Display:
Iowa has determined the outcome... Obama got a big bump in the polls, and from what I've read about the debate, Edwards sided with him against Hillary.  I heard it was ugly.

Obama will be the nominee.

I'd rather have Edwards :-(

by Plutonium Page (page dot vlinders at gmail dot com) on Sun Jan 6th, 2008 at 05:16:11 AM EST
Edwards' stance is logical, given that he wants to push Clinton out of the race.

Bill Richardson made about three or four comments in last night's debate in which he basically was making Obama's case for him, but he went a step beyond Obama in asking the American people for sacrifice, which I liked. Richardson made his executive experience his main case, said a couple of time that he was the only one who had actually balanced a budget.

Clinton made some smart attacks on Obama but he parred them well enough (in my perception). She managed to come off knowledgable and competent, which is going to remain her main message. She also managed to look human. The message that she had been bringing change for 35 years is one she should drop ASAP IMO because it comes off a bit desperate, but that is my perception again.

Obama's main message seemed to be 'bringing people back into government'. He talked a lot about government transparency, public participation. Brought a few examples on how he had worked for that. This was new to me; it fit in well with his overarching theme of change and hope.

John Edwards was on message nearly all the time about the corporate lobbying machine and how he personally embodied the struggle against that.

At the end of the debate, the candidates had the chance to bring up a regret from one of their previous debates, but only Edwards and Richardson chose to be sports. Hillary was a bit lame in bringing up the line that she'd let the pundits decide, and talking about how the debates had shown that the Democrats were just much more engaged in the problems the next president would face. Obama was even lamer in parroting Hillary and using that to stay on message.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Sun Jan 6th, 2008 at 05:59:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
nanne:
The message that she had been bringing change for 35 years is one she should drop ASAP IMO because it comes off a bit desperate, but that is my perception again.

Wasn't the quote something like

"We've had 35 years of change now?"

Semantic disaster clean-up on aisle 1 please.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Jan 6th, 2008 at 07:41:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In some cases, she's making a fair argument.  Clinton has done some good things over the years, on children's issues, for example.  (Then again, on the foreign policy front, she's did a hideous thing with regard to kids by voting for this God-damned war.)

Her problem is that, while Dems like her and are obviously excited by the prospect of a female candidate, she's up against a change elections.  I had no idea the electorate was so strongly looking at change rather than experience, but it's gone from the storm I expected to a tsunami.  Even the splitting of the change vote between Edwards and Obama isn't going to be enough for her, as Elizabeth Edwards pointed out, because undecideds are breaking to O and E.

Edwards is actually catching up to her in New Hampshire (he's up 6%, she's down 10%, O's up 10-15%), which I'm stunned by, and he really got to her in last night's debate.  (I'm really glad Clinton didn't come packing, because I think she might have shot Edwards.)  Edwards, in short, smells blood with Clinton.  It makes sense, because pushing out Clinton gives him a one-on-one chance with Obama while also pairing himself with Obama, leaving the door open to the Veep slot if he fails to take the nod.

It was painfully obvious how this election was going to come down last night.  Edwards and Obama were sat on the left, with Richardson and Clinton on the right, and that was the fight it wound up being.  (I can only assume Richardson has decide to give up on any hope he might have had for VP with Obama, should O become the nominee.)  That's not a fight Clinton and Richardson are going to win, especially given that Richardson's people fled to Edwards and Obama on Thursday.

Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin

by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Sun Jan 6th, 2008 at 12:33:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks  nanne for an excellent sum up of the debate.

I do believe the Democrats were just more engaged in the problems the next president would face as you say because as I see it, they have a lot more at stake  -- the "disadvantage" of non-incumbents if you like.

by The3rdColumn on Sun Jan 6th, 2008 at 10:58:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Edwards and Richardson had great nights last night.  Richardson came across as calm and reasonable.  Edwards had a bit more fire in him than usual.

Clinton had good and bad moments.  Her response to the question on likability was cute, and the little exchange between she and Obama that followed, even more so.  It was sort of girlie, but I think it helped to remind people that, yes, she's not a robot.

Obama was successful last night by not being rattled.  He needed to stay calm and avoid a big fuck-up, and he did so.

Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin

by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Sun Jan 6th, 2008 at 12:36:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As for ugly, I think that is news TV spin to draw in more viewers. This is the segment they're talking about. Considering how good Edwards' attack is, I'd say Hillary responds quite mildly.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Sun Jan 6th, 2008 at 06:14:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
At this stage, Hillary is running scared. A rerun of the national polls after New Hampshire will give us a better idea if Hillary's reversion to the "change" message resonates, she her campaign thus far has been all about experience (in the same old Washington corporate run politics).

by shergald on Sun Jan 6th, 2008 at 09:09:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Hillary sure must be running scared -- and with reason: Obama is likeable, cuts across as the ultimate American in the sense that he's of mixed race, which if exploited properly, is something that could ensure him the black vote, the middle of the ground and many of of the voting population from the upper middle ground.

But difficult to put a good, intelligent woman down -- expect Hillary to bounce back. As I've said,  Bill Clinton, who was once tagged the "first black president" of the US, is still a vote getting force to reckon with. Pundits are saying on that he's still capable of drawing the black votes for his wife.

Obviously, Hillary will have to work double or treble time to catch up, i.e., attictude change. But at this point, nobody should count her out of the running, not even with the 'catastrophic' survey ratings she's getting a couple days away from the NH primary.

by The3rdColumn on Sun Jan 6th, 2008 at 09:21:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I've only seen the short excerpt of the debate posted here and it says two things to me.  Edwards took up most of the airtime to present himself as Obama's no. 2 - noting minor differences but basically saying I'm on your (change) team.  Obama didn't really acknowledge him in any way.

Hilary responded by saying that it is one thing to talk about change and quite another to actual do it, and that she's been doing it for 35 years - and giving some concrete examples that have helped real people in New Hampshire.

Why would you vote for Edwards based on his wordy excerpt here in which he basically endorsed Obama?  He is defining himself out of the race.

It's now about Obama rhetoric of change against Clinton track record - and however you might interpret that.

OK -I'm reading a lot into one short exchange, but if this is the bit that is making headlines, then it isn't doing Edwards any favours.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Sun Jan 6th, 2008 at 09:16:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Hello Frank,

By the way, it was you who made me aware that Euro Trib existed when you mentioned it in one of your posts in Charles Bremner's. Thanks -- great idea.

Know what? As far as this space is concerned, we will be very happy if, come nomination time, candidates are narrowed down to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. (Of course, this blog understands that one of them has got to be the running mate of the other after the 'investiture.')

by The3rdColumn on Sun Jan 6th, 2008 at 11:04:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yea - but I think people there are getting fed up with my repeated plugs for ET so I'm bailing out of Timesonline.

I don't think Hilary will agree to be the VP nominee for anyone.  If you've lived in the main house it's hard to move out to the gate lodge!

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Sun Jan 6th, 2008 at 02:53:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Obama did acknowledge him at several points during the debate.  (Obama couldn't acknowledge him too much, as he's now got to try to grab the inevitability mantle.)  This was clearly a tag-team matchup between Edwards/Obama and Richardson/Clinton.

Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Sun Jan 6th, 2008 at 12:42:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Obama made a line about Anbar province stabilising as a result of the 2006 US elections which the right is going to bash him over, big time. See google.

The comment appeared to be off the cuff, but maybe he knows what he's doing. He is mostly wrong. In my reading Anbar stabilised as a reaction to Shi'ite death squads e.g. an external enemy that required the Sunnis to pull together and kick out the shit-stirrers of Al Qaeda -- who are overrated anyway. But this could be a good fight for him to be in.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Sun Jan 6th, 2008 at 06:26:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Recommended Diaries
Clipping the wings of a judge
by Migeru - Feb 10
30 comments

Hunger March wins PR battle
by DoDo - Feb 9
3 comments

Romania: protests change government
by DoDo - Feb 8
6 comments

Murdoch - Outsourcing and Hubris
by ceebs - Feb 3
18 comments

Obama wins GOP Primaries (to date)
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 8
8 comments

Sarkozy: Enemies Ahoy!
by afew - Feb 10
11 comments

LQD: Unsustainable irrigation
by Melanchthon - Feb 9

Bristol Pound
by ChrisCook - Feb 7
14 comments

Recent Diaries
Sarkozy: Enemies Ahoy!
by afew - Feb 10
11 comments

Clipping the wings of a judge
by Migeru - Feb 10
30 comments

LQD: Unsustainable irrigation
by Melanchthon - Feb 9

Hunger March wins PR battle
by DoDo - Feb 9
3 comments

Obama wins GOP Primaries (to date)
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 8
8 comments

Romania: protests change government
by DoDo - Feb 8
6 comments

Answers to the Renewable Energy Consultation
by Luis de Sousa - Feb 7

Bristol Pound
by ChrisCook - Feb 7
14 comments

The Imitation Of Germany
by afew - Feb 4
31 comments

Strange Fruit
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 4
14 comments

Murdoch - Outsourcing and Hubris
by ceebs - Feb 3
18 comments

Mismatch with the Natural Gas Market
by Luis de Sousa - Feb 3
22 comments

The Future of Economics
by ARGeezer - Feb 2
191 comments

Desert Island Discs - Helen's distortions
by Helen - Jan 31
48 comments

Gorila
by DoDo - Jan 29
14 comments

Rail News Blogging #7
by DoDo - Jan 29
15 comments

Obama's State Of The Union: LQD
by Crazy Horse - Jan 25
74 comments

Democracy Technology
by gmoke - Jan 24
1 comment

The Hydrogen dream
by Luis de Sousa - Jan 24
49 comments

ET Paris Meet-Up 2012 (2 UPDATE)
by afew - Jan 23
113 comments

More Diaries...
Occasional Series