"

What unfairness......What a joke!

GP -

What happened to your sense of humor? I thought it was funny, as it was intended.

before I accurately judged whether he was, in fact, a brother, " Obama said

And what's "a Brother" ?. ......Is this a new standard of exclusivity!

Is this the mindset of a President for "all" the People?

. . .he is the only one of the three who has ***ZERO*** K Street backing.

That's true technically. The address for the American Justice Association, f/k/a The Association of Trial Lawyers of America, is 1050 31st Street, NW . Washington, DC 20007. ;>0 But hey anything that has Democrats eating their own is all good in my book.

I see you've bought into that GOP propaganda line about how "trial lawyer" is a synonym for Satan. You should reconsider letting yourself be used like that.

It's just as much a synonym for Satan as lobbyist is. And seriously, do you think the Association of Trial Lawyers would not lobby Edwards if he was elected?

clearcache@GP - What happened to your sense of humor? I thought it was funny, as it was intended

Nothing happened to it. I think humour should be "equal opportunity" , don't you?

He shoots from the hip an makes race jokes...and she walks on thin ice, dodging his potshots.. ..and that's equality?
Well, if not equality , it sure is funny!

Yea!....of course! A regular comedy.

Well, GP, Hillary seems to think it was funny.

What happened to your sense of humor? I thought it was funny, as it was intended.

Just because it's funny doesn't mean it isn't also wrong.

t's just as much a synonym for Satan as lobbyist is. And seriously, do you think the Association of Trial Lawyers would not lobby Edwards if he was elected?

As Barack pointed out...everyone's hands in this election are dirty, the important thing to look at is how is their involvement with lobbyists affects their policy. And, I must say, having a stepmother who is a lobbyist for a high-profile pharmaceutical company...very little of what they do is actually "bad" or "evil". Sure, they represent corporate interests, but not all of those corporate interests are malicious or ill-willed towards the middle class. After all, these corporations have to worry about what the public thinks about them too...and some of the things they fight for (like extended Medicare/Medicaid coverage and the creation of various types of prevention programs) are actually in the interest of the public and middle or lower-class Americans.

What we really need to do as voters is to stop paying attention to all the ancillary rhetoric and really look at the issues and how our candidates feel about those issues--because that is what will tell us what their policy will be--not how many lobbyists they have giving them money. Because trust me, that has a lot less effect on politicians than what you think. Lobbyists give to candidates on both sides of aisle, whether they are friendly to their industry/corporation or not.

Kevin Dicks
Well, GP, Hillary seems to think it was funny

Grin and bear it.....that's the price of being on thin ice.

I wonder if the remarks in reverse would be as funny? Does Obama have the same tolerance for race related wisecracks?

You think she would get any support if she cried?

Well, if someone said that about me, I'd laugh. Cause it's true. I'm white, and some stereotypes are true. Dis white boy can't dance. And I wouldn't be in the least bit offended. Damn, people are so sensitive these days. Don't say this, don't say that, you can't say this, you can't say that. Oooooohhhh, you're going to offend someone. BS. Nobody's that easily offended, and if they are, I guess they deserve to be. Anyone offended by a harmless joke like that needs to toughen up.

Can we get off it and discuss what was actually talked about at the debate? Not just some off-the-cuff, meaningless comment?

I swear...we Americans are so easily distracted away from the real issues...and play right into the media's hands.

Well, I, for one, have already done enough research so that I know who I'm supporting. I already know what they are all going to say on each issue, and I really don't understand being undecided at this point. I'm ready to vote already.

spotlight: Hooray, my very first article on newsvine was about that very issue! It was a great debate. The health care platforms became easily separate for me to now explain to others. The Iraqi withdrawal was interesting to see how each handled too.

Amazing!....How he [Obama] gets a free pass on racial profiling.

1) it was a joke. It was a play on in-group out-group dynamics and a pretty good one. 2) What people don't seem to get about why a black person can use the "n" word and such things is that generally speaking, the level of trust for a black person not to have racial hatred toward his own people is generally higher than, say, Bill O'Reiley. The converse is true as well. It stands to reason that the person Obama first learned to love was black, that counts for something in terms of trusting that a person has no deep seeded racial hatred.

Not fair? Boo frickety hoo, it would be nice if we all were born exactly the same with the same amount of money and a perfectly level playing field; but we're not.

Besides, he didn't say Bill Clinton should be pulled over and have his car searched because he's the first black president!

Not fair?

Easy enough to say, unless it loses you a vote.

Amazing!....How he [Obama] gets a free pass on racial profiling.
......"Dancing ability?"

.......Bills "Other stuff?"

What does that mean?

geck

the level of trust for a black person not to have racial hatred toward his own people is generally higher than,

Not fair? Boo frickety hoo, it would be nice if we all were born exactly the same

that the person Obama first learned to love was black, that counts for something in terms of trusting that a person has no deep seeded racial hatred

Besides, he didn't say Bill Clinton should be pulled over and have his car searched because he's the first black president

You obviously don't know who's being profiled and insulted. Do you?
So, I won't interfere in your "boo frickety hoo" and "whatever else"... you might feel... you do understand.

you do understand.

no, I actually don't. enlighten me as to what racial profiling means if not selecting people based on race for things like being pulled over or searched at the airport.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_profiling

And now that you know "what it means".......tell me.....Who was profiled in the debate by Obama.
multiple choice: 1.Obama 2.Hillary 3.Bill Clinton 4. Uncle Sam

"

I would have to investigate more of Bill's dancing abilities and some of this other stuff before I accurately judge whether he was in fact a brother," Obama said

What other" stuff" was he refering too?.........Like you don't know.....[His face maybe?]

A question for Monica, perhaps?

Who was profiled in the debate by Obama.

E) nobody. now that you know what it means, you should be able to discern that.
So because Clinton looks white, Obama is saying that he should be assessed for dancing technique and skill....

wait, wait, that's not right, so, because Clinton is black, you think Obama is saying...

wait, that's not right either... how exactly does one jump to "racial profiling?"

"other stuff" -YOU THINK HE WAS REFERRING TO CLINTON'S WIENER? LMAO!

"Officer, you'd better search this man, he looks like the type that could be 'packin' if you know what I mean..."

Kevin DicksWell, if someone said that about me, I'd laugh. Cause it's true. I'm white, and some stereotypes are true. Dis white boy can't dance. And I wouldn't be in the least bit offended. Damn, people are so sensitive these days. Don't say this, don't say that, you can't say this, you can't say that. Oooooohhhh, you're going to offend someone. BS. Nobody's that easily offended, and if they are, I guess they deserve to be. Anyone offended by a harmless joke like that needs to toughen up.

Kevin, That's the degrees of difference between your sense of humour an mine . When anyone takes a "slap" at me, sure, I'll laugh at myself....and then kick "them" in the "a$$" on their way out.

Just to make sure we're on the same wavelength.

A biographical essay presenting the subject's most noteworthy characteristics and achievements. A formal summary or analysis of data, often in the form of a graph or table, representing distinctive features or characteristics

Besides, he didn't say Bill Clinton should be pulled over and have his car searched because he's the first black president! Officer, you'd better search this man, he looks like the type that could be 'packin' if you know what I mean..."

Who called 911?. ..Oh yea!........You did. The police didn't invent the word "profile".

But some people have a distinct inability to interpet beyond their pet peeves.
A very "interacial characteristic". Don't you think?

WHOOSH!

what are you talking about?

you're sounding like the hitchiker Ben Stiller picked up in "something about mary"

But some people have a distinct inability to interpet beyond their pet peeves.

greck
WHOOSH!

what are you talking about?

[above]

Very good ,greck! That's "exactly" what I meant.

He's been trying to handle it differently since September, and it hasn't worked well for him except in Iowa thus far. I'll be the first to admit that I felt energized by seeing Obama finally take off the gloves and engage the Clintons specifically.

it's a double edged sword though. If he doesn't play along, they'll say he isn't strong enough to defend his past actions.

it's a double edged sword though. If he doesn't play along, they'll say he isn't strong enough to defend his past actions.

I agree. That's why I think every small-p politician is doomed to eventually mutate into a big-p Politician, Obama included. Some are clearly better than others, and obviously plenty of people think Obama is one of those. But it makes it hard to bash "politics as usual"; it's "usual" for a reason. I think it's going to take more than one man for something truly transformative (though one man can surely spark a movement) - but then, to be honest, I'd be fearful of what we'd transform into. Sometimes, once the dogs are loosed, you never know what they'll end up hunting.

That may be because he feels compelled to defend himself, or counterpunch, but regardless, the nuance will no doubt be lost on many

The problem is, his defense has not just been a choice...it has been made a requirement. He let false accusations and rumors fester to the point that a large number of people believed them...even though they were totally ridiculous (Barack being a "Muslim" is a good example).

I'll be the first to admit that I felt energized by seeing Obama finally take off the gloves and engage the Clintons specifically.

I agree. I like seeing Barack strike back. I don't think he does it in a bad way either. I think the way he does it is by questioning what Hillary says and really urging people to look beyond the rhetoric. He's still keeping with his message--he's just knocking down what's been said against him, and drawing a contrast between himself and Hillary.

Remember though, that not fighting back is what got Kerry criticized so heavily for during the 2004 campaign, and some think it was part of why he didn't win. There is a difference in fighting back and smearing the other candidate, and I think Obama has been sticking to the former.

that not fighting back is what got Kerry criticized so heavily for during the 2004 campaign

This is true, but then Kerry was a career politician who no-one really expected to remain above the fray, and had every right to expect that he would fight back. It may be that Obama is taking the correct course of action - too soon to tell - but I do think that it's disrupting his "image", for good or ill I don't know.

I think what really hurt Kerry was not the fact that he fought back--but the fact he lost his credibility for his seeming "inconsistencies." That had a lot more to do with it than anything else.

Obama almost always does well. He's an extremely appealing candidate. Mrs. Clinton has her hands full dealing with both him and Edwards.

Astute observation, I agree.

Adam, the people who have brought Bill into this like gangbusters are Hillary and Bill. If Bill Clinton doesn't want back in the White House so bad he can taste it I don't know who does.

He used to say how electing him president was a "two for one" deal. Some things never change.

You aren't wrong, Prospero, but neither is Adam. Obama needs to avoid rising to the bait.

That's not my point. Of course Hillary wants Bill in the campaign, people still love him and some of that may transfer over to her. What I'm saying is that Obama isn't being smart by playing right into Hillary's hands by bringing Bill even more into the campaign. Obama cannot let this be Bill Clinton vs Obama. It needs to stay Obama vs Hillary. He needs to ignore Bill as much as possible and play down his role. That's called running your own strategy rather than reacting to Hillary's and playing right into her hand.

One word .... Monica.

He needs to try as hard as possible to distance Hillary from Bill, emphasize that she is a different breed of politician and her policies are vastly different.

See...there are many layers to what makes up a politician and their policies and I think where it was good to draw contrasts--Barack did that, and where it was good to draw similarities--Barack did that as well. After Hillary responded to one of his comments with "Well Bill isn't here tonight" and he struck back "Well I'm sorry, sometimes I don't know who I'm running against" really draws the illustration that Hillary doesn't have what it takes...that's its only her husband that's out fighting her battles. It also more greatly emphasizes the fact that this campaign is about politics as usual for the Clintons in general. I don't think it necessarily creates the illusion that Hillary and Bill are one and the same--nor does it draw them as totally different--but it definitely helped draw out the differences between Hillary and Barack.

that's its only her husband that's out fighting her battles

...well, excepting I saw, with my own eyes, as she threw a few punches of her own, tonight.

I completely disagree with most of what's been said in this thread. The more people see what's going on in this campaign, the more they'll see that it's pretty darn shady. We have term limits and this is an end-around them. I trust that there are a good number of people who will say, "Look, I've got to vote for the person on the ballot and Bill Clinton isn't there." When Obama said, "Well, sometimes I can't tell who I'm running against" was perfect. Raised a little flag and showed people how shady this is.

Raised a little flag and showed people how shady this is.

Setting the record straight once is good. But this calling out of Bill Clinton shouldn't become a theme of his campaign. It just give the Clintons control over the narrative.

I think, at the debate (if I recall correctly) Obama did throw the first blow. BUT, to be fair, he's been getting knocked around unfairly for a while now. Just thought I'd point that out.

Of course they have. They need a better story than just policy.

Sure, it happens. Look at '04.

Your posture and words are exactly why neither John Edwards nor Hillary Clinton could ever get anything done. Because of your "fight-the-power," reactionary (yes reactionary) position towards corporations, lobbyists and special interest groups makes enemys of some of the strongest forces in our country. There are people that work for these corporations. Lobbyists have friends and family. Interst groups have members. They are not monoliths of evil out there in the dark. They do have interests and they will protect them. Calling them names is exactly the wrong way to do it.

You give them a seat at the table with the rest of the interested parties and you work something out. There is nothing logically impossible between our varying interests. We have to be honest and not be inflammatory. You must realize that you are to corporations what the Minute Men are to immigration (a road block to real, positive change).

If the friends and families of lobbyists, and of interest groups, are okay with the way the interests and welfare of the people of the country get sold by politicians to lobbyists and interest groups we're doomed. I don't think they are.

I don't consider 'reactionary' an insult by any means. If there was ever an issue that "fight the power" should be the motto for this is it. Do you think even the quiet confrontation you suggest would ever happen in the absence of some kind of "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more" mojo? I don't. We are a passive and a complacent nation. It's about time somebody raised a little hell.

No question we will only change this by engagement. And I feel very strongly that it must be direct and yes, often confrontational. You also absolutely never walk into a negotiation with people you have a righteous beef with and back down. The onus is on them to demonstrate they aren't hurting people -- not on me for objecting to it. These are some skilled, experienced, powerful folks. They aren't going to give all that power up easily.

And I don't think everyone shares your view of the Minute Men by any means. I don't know a great deal about them, but I'm impressed by their willingness to do what the government won't. While the rest of us sat around wringing our hands they did something. I admire it without reservation. I also think they've gotten an enormous amount of focus on the border issue that never would have been brought to it without them.

You are very, very badly informed.

Okay, if I'm so badly informed despite seeing and hearing things from the inside, please, do inform me of what your sources are and why they are so much more credible. I'm sorry, but the lobbyist crisis is highly exaggerated. I'm not saying there isn't a problem to an extent, and I'm certainly not excusing unethical or immoral practices...all I'm saying is there are a lot more ethical people out there than unethical...and the lobbying industry has cleaned up its act considerably. The thing is--we're never going to hear about any of the good things accomplished by lobbyists because the politicians take credit for those things, it's only the bad things that we hear about.

I know you don't believe me, but it honestly does not consist of lobbyists and politicians making under-handed deals...everything lobbyists do is on a bill by bill and issue by issue basis (for the most part)...and the flow of their money has very little to do with which politicians are backing their industry. It really is up to the politician to not make the lobbyist money an issue...because the money is going to be there (to an extent) regardless of how the politician votes.

I'm by no means championing the industry, and I for one make it my duty as an American citizen to know what's being debated and to make my voice heard. That's the real tragedy in America: the lack of participation by ordinary people and the following expectation that despite doing nothing of our own to combat lobbying--thinking corporate interests won't affect policy in Washington.

I don't know if you noticed, but "I'm mad as hell..." was a gimmick. All the show was about was complaining and nothing came of it.

You say these people won't give up their power easily. I think that's right. They'll give up the power if there is a system put in that benefits them. There is probably a way to benefit pharmaceuticals and individuals. Probably somewhere along the lines of extending the patent life of new drugs. If they don't have to sell like hell for 7 years, you'd see cheaper drug prices as well as medical advance (beyond one's erection). But I don't pretend to know much about the issues to say with much confidence more than there is an opportunity that we won't be able to build without some conversation.

The Minute Men are racist vigilantes. There is nothing positive about them. They are Lou Dobbs. With guns. A menace to society. There is nothing there to admire. It's sort of like admiring Clinton for her work on Health Care reform in 1994. She sure got people looking at the issue, but not in a good way.

Heh. I work right on dreaded K Street right here in Washington and know a fair number of lobbyists. Every, and I mean every, trade and special interest group has one here in town and that includes the friggin' trial lawyers who finance the BreckGirl's campaign. It's not so much that they outright buy votes as it is gaining access to the members to push their various clients' interests. The WaPo's Jeff Birnbaum is the go-to guy on all of this and this article is probably the best summation of the various issues I've yet read.

The two best ways to clear up the nexus of money and politics in this town would come in the form of two things. One, term limits for members (remember those?) and two, comprehensive reform and de-loopholization of the federal tax code.

The two best ways to clear up the nexus of money and politics in this town would come in the form of two things. One, term limits for members (remember those?) and two, comprehensive reform and de-loopholization of the federal tax code.

I think greatly expanding Congress could help as well. Increase the House by ten times their current membership, and not only will each representative be far closer to their constituents and thus more responsive to their actual needs, but each lobbyist will have to work ten times as hard to nab enough Reps for their client's needs. And campaigns would require far less money, limiting the lobbyists ability to buy Reps before they are even elected.

I think greatly expanding Congress could help as well.

Good idea, but hardly plausible. Who's going to pay for all those extra representatives? The American people? I don't think so. Until representatives are actually held accountable for doing their jobs, there's not going to be any possibility for any expansion.

That wasn't racist. It was a joke, and it was in response to a direct question about whether he thought Bill Clinton was the first black president. If his answer was racist, than the question was. Asking a black man if he thought a white man was the first black president?

Personally, I think neither was racist. People are too sensitive these days. It's a joke. It's funny. Damn, this whole country has lost its sense of humor.

I'm with you - I don't know that I'd go so far as to call it racist, but I wouldn't go out of my way to argue that it wasn't, either. It certainly was insensitive and played into stereotypes - and, you're right, had, say, Edwards said something like it, regarding a minority, it wouldn't have flown, not at all.

Mr. Dicks, your advice and a quarter won't even buy a newspaper except The Washington Times if it is still sold for a quarter from the rack.

The Bill Clinton, first Black President Question, put Obama on the immediate defensive, and the Senator had a hard time answering. Mrs. Clinton, the House Frau with little real experience, and Blow Dry never took an idividual question that tough. This question was not a fair, and only served to keep the subject on the Clintons.

Senator Obama, when you deal with CNN, you are dealing with The Clinton News Network. I sincerely hope after last night you now realize that CNN is Clinton first, liberals second.

Mr. Dicks, why don't you get off your chair and spend some time working in Democratic Politics and run a couple of campaigns, then you just might have some experience worth sharing with the Vine and with the candidates.

the House Frau with little real experience

As opposed to the oceans of experience Obama has?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

ROFLMAO. Ah, rich.

Alright, chance, I've stopped laughing now. That's how funny I think it is that you think you are somehow better than I. In fact, you seem to think that you are better than most. You aren't. I don't have to run a Democratic campaign to know what I'm talking about. I eat, sleep, breath and poop politics. Your opinions are no more valid than mine. Your opinions are no more valid than anyone's.

You're just a dude, as I am just a dude, as all viners are just dudes and dudettes. I do not live the life you claim to live, nor would I want to. I do what I do; I am who I am. I am a student of human nature. You are whatever you are, and I am a web designer, fiction writer, and political aficionado. My place is to write entertaining commentaries on society and politics, and your place is to do ... whatever it is you do.

Oh, and by the way, I'm not sitting in a chair. I'm lounging on my couch with my laptop alternating between writing and programming, flipping between C-SPAN and MSNBC, as I always do, breaking only to hit the weights and sleep.