Why, Exactly, Did Clinton 'Win' Tonight's Debate?

re: Why, Exactly, Did Clinton 'Win' Tonight's Debate?

stevenhf — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:22:48 GMT

Somehow I had no doubt that Hillary would come back and start defending herself from all the "mudslinging" being raised against her. And boy did she make Obama squirm! And then he did the very things he accused Hillary of doing-not being straight with the questions and trying to speak on both sides of the mouth. And he looked so inexperienced next to Hillary too. I just don't think he has the "fire" within himself to be President. I am afraid that if the Democrats pick him as their preidential nominee, he will go down in flames. The Republicans will have him for lunch. At least Hillary is tested!

re: Why, Exactly, Did Clinton 'Win' Tonight's Debate?

DavidNcUsa — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:58:47 GMT

Good article. It is one of the few on the campaign that I have seen recently that actually had some reasonable content.

re: Why, Exactly, Did Clinton 'Win' Tonight's Debate?

TreborSelpats — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:41:36 GMT

It was no doubt that Hillary would come back firing after the last debate. Confidence needed to be the forfront of her image and she, as always, executed the role that needed to be played well. Do Americans really know the REAL Hillary and what she stands for......no way. It is like trying to get your favorite "TV doctor" to deliver your baby.......God help you and the baby! Hillary tries to be all things to all people. Why just listen to her accent when she travels around the country and watch her MORPH into the role necessary to connect with those voters. Integrity is not the word I would use for last nights debate. Hillary is in the lead because the media put her there and will keep her there as long as she can provide good copy. What is better headlines than a woman running for President getting attacked by male Presidential running mates. It is interesting though how she and Mr Clinton always seem to point to Republican conspiracy doctrine when they are attacked on integrity. Maybe she was not aware that she was at the Democratic debate and Sen. Obama actually IS a democrat. Last but not least, doesn't anyone remember when Hillary ran for Senator of New York she promised the voters she would not use the office as a stepping stone to the White House?

re: Why, Exactly, Did Clinton 'Win' Tonight's Debate?

Steve2008 — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:02:34 GMT

Re --" 'I think the first obligation of the president is to protect and defend the United States of America.' (Note to Obama: reread the Oath of Office.)"

Note to Romana AND Clinton -- Please read the Oath of Office, which is pasted below. Please note that the President has two obligations. The first is to faithfully execute the office; the second is to defend the CONSTITUTION. It is not to defend the United States, but to defend the nation's ideals, principles and laws. Obama understands that.

The Presidential Oath of Office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

re: Why, Exactly, Did Clinton 'Win' Tonight's Debate?

stentoner — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:25:41 GMT

So let's see who will make a good president...someone who has minimal experience in governing, who's only served in elective office for less than a single term, who's never served in the military, who's tenure as a lawyer shows little leadership or direction, who's tainted by scandals like Whitewater, who hasn't displayed much in the way of business skills, and who is a very divisive candidate. Summing up: marginal experience in governing, little to no distinction in business, complete lack of military experience, polarizes the electorate.

So what explains Hillary's success so far? All she does is talk, talk, talk...about plans and dreams. She's a disaster waiting to happen.

re: Why, Exactly, Did Clinton 'Win' Tonight's Debate?

Andrew Romano — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:39:50 GMT

Hi all: I posted this above, but thought I'd share in the comments as well.

*UPDATE 11.16.07: Big thanks to commenter Steve2008, who points out that, according to the Oath of Office, "the President has two obligations. The first is to faithfully execute the office; the second is to defend the CONSTITUTION." He's right. The oath reads: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

In (snarkily) reminding Obama to reread the Oath, I was pivoting off something Chris Dodd said immediately before Clinton in response to the same question: "When you take the oath of office on January 20, you promise to do two things, and that is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and protect our country against enemies both foreign and domestic. The security of the country is number one, obviously." Clearly, Dodd was wrong, and he and I (not Obama) are the ones who needed to reread the Oath. In all fairness, Dodd is referring, I think, to the U.S. military enlistment oath, which calls on service members to "solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." But while some might say the spirit of that oath applies to the Commander-in-Chief, it's still a promise to defend the Constitution--not, strictly speaking, "our country."

Apologies for the confusion, everyone.

re: Why, Exactly, Did Clinton 'Win' Tonight's Debate?

leodelaney — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:43:16 GMT

Hey Stentoner, exactly what's wrong with plans and hopes? Do you prefer the dispair and disorganization of the current administration? If you do say so, but don't disparage someone who answers a question about her goals for America with her plans and hopes for it. What this nation needs is some plans and hopes to offset the fear, hopelessness and lack of citizen effectiveness of today's America. If I ask Hillary "What do you intend to do as President?" and she says "These are my plans and my hopes for the country." my question has been answered. I know the next President's goals and if they are successful so much the better; if they are not they are a start on a new life for this great nation. After all Bush promised to keep America safe, reduce government and balance the budget. You can't do everything you say, can you?

re: Why, Exactly, Did Clinton 'Win' Tonight's Debate?

Opa2 — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:50:02 GMT

Granted that Obama was correct, even though he never said so, that it is the Constitution that the President defends, few if any at that debate would quibble with the answer that Clinton gave. If we become more concerned with human rights than we are concerned about the safety of our country it will not be long before we have no country to defend. Good for her! It proved, at least to me, once again that Obama lacks the basic skills to make a good president. Get some experience, get re-elected first. That will at least prove that the people of Illinois did not make a mistake as they did with some other one-term senators no longer there. Than come back four or eight years from now with some grey in your hair and do well!

re: Why, Exactly, Did Clinton 'Win' Tonight's Debate?

jdh1094 — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 18:06:44 GMT

Sometimes reporters are so close to a race, so wrapped up in wanting someone to do well, they lose perspective. SO many of them want to see Hillary win the nomination, they will point to her performance and say, "SHE WON, SHE WON," when she actually didn't.

re: Why, Exactly, Did Clinton 'Win' Tonight's Debate?

shrrbrrr — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 18:27:42 GMT

I really like Joe!! Too bad no one cares to hear his comments due to not being a front runner. He is smart, funny, well informed and I like his ideas!

re: Why, Exactly, Did Clinton 'Win' Tonight's Debate?

PWaddell — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 18:41:09 GMT

I wanted last night's debate, as I have watched every debate since this campagin began (both Republican and Democrat) and I have to say that Hillary won because she'd been the most consistent debator. And I agree, she isn't being attacked because she's a woman, she's being attacked (by her opponets in the Dem) because she's ahead. She's being attacked by Rep's because they know she has more than a good chance of winning. As for me, she is the only candidate on either side who actually seems to have a handle on what's happening to the middle class and the working class in the country. If the election were tomorrow, she'd get my vote. Her life experiences (both political and personal) have made her a strong woman. She didn't back down last night and she won't back down when it comes to defending this country.

re: Why, Exactly, Did Clinton 'Win' Tonight's Debate?

reader814 — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 18:59:17 GMT

Hey stentoner, while you're entitled to have your own opinion about Hillary, at least get your facts right. She's currently serving her second term as senator. Perhaps you meant Barack Obama, who is the one who's served less than a single term as U.S. senator. However, he's served in elective office before, in the Illinois state legislature. I'm rooting for Hillary, and if you're going to criticize her, at least be right!

re: Why, Exactly, Did Clinton 'Win' Tonight's Debate?

Jack3213 — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:16:38 GMT

Amazing that those who think Clinton won are simply saying so on the fact that she lost last time and still won-last time- that according to polls. The delusional public does not want to see or hear that she is not qualified, is not a good leader, and manipulates people to think otherwise. What a shame so many are so naive. Dodds or Bidden were the clear winners, and the rest are nothing more than rich empty headed liars.

re: Why, Exactly, Did Clinton 'Win' Tonight's Debate?

stentoner — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:47:32 GMT

Hey reader814, you're right...Hillary is in her second term. What do you suppose the chances that an additional couple of years in the Senate provides her with the necessary experience to lead this country as President? And criticize her? That was the point of the post...she has little to offer for criticism or praise. She hasn't been in positions to provide her the opportunities to learn and grow, either from successes or failures, to lead the world's dominate country. Those are more along the lines of facts and observations, rather than criticism, unless one maintains a zealous perspective.

re: Why, Exactly, Did Clinton 'Win' Tonight's Debate?

stentoner — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:57:08 GMT

Hey leodelaney, nothing is wrong with plans and hopes. The point is lack of experience in governing and leadership, both of which describe Hillary's resume. We saw her attempt with health care in 1993-94...by most accounts it was a dismal failure to reach consensus and compromise. Lots of good ideas and lots of hope. But when implementation falls short, blaming begins. Whether she is smart or right or inspires women is hardly the basis for selecting a leader. The reality is Hillary is relatively new and untried and untested and unproven for executive leadership.

re: Why, Exactly, Did Clinton 'Win' Tonight's Debate?

kcullen — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 20:08:39 GMT

Okay, did anyone actually watch the debate last night? I did and I am appalled at how they let her [Clinton] off so easy with waffling on the issues. The last two weeks, she has changed her mind how many times on the issues of drivers’ licenses to illegal immigrants. However; let us not become sidetracked by the question. This question is not about drivers’ licenses, it is about upholding the public safety of you and I. They [illegal’s] will and do drive, giving total disregard for our laws that we all must abide. The question is again, about upholding PUBLIC SAFETY! By saying "no" to this question, you have agreed that public safety is LESS important than the underlying question of a failed [at least to enforce, because we already have one] immigration policy. Barack is not waffling on his answer, simply trying to put it into REAL TIME context, not what the media implies it to mean. He NEVER waffled. He has answered the same at each debate, stating he would be in favor of States doing so in order to maintain the public safety [remember, Philly... he said the same answer he did last night]. This is what I like about Obama. He is not out to conform his positions to those immediately popular. He is not scared to say what no other candidate will defend, that illegal immigration is a problem that effects every one of us and by not addressing the issue of giving them adequate training on the road, we are at a greater risk for becoming injured at the hands of bureaucracy. So way to go Hilary! You are the clear winner, clearly confused on taking an actual stand on the issue. That is real leadership isn't it? To conform your responses to the American people based on what is controversial versus being honest about the critical issues we confront lets me know that you are no different than the current administration in taking a clear definitive stance on real issues. Maybe you'll change your mind again... after all you can do that and not even have it pointed out. Clear winner. Way better experienced to LEAD our country on the issues you flip flop on. I agree with everyone, she is the best and most qualified candidate. Let's disregard her stance on declaring the Iranian National Guard a terrorist organization and her refusal to release any of the documentation pertinent to her role in the White House, her alleged "experience" which she refuses to make public. Maybe it is because if they did release the documentation we would find out that she did not play the essential role she claims she did.... or maybe it is because she is afraid that her agenda would be made clear. Obama is the best solution my friends. He has maintained clear positions on these issues from day ONE….and if we have any questions into his public career… his documents are always available as a form of public record.

re: Why, Exactly, Did Clinton 'Win' Tonight's Debate?

AlwaysforHillary — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:04:39 GMT

The author sounds very biased AGAINST Hillary Clinton!! Hillary won this debate because she is the most intelligent, most qualified and most experienced PERSON to do the job on DAY 1, Obama is too inexperienced and Edwards is as phoney as a $3 bill!!!

re: Why, Exactly, Did Clinton 'Win' Tonight's Debate?

Aileene — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 02:50:36 GMT

Three points:

1. According to Article II, the first duty of the president is to serve as commander in chief. Therefore, to adhere to the oaths requirement that s/he "faithfully execute the office", the president must place a high priority on national defense.

2. Our enemies don't live under the U. S. Constitution. Thus, they do not enjoy its protection, and our president has no obligation (or right) to extend its protections to them. Consider the dilemma that the executive branch faced on 9/11 when United 93 was still in the air. Clearly, their oaths of office obligated the president and the vice-president to protect the rights on the passengers on that flight and the security interests of the country that were threatened by the hijackers' potential targets. By contrast, "human rights" are another matter altogether and have little to do with the presiden'ts oath of office. Thus, Dodd and Clinton responded appropriately to the question. The oath, when considered in the context in which it appears in Article II of the Constitution, requires the president to think first of national defense when our military is engaged in fighting a foreign enemy, and the provision regarding the defense of the Constitution is irrelevant. However, Obama was also right in that Blitzer's question involved something of a false dilemma. Nevertheless, once an individual assumes the presidency, s/he does not have the same freedom to advocate for the rights of the nation's foreign enemies that a private citizen has in situations in which the security of the U. S. may conflict with human rights concerns.

3. Disagreeing with or questioning a political opponent is not an "attack." Using the language of warfare to refer to honest disagreements in philosophy or to a legitimate question about an individual's credibility is a propoganda technique. In doing so, a candidate is attempting to shape the way the audience thinks about his/her opponents. Clearly this is what the Clinton campaign is doing. (Why not? It worked so well when Bill Clinton was in office.) To be fair, others do it as well, and when media outlets pick up on candidates' inappropriate use of such words in their own reporting, they demonstrate just how effective such methods are.

re: Why, Exactly, Did Clinton 'Win' Tonight's Debate?

john Smart — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 03:21:29 GMT

I am not at all sure what is more disheartening the MSM or the blogs. The MSM wants to create a horse race where this not one. Sorry Mr. Russert - it is quite easy to "ignore the national polls" and still see the writing on the wall. The nomination is Clinton's. In every state except Iowa and Illinois Clinton is out in front in poll after poll. Iowa will be a bump in the road for Clinton if she loses. The idea that Iowa voters are going to cause a 15-30 point Clinton collapse in the next batch of states to vote is silly. There is no where else for moderate Democrats to go. 10 months into this and Dodd, Biden, and Richardson have yet to present a compelling narrative for their runs.. Obama seems to be on a rock concert tour, and Edwards decided to attempt the Howard Dean route. We all know where that ends.

Like her or not the Clinton campaign has provided a compelling narrative. I don't agree with her on some things - but I vote for the person who will make the best President.

It is not surprising that the MSM decided that Clinton lost the last "debate" and also that she won this round. She played along. What does surprise me is that Edwards and Obama did not seem to see it coming. Why didn't they get out in front of the obvious narrative being laid out? In terms of what passed for a debate on CNN, Clinton did win. She swatted down the attacks. She did not set the rules. She simply understood the game.

My other problem is with the blogs that relentlessly snipe at Clinton. Every four years the Left goes through the ritual of attacking the mainstream Democrat. Every four years they pick a sure loser and spend the cycle griping. None seem to remember that Dean lost Iowa BEFORE he the scream. After Iowa he had no fall back state. Clinton has 20 fall back states, and she is not going to scream.

re: Why, Exactly, Did Clinton 'Win' Tonight's Debate?

Mrs.Dee — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 04:36:18 GMT

Senator Clinton decked her so-called opponents , again in the debate last night in Las Vegas. All the attacks will only made her stronger and harder to beat up on . The more the Hillary haters kebashing her on and off the record, etc. etc. etc. it only ma kes more people jump on her bandwagon. Remember I told you so. Do not be sooo surprised by how many, what types, what ages, what gender of individuals vote for our first woman President 2008! A lot of men and some women need to get some diapers for themselves on election day and for days thereafter. They will have "clean house in more ways than one. Mrs. E.

re: Why, Exactly, Did Clinton 'Win' Tonight's Debate?

HillaryforPresident — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 06:42:32 GMT

When YOU want to find fault with someone, you'll pick them to death to justify your criticism. Hillary Clinton is not trying to be everything to everyone. She's never tried and she never will. Each candidate has their own personal believes and agenda. It's human nature not deceit. If YOU read a little more about a candidate, like say Hillary, you'd see she's been unwaivering in her intent to bring a better way of living to Middle Class, Women and Children from a very young age. She's held leadership roles from a very young age because of the respect from her peers and because she's a natural leader. While working for various Republican campaigns in High School, she's learned first hand how the Conservative party operates. She's been to the other side, and has found her place with the Democratic Party. Hillary is the only candidate that has the indepth experience and insight to serve as President of the United States of America and do it well.

re: Why, Exactly, Did Clinton 'Win' Tonight's Debate?

TheKiddy3 — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:21:27 GMT

Today in my blog at MySpace I wrote about Maureen Dowd's latest two columns (with links) in the NY Times. The second of her columns, today's (Sunday) talks about the sqirming that "sevenhf" refers to in the member comments above or below (not sure where I will be when I click post your comment.) Yes, Hillary Clinton knows how to make people squirm and throw them off their game. This is gender politics at its most primal. It's hard to be diminished by a consumate deminisher like Hillary and not get thrown. Dowd's column explains just how Hillary treats the top competition at these debates back stage. And then comes out smiling and playing nice. Then instead of answering questions, she deflects (smiling away) or counter attacks -- and only 'cause she is a woman it isn't an "attack" on the other guy, it's defending herself from the "mudslinging". By the way, readers, I am a woman and a bonafide feminist, and from the same demographic as Hillary and I know it when I see it (and am not supporting her candidacy partly because of her behavior toward those not in her camp.) And by the way Andrew, the booing, which was rude and inappropriate and which she should have brought to a halt herself, was by partisan Hillaryites. It wasn't because John Edwards hammered too hard. He was doing what he was supposed to.

re: Why, Exactly, Did Clinton 'Win' Tonight's Debate?

concernamerican — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:04:25 GMT

I dont understand why Obama cocaine past can not be discussed. I would not vote for a person who used cocaine. If Obama win the primary election. I will vote for a independent.

re: Why, Exactly, Did Clinton 'Win' Tonight's Debate?

Nomadtv — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 06:11:30 GMT

Why, Exactly, Did Clinton 'Win' Tonight's Debate? - Because Votes were counted secretly by Diebold, the same private frim that brought you every other questionable election weve had in the last 12 years.

Whats in your Ballet?

re: Why, Exactly, Did Clinton 'Win' Tonight's Debate?

goodluck — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 21:06:11 GMT

Hillary has that tough, iron will characteristic that is absolutly necssary to be the world's leader.

Her personallity does not bother me as long as she can lead the country and get the country out of the messes we are in right now. She is not in the "Miss congeniality race " here but going for the highest position in the country.