The Democrats lined up at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas. AP photo.
by Mark Silva, and updated throughout the debate
It would be a cliche, just like the headline, to call the debate of the Democratic candidates for president in Las Vegas this evening high-stakes.
But it would also be true.
The aftershocks of the last Democratic debate in Philadelphia still ripple through the campaign of front-running candidate Hillary Clinton, whose performance both on stage and on the road in the following weeks raised questions about characteristics that Americans consider essential in a president: Strength, straightforwardness and certitude among them.
This, after months of practice in debating Democratic rivals who have trailed the senator from New York and former First Lady in the polls but only recently resolved to start tackling her on the hustings.
It's time, from Clinton's perspective, for some corrective action -- recapturing that sense of confidence that she possessed from the start of this long season's debates, when relatively few people were paying any attention.
And it's time, from the perspective of Clinton's leading rivals -- Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina -- to take full advantage of the vulnerability they have exposed in their adversary.
Another stumbling performance on Clinton's part could have a cascading effect on those polls, just as a resoundingly strong performance could reclaim her leading role. In this calculus lies an opportunity for an Obama, or an Edwards, to start making a new name for themselves.
Those are high stakes, by any definition.
Yet when all was said and done tonight, Clinton had not stumbled -- she had indeed shone on the question of a woman running for president -- and both Obama and Edwards had held their own in debate. They had neither skewered Clinton nor necessarily catapulted their own campaigns. Indeed, it was Obama who had trouble answering a simple yes or no at one point.
Clinton was asked more than an hour into this contentious and personal debate about going to her alma mater, Wellesley College, and speaking of running against a “boy’s club.’’
“Well, I’m not exploiting anything at all. I’m not playing, as some people say, 'the gender card,'’’ Clinton said. “Here in Las Vegas… I’m trying to play the winning card.
“They’re not attacking me because I’m a woman,'' she said of her rivals. "They’re attacking me because I’m ahead.’’
When questioner Campbell Brown pressed Clinton about what she had meant by the term, boys club -- “Campbell...’’ Obama replied with a knowing look. “Well, it is clear… from women’s experiences that, from time to time, there may be some impediments… To be able to aim toward the highest, hardest glass ceiling is history-making.’’
“I think that every single candidate on this stage should be held to exactly the same standard,'' Edwards suggested. "There is nothing personal about this… But I think there are differences between us, and voters are entitled to know what those differences are.’’
A lot of the differences were aired tonight.
With the two-hour show now finished -- it started at 8 pm EST -- the Swamp's Spin Room, opened for pre-game comments, remains open for post-debate analysis. Follow the Tribune's John McCormick in his on-the-ground accounts above as well, here in the Swamp.
The encounter opened as almost a one-on-one debate between Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
* * *
Clinton, asked about her own comment that she wasn’t at her best in the last debate, and that some have questioned her stances on issues as a result of that debate , said: "This pant-suit is asbestos tonight.
"I am aware that some people say that. I think the American people know where I stood for 35 years,'' she said. "I have been fighting for universal health care…
“This is going to be one of the most important elections we’ve ever had… and it is important that we have a candidate that is tested and is perfectly comfortable to lead from Day One.’’
Obama was asked about Clinton.
“Sen. Clinton is a capable politician,'' he said, "But what the American people are looking for right now is straight answers to tough questions, and that is not what we are hearing from Sen. Clinton.
“What I am absolutely convinced of is that, right now, we need a different kind of politics,'' Obama said.
“I hear what Sen. Obama is saying.’’ Clinton said. “He talks a lot about stepping up and taking strong positions… But when it came time to step up and decide whether or not he would support universal health care, he stepped out.’’
Obama’s health care plan, she said, leaves out about 15 million people – enough to populate the state of Nevada and several more.
“Let’s talk about health care,’’ Obama said. “The fact of the matter is, I do provide universal health care.. ‘’
“I cannot let that go unanswered,’’ Clinton said. “The most important thing here is to level with the American people.. Sen. Obama's health care plan does not cover everyone… He does not mandate the kind of coverage that I do.’’
* * *
The encounter grew so heated – with other candidates clamoring to join it – that a heckler started calling for Obama to sit down.
When former Sen. John Edwards finally got a chance, he accused Clinton of "voting with Bush and Cheney'' on the war and being part of a "corrupt'' political system in Washington.
"I respect all of my colleagues on this stage,'' Clinton objected. " We're Democrats and we're trying to nominate the very best person...
"I dont mind taking hits on issues,'' she said. "But when someone starts throwing mud, at least we can hope it's accurate and not right out of the Republican playbook.
"For him to be throwing this mud... really detracts from what we're trying to do here tonight,'' Clinton said.
* * *
Edwards was reminded that he, too, had voted for the war, and was asked if it isn’t fair to allow people to change their positions over time.
It is fair, he replied, saying that people should be able to learn from their mistakes. “I’m saying there is a difference between that and saying two exactly contrary things at the same time,’’ said Edwards, accusing Clinton of doing that.
“There’s nothing personal about this,’’ Edwards said. “This is about what America needs to be.’’
Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut was asked about Edwards, who had run in 2004 as an unflinchingly nice candidate and who has turned aggressive now.
“There is a shrillness to the debate,’’ Dodd said. “The American people want the job done…. When a campaign is about turning up the debate… who can talk louder… the American people tune out… When we waste time on the shrillness of this debate, we lose the American people.’’
“It seems that John wants to start a class war. It seems that Barack wants to start a generational war,’’ Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico said. “It seems that Sen. Clinton, with all due respect to her position on Iraq, doesn’t want to stop a war…. I say, give peace a chance.’’
“Let us debate the issues that affect the American people,’’ Richardson said.
* * *
When they finally got to issues, 25 minutes into the debate, they started with immigration.
“The reason the American people are concerned is they are seeing their own economic position slip away,’’ Obama said. “What we have to do is create a comprehensive solution to the problem… As president, I will make sure that we finally have the kind of border security we need.’’ Employers must also be held accountable for the hiring of illegal immigrants, he said. But once workers who already here, and are working and learning English “get in the back of the line’’ to apply for citizenship, he said, they should be accommodated.
Obama was asked about driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants. He said that when he was a state senator he voted to ensure that illegal immigrants get training and licenses, but that driver licenses aren’t the issue today. “Undocumented immigrants don’t come here to drive,’’ he said. “They aren’t going to the In ‘n Out Burger…. They are here to work.’’
“I am not proposing that that’s what we do,’’ Obama said, stirring some jeers in the audience for appearing to equivocate on the question. “But I also know that, if we keep on getting distracted by this problem we are not going to solve it.’’
This is the sort of question that’s “available for a yes or no answer,’’ CNN moderator Wolf Blitzer suggested – asking if illegal immigrants should be given driver licenses..
“No,’’ said Edwards.
“I think driver’s licenses are the wrong thing to be doing,’’ Dodd said.
“Yes,’’ Obama finally stated, adding that he will be fighting for comprehensive reform.
“No,’’ Clinton said.
“I take issue with your position of people being illegal immigrants… They are undocumented,’’ Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio said.
“My answer is yes, and I did it,’’ Richardson said.
“No,’’ said Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, without elaboration.
* * *
When they addressed the conflict in Pakistan – where President Gen. Pervez Musharraf has declared emergency rule and the Bush administration has maintained its support for Musharraf in the interest of fighting terrorism – Richardson suggested there are times when human rights are more important than national security – and moderator Blitzer asked him to clarify that: Are there times when human rights are more important than American national security?
“Yes,’’ Richardson said.
“The concepts are not contradictory,’’ Obama said. “They are complementary.’’
“Obviously national security – keeping the country safe,’’ Dodd said.
“I agree with that completely,’’ Clinton said. “The first obligation of the president… is to protect the United States of America.’’
* * *
On the war in Iraq, Richardson said: “The surge is not working.’’
“Our troops are dying, over 3,800 – two today,’’ he said. “My position is that we get the troops out in a year, leave no residual troops behind…. But not just wave goodbye, because we have responsibility.’’ The U.S. must ensure that a political reconciliation is secured among warring factions there, he said.
“The occupation is fueling the insurgency,’’ said Kucinich, noting that he was “the only one on this stage who voted against the war.’’
Obama said: "There is no doubt that, because we put American troops in Iraq, more American troops in Iraq, that they are doing a magnificent job…. They are making a difference in certain neighborhoods... But the overall strategy has failed.
“I’m going to bring it to a halt when I’m president of the United States,’’ Obama said.
* * *
The controversy over flawed imports from China gave rise to a debate over free trade and the North American Free Trade Agreement.
NAFTA, said Edwards, is an example of the power that corporations hold over government. At a time when Democrats held the White House and both houses of Congress, he said, the Clinton administration could not win universal health care – which insurance and pharmaceutical companies opposed – but did win NAFTA, which corporations favored. This played into Edwards' theme that the former president’s wife is part of a “corporate’’ crowd in Washington.
“We will not change this country if we replace a crowd of corporate Republicans with a crowd of corporate Democrats,’’ Edwards said.
* * *
The closing 40 minutes of the debate were handed over to undecided voters in Nevada, which will hold presidential nominating caucuses in January.
The mother of an Iraq veteran and Marine reservist who worries that conflict in Iran will be next asked about “beating the drums of war again.’’
“Please tell me, how you’re going to show your leadership,’’ she asked.
“The way to do that, ma’am, is not to ratchet up the winds of war here,’’ Biden said, calling the congressional resolution labeling the Iranian security force a terrorist organization a “serious, serious mistake.’’
Clinton, who voted for the resolution, said: “There is, however, a deep concern that is well justified about this president. That’s why I tried to oppose a rush to war…
‘’What I think is most important is that we have aggressive diplomacy with Iran. I believe the Bush administration has allowed this situation to worsen and fester,’’ she said. “I wouldn’t ask the Iranians to give up their quest for nuclear power or anything else. Get them to the table… Prevent them from becoming a nuclear power… We need China and Russia, the neighbors in the region… Haivng been in Iraq, you know that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard has assisted’’ the insurgents in Iraq. “I believe they are a terrorist group. I think sanctioning them and putting some pressure on them’’ is an important part of a diplomatic solution.
“It’s important for us to stop Bush, Cheney and the neo-cons at every stage,’’ Edwards said. “Bush, Cheney and the neo-cons wanted the Iranian Revolutionary Guard declared a terrorist organization, because it is part of their path’’ of taking the nation to war. “We’ve seen this movie, we know how it turns out. I think it is absolutely crucial for Democrats to show real strength, real backbone on this issue and stop this president.’’
Obama, who missed the vote, said: “Understand the problem with this vote… It’s not just going to have an impact in terms of potentially having a conflict with Iran. It also means giving this administration an excuse’’ to continue the deployment in Iraq. .
Asked about missing that Senate vote, Obama said: “This is true, and it’s a mistake… This is one of the hazards of running for president.’’
* * *
The candidates were asked about their criteria for choosing Supreme Court justices – and if they would insist that a nominee support abortion rights.
“They’d have to share my view about privacy, and I think that goes hand in hand,’’ Clinton said. “Privacy… is embedded in our Constitution… It would be absolutely critical… The answer is yes.’’
Obama said: “I would not appoint somebody who doesn’t believe in the right to privacy… I taught constitutional law for 10 years…. Part of the role of the court is that it is going to protect people who are going to be vulnerable in the political process… If we can find people who have life experience and they understand what it means to be on the outside, what it means to have the system not work for them,’’ he said, those are the people he’d be interested in appointing.
Edwards said: "I would insist that they recognize the right of privacy and recognize Roe v. Wade as settled law.''
* * *
In the end, the debate involving a former First Lady aiming at breaking what Clinton called "the highest, hardest glass ceiling'' led to a Nevada woman's question custom-tailored for a woman.
Clinton was asked at the end if she prefers diamonds or pearls.
“I know I’m sometimes accused of not making a choice,'' Clinton replied. "I want both.’’
• 
• 
• 
Comments
If they start ganging up on Hillary like they did last time, I'm going to turn my TV off immediately. I suggest everyone to do the same if you're a true American. The smear tactics must end. And the election of Hillary Clinton must begin. Tomorrow.
Posted by: Vote for Hillary Online | November 15, 2007 7:35 PM
can wolf blitzer PLEASE move on!!!
Posted by: Marshall | November 15, 2007 8:08 PM
DEMOCRATS = SOCIALISTS!!!!!
Posted by: RON PAUL 08 | November 15, 2007 8:16 PM
Hillary unifies Republicans! And, that scares me.
Posted by: Democrats must win | November 15, 2007 8:37 PM
i will never vote for you mrs. clinton. don't like anyone who is running. they changed mind way to much vote for mickey mouse
Posted by: wendy heusel | November 15, 2007 8:38 PM
Poll:
Seven Democratic presidential hopefuls went head-to-head on the issues Thursday night, with the biggest pressure likely on front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton.
Who do you think won the CNN News Las Vegas Democratic Debate at the University of Nevada?
----------> http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=996
.
Posted by: PollM | November 15, 2007 9:14 PM
The big question in Vegas is what show you will find Bill sitting in the front row. Clue: it won't be at the debate.
Posted by: Harry R. | November 15, 2007 9:20 PM
Wow.
Obama finally woke up. Where was that fire MONTHS ago?
Posted by: Mike | November 15, 2007 10:10 PM
Lordy, lordy, lordy, the Democrats are indeed a sad bunch, but any one of them is better than the current incumbent and wannabee kings on the republican side. The least of these Democrats dwarfs the harlequins running for the Republican crown. licanightdem
Posted by: beegmo | November 15, 2007 10:17 PM
Obama admits that he failed to cast an important vote in the Senate and people still consider voting for him? He admits he didn't do the job he was hired to do - U.S. Senator! Wake-up America!
Posted by: KH | November 15, 2007 10:46 PM
I don't think these debates are going to pick the winner, it will be voters individually choosing the winner. The Dem's obviously don't feel comfortable fighting inside the party, but they need to address issues. I think Obama had answers to the questions in real government terms, and not just rhetoric!
Posted by: MarkkraM | November 15, 2007 11:02 PM
Just for clarification, it is my understanding that Obama missed the Kyl-Lieberman vote because it was pushed up ahead of time and he was informed at the last minute when he was out of state.
Posted by: ES | November 15, 2007 11:36 PM
"questions about characteristics that Americans consider essential in a president: Strength, straightforwardness and certitude among them."
After eight years of Bush, Clinton could be passed-out drunk in office & this country would still be better off having her as president then Bush.
Posted by: RomanB | November 15, 2007 11:58 PM
Politics is about scoring points - like a boxing match.
But campaigns are more likely determined on who - early on - captivates the voters attention.
Hillary did and so she will win. And the country will continue down the path of division.
Posted by: Bud McFarlin | November 16, 2007 12:31 AM
What was being shouted from the gallery when Wolf B was trying to shut down Obama's clarification of the immigration/driver's license question?
I was embarrassed for UNLV. Bltizer's simple-minded wedge wanking was nothing to be too proud of.
And isn't Blitzer/CNN the apologetic party on the Osama/Obama "accidental" mix-up, e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6229649.stm
Should CNN really be the sole broadcaster of this democratic debate? I can't find the video I'm looking for (the beginning of the Blitzer driver's license line of questioning, and the entire segment having to do with Hillary being able to work with Republicans)... I wonder if CNN intends to keep it hidden in their vaults.
Posted by: Ronald P. Loui | November 16, 2007 5:20 AM
I think it's unfair for the candidates to be asked all those "Yes or No" questions when the issues they're being asked about are so complex. I can't blame them at all for wanting to explain their position on driver licenses for undocumented people. It's a complex issue that does not exist in a vacuum.
Posted by: TW | November 16, 2007 7:11 AM
DEMOCRATS = SOCIALISTS!!!!!
Posted by: RON PAUL 08 | November 15, 2007 8:16 PM
Ron Paul supporters= Cult!
Posted by: bill r. | November 16, 2007 7:13 AM
CNN and other news outlets are obsessed with having "ordinary citizens" ask questions during these debates.
Then, when an "ordinary citizen" asks a question, the CNN moderator spins the question to how she wanted the candidate to address the question.
This certainly made a mockery of having the regular folks ask questions.
And only Joe Biden had the political courage to state that he was going to answer the citizen question.
Posted by: retiree | November 16, 2007 7:28 AM
What's wrong with this paragraph?
When questioner Campbell Brown pressed Clinton about what she had meant by the term, “Campbell...’’ Obama replied with a knowing look. “Well, it is clear… from women’s experiences that, from time to time, there may be some impediments… To be able to aim toward the highest, hardest glass ceiling is history-making.’’
Swamp editor's note: What's wrong is, it isn't clear. It's been recast to make it clearer. With thanks for the eyes.
Posted by: Timothy | November 16, 2007 7:51 AM
They can attack any way they want. Who wants a president that cannot answer a difficult question? Hillary's problem is she cannot remember how she answered the question the last time or what the last poll said.
She does not care about the country - she just plain wants to be President.
Posted by: Robert Perino | November 16, 2007 8:00 AM
She does not care about the country - she just plain wants to be President.
Posted by: Robert Perino | November 16, 2007 8:00 AM
I guess you'll vote for Fred. He is the only one who doesn't act like he wants to be president.
Posted by: bill r. | November 16, 2007 8:12 AM
Wow, you guys might as well pack up the Swamp office and head back to Chicago; were you even watching the debate? I can't believe the first time you mentioned Biden in this post was his one-word, actually-answering-Wolf's-yes-or-no-question answer on immigration. You sure talked up the opening kerfuffle between the top 3 (yawn...easy story), but did you not notice how Wolf turned to Biden to bring the debate back to reality? Did you miss his entire Pakistan agenda? Good Lord, try stretching your journalistic skills now and then.
Posted by: Shelby Highsmith | November 16, 2007 8:15 AM
Democrats Must Win says, "Hillary unifies Republicans! And, that scares me."
Correctamundo, but Dems don't see that, so expect her to win the primary & get slaughtered in the elections when Republicans strip her of any momentum she might have.
Posted by: RCK | November 16, 2007 8:51 AM
Joe Biden showed himself not only the wisest,most qualified candidate; but the nicest and wittiest
Posted by: john imhoff | November 16, 2007 8:56 AM
Does it concern anyone that Mr. Obama did not pledge allegiance to the flag (the other candidates did). My question would be "to whom does he have allegiance if not to this flag, the one nation under God"? How to you swear an oath when you can't pledge this country's flag? Bothers me...I'm not a democrat but I am watching!
Posted by: Linda K. Roberts | November 16, 2007 8:57 AM
I almost turned it off at the start of the debate because of Wolf Blitzer. It had too much of a showbiz feel. I kept waiting for him to say "America who will be you next American Idol, I mean president!"
The press needs to give equal time to Biden, Dodd, Kucinich and Richardson. (listed in alphabetical order not preference) Too much emphasis is being paid to Clinton, Edward and Obama. None of which at this point would I vote for.
For example, Kucinich had to beg for time, yet had some of the best quips of the evening.
I'd really like to know what is going on with the press and why the favortism to the three?
Posted by: BillSchmidt | November 16, 2007 9:00 AM
Wolf Blitzer must have listened to the threats from the Clinton camp and agreed to ask only mild questions. The politically packed audience cheering and booing stopped some of the candidates from even finishing a sentence to their answers. CNN rally does stand for the Clinton News Network.
Posted by: Jim A | November 16, 2007 9:05 AM
I thought Hillary did a great job. Obama looked like a fool when he attacked HIllary for the IRan vote then was finally called on the fact that he didnt even bother to show up for the vote. Also he attacked her for a the immigration liscense issue and made himself look bad by letting Clinton give a clear answer and he tried to avoid the issue with a drawn out long winded answer. Edwards just seems desperate. The line of the night was when Hillary said "they are not attacking me because I am a women, they are attacking me because I am ahead." Clearly the crowd agrred with me because that got the loudest reponse. Obama just doenst look comfortable at the debates. He knows he is outclassed in a head to head mathup, but when he is all by himself he does much better. Hillary just solidified herself as the real leader at this debate.
Posted by: Vinny | November 16, 2007 9:06 AM
Wolf Blitzer must have listened to the threats from the Clinton camp and agreed to ask only mild questions. The politically packed audience cheering and booing stopped some of the candidates from even finishing a sentence to their answers. CNN rally does stand for the Clinton News Network.
Posted by: Jim A | November 16, 2007 9:06 AM
Hilary is goofy; she may make history as a first presidential candidate, she also diminish Democratic presidential hope for 2008.
Hilary has a lots of baggage to carry; 50% Americans will not vote for her, she is too far left!
Lets get Obama or Edwards to the front door. They are the democratic hope.
Posted by: Cohen | November 16, 2007 9:10 AM
Are you refferring to the photo of Obama and others in the background in Iowa? They were not reciting the Pledge, they were singing the national anthem. Protocol doesn't dictate hand over the heart when singing the anthem.
Posted by: shamba | November 16, 2007 9:18 AM
I still just can't get over the feeling that Clinton is doing this entirely for her own ego, basically. While I think she would be much better than any of the Republican candidates,I don't think a thing would change under a second Clinton. Also, I suspect the best thing that the Democrats could do to motivate Republicans is to nominate Hillary.
I don't know if Obama has all the answers. But he seems like he actually has a grasp on reality, and a willingness to say things that make a lot of sense, even when they are politically unpopular.
I gotta think that if Clinton is the nominee, I will do something I haven't done since I turned 18, sit this one out.
Posted by: Dutch101 | November 16, 2007 9:19 AM
We might do well to remember a charge made against our current President when he first ran for this office: it was that he might feel an obligation to persue and justify the actions of his father when he was President. It can be argued that this indeed is what happened.
A similar charge can be made against Mrs. Clinton, that she might feel compelled to substantiate her husbands Presidency.
Remember, when he left we were headed toward a recession because of his policies and we were a very divided nation, which is still true.
We might have invaded Iraq for the wrong reason, but we did invade and we destabilized their government. To leave before the Iraqi people are back on their feet would indeed be crime.
Posted by: don | November 16, 2007 9:20 AM
Hillary ran away with the debate, Obama tripped all over himself and got testy with the audience and Blitzer. Edwards negative approach is staring to run it's course and for a guy who lives in a 40,000 sq. ft. house and gets $400 haircuts to presume to bleed for America's little people is a too much to swallow. Biden and Dodd have been around a long time and are very knowledgeable politicians but neither is Presidential stock.
Posted by: wallace | November 16, 2007 9:41 AM
It's looking like Hilary is the Democrats best chances of getting into the Whitehouse.
Posted by: L. Molina | November 16, 2007 9:44 AM
I found the debate very interesting, unbelievable, but interesting none the less.
They are all for granting amnesty to illegal aliens which the GAO in a report has stated that comprehensive immigration reform would basically bankrupt the U.S. in 15 years. Coming out of the so-called shadows or legalizing them would allow them to apply for State and Federal benefits that would otherwise be denied costing states and the feds hundreds of billions of dollars anually.
They all want to go after employers who "knowingly hire" illegal aliens which is current law and it has failed. Mandated employment varification is the only thing that may work. I say "may" because it has never been tried.
They all spoke of universal health care but I don't see how that can be accomplished when you consider the costs. Where is all the money coming from to pay for it?
When we have to decide to vote for the lesser of two evils we are still voting for evil. It appears that both parties are trying to put up the most "electable" candidate just so they can take the White House. Niether party is putting up a candidate that can use the bully pulpit and fix our broken federal system. I see nothing but scandles if Hilary is elected and Rudy will continue the Bush doctrine of destroying this country.
As I see it the democrats want amnesty for illegal aliens and there potential vote which disenfrachises the native or naturalized citizen voter. The Republicans wan't amnesty so wall street can report greater profits at the expense of the working middle class and the poor.
We currently live in a fake democray where our representation goes to the highest bidder. Special and corporate interests groups run this country and there is no getting around this. Both political parties encourage this and to tell you the truth, I am sick of it.
Posted by: Terry | November 16, 2007 9:45 AM
So Obama thinks the country needs a new sort of politics and says that Clinton is not giving straight answers. And Clinton doesn't think that Obama has experienced. Now we hear that Obama missed a key vote in the Senate.
I suppose this is news to everybody, right?
Posted by: Christopher Hobe Morrison | November 16, 2007 9:47 AM
Every American should do themselves a favor and vote Republican. These idiotic Democrats can't even make their minds up!
Posted by: Ted | November 16, 2007 9:48 AM
It's clear Hillary will setup an EMPIRE that's even less inclusive than Bush's. Her ego has the answer to everything and she will do what she wants regardless of what we the people say. Mark my words, she will be worse than Bush!
Posted by: Reality | November 16, 2007 9:56 AM
I am pro-Edwards, however Biden is looking and sounding very good too. Biden knows the international scene and the players. He also made sense on many issues with no BS--talk about a straight talk express.
Posted by: Vivian | November 16, 2007 9:57 AM
Hillary answers change a lot in a very short time, while your mind can change on an issue, it shouldn't change each time you talk to a different part of the country
Posted by: jimmy | November 16, 2007 10:03 AM
"Asked about missing that Senate vote, Obama said: “This is true, and it’s a mistake… This is one of the hazards of running for president.’’
Just wondering, but doesn't it seem a little silly in this day and age that they have to be "physically present" to cast their vote?
Why can't they phone or even "text-message" their "yea or ney"?
I'm not up to speed with the cngressional procedures. I imagine there is a "roll-call" and whatever else they need to do. But couldn't congressman who need to be somewhere other than Washington do a video conference call or something? Especially when the timing of a vote is changed and it becomes "short-notice", as appears to have happened here.
Senators and represntaives also need to spend time with the voters of their states and districts. Doesn't it seem there should be a better way that makes it a little easier to cast a vote, instead of always having to go back-and-forth to Washington? Might save the tax-payers some frequent flyer miles, too.
Posted by: Modern Technology | November 16, 2007 10:11 AM
After watching the debate I had an uneasy feeling that the politics of Clinton are way far left, Obama is trying hard not to take a stance on anything, and Edwards is trying to gain attention but I can't figure out why. The Republicans should win no matter who their candidate is.
Posted by: Clarence | November 16, 2007 10:39 AM
"Obama just doenst look comfortable at the debates. He knows he is outclassed in a head to head mathup, but when he is all by himself he does much better. Hillary just solidified herself as the real leader at this debate."
- Since the Nixon/Kennedy debate Americans have been preoccupied with how their potential presidents perform on TV. However, how one does in a debate really has very little to do with how they will perform as President!!!
Americans actually have to go beyond the debates, research the candidates, and in the end, choose the one the one they feel will lead the country to a new future. This country is on a precipice right now - even the money we spend is becoming worth less to the world. This started with Pres Clinton and the privateers, scandals and corruption he brought to the office, continues with Bush Jr, and will continue further if we elect another Clinton or any Republican. We need change! I am personally an Obama supporter, but I think many of the candidates offer real solultions to real problems, and don't bring the baggage we've been dealing with for the past 20 years to the table!
Posted by: IrishinWisconsin | November 16, 2007 10:48 AM
Hillary tried to get away with sticking up for those making above $97,500 (only 6% of the population according to Obama) as regional! So that is her constituency now, but she was applying for the Presidency of the whole USA. Obama will be a leader to better America as a whole and not just pockets or regions.
Posted by: MarkkraM | November 16, 2007 10:48 AM
"I gotta think that if Clinton is the nominee, I will do something I haven't done since I turned 18, sit this one out."
Oh don't be so dramatic. How do you think we got into this current mess? I bet if it ends up a close race, you'll get out there and vote, but still... don't put such thoughts down in black and white, it is a slap in the face to everyone who has fought and died for your freedom. I know it sounds a little cheeseball, but it is nonetheless true and such a statment makes you sound lazy, disrespectful, and indifferent... I am hard-pressed to believe you are any of those.
In my opinion Hillary took the debate, and I thought Biden's witty nature was funny (frankly, he has nothing to lose). I was drawn to Richardson as well, but I've yet to make up my mind on Hillary. Obama, though I adore him, doesn't seem up to par for presidency. Oh, I was all about Obama in the beginning but I've come around to believe he needs a few years.
I agree with yes/no comments. I think putting complex issues into a "yes" or "no" format trivializes the issues at hand. Not to mention it "dumbs down" the debate on a whole. I, and I think most other Americans, don't need over simplified answers.
Regardless of who runs, I will vote. I will support the Democratic party.
Posted by: make a decision | November 16, 2007 10:54 AM
The facts on Obama's missed vote in question are that the senator was told the vote would not be brought up. Also, I am a constituent of Obama's and I know his position and I know he would not intentionally miss a vote that needed to be made, obviously his vote was not needed after all (RIGHT?). but what is needed is for people to see and hear this man, because he is what we need to move forward in America and the globe. Facts first please.
Posted by: MarkkraM | November 16, 2007 10:56 AM
I have been watching Obamas vote in the senate for several weeks, He has missed many key votes. Check his record. If he was in the private industry he would be fired for not doing his job.
Posted by: BSKI | November 16, 2007 10:57 AM
If anything were right with the voters of this country, all dems should be doomed for their stance on immigration alone.
The US designed a protocol for immigration in order to assure that the government would have the necessary means to assimilate an immigrant into our society properly. This means ensuring that immigrants have access to government resources and that the government has the necessary means to provide the resources that an immigrant needs. Allowing millions of illegals to crash our gates not only tells immigrants who go through the approved procedure that they are waisting their time, but additionally puts local and state governments in a bind because illegals are sucking up the government resources that would normally go to legalized immigrants and US citizens. The government knows what it can and can't handle. This is why it places a number on the amount of immigrants it can accept in a given year. The government also wants to be sure that potential citizens will become responsible and PROUD Americans.
So when a Democrat says they want to provide a path to legalization, they are pandering to a demographic in order to get votes. They prioritize this over the general well being of the American people.
Posted by: RCK | November 16, 2007 11:10 AM
Each time I watch the Democrats debate I get happy. The Democrats sound like a bunch of followers who are trying to sound like leaders. The Republican candidates are the only candidates that are leaders and they don't need to try to sound like leaders.
I would be happy with Rudy, Mitt, Fred, John, or Mike any day of the week over any of the Democrats. If I have to swallow any of the Democrats being president it would be Obama and maybe, maybe Biden. The rest are idiots.
Posted by: Siouxperman | November 16, 2007 11:11 AM
ES, the only place we hear this notion that Obama missed the Iran vote because somehow Chairman Reid intentionally screwed him is on blog entries by his supporters. Not one media outlet has made that accusation. The Obama campaign has not made that accusation (unless you count its clearly not-for-attribution blog campaign to that effect). And Obama himself said nothing of the sort last night during the debate when directly confronted for his failure to vote.
Get over it. The blog rumor mill is not working in this instance. The man was simply too busy campaigning to vote on the issue and that's that.
Posted by: Biggdawg | November 16, 2007 11:14 AM
I think Hillary and Barack have missed many important votes. John Edwards is the person we should supporting.
Posted by: Dan | November 16, 2007 11:15 AM
"Every American should do themselves a favor and vote Republican. These idiotic Democrats can't even make their minds up!"
Every American should do themselves a favor and not listen to Ted.
While I would love a Obama led ticket, I realize that it probably won't happen and will vote for any democrat they put on the ticket to avoid another 4-8 years of Republican lead mistakes and war.
Posted by: Nora | November 16, 2007 11:19 AM
The funny thing is, based on recent history, about 50% of the Americans eligible to vote for the POTUS - won't. Which means that, with various third party candidates drawing votes away (the Prohibition Party, ralph, etc.), whoever is elected will have his or her "mandate" from about 1/4 of the population. Big friggin' deal.
Posted by: T.J. | November 16, 2007 11:20 AM
At a time when Americans are yearning for a president who will restore America's greatness, all this group of losers can do is criticize one another or respond with sound bites. These debates are an embarrassment. A few months ago I thought Obama was the answer, but he is showing me nothing. His magic is gone.
Posted by: M.A.M. | November 16, 2007 11:37 AM
MISSED Votes:
but does it matter since the President doesn't even vote on legislation ?
Running for President - making schedules and fundraisers - so you can go against the establishment is not an easy task. Since Obama is sticking up for America as a whole and not a region or group then I forgive him for missing votes, probably ANY but the impeachment vote that needs to be taken.
Posted by: MarkkraM | November 16, 2007 11:39 AM
Once again, Dennis Kucinich was not given equal time to speak and respond to questions. It is an utter shame all candidates are not treated with respect and provided equal coverage. What is the media afraid of? Someone who has clearly research all of the issues and has courage to take a firm stand - based on our own constitution? Are they afraid someone with a brain may get elected? Other than Obama and Kucinich, the other candidates sounded like used car salesmen.
Posted by: Minion | November 16, 2007 11:42 AM
Obama and Hilary are for Illegal Immigrants, vote no to them. The democrats are forgeting that we vote they don't.
Posted by: Daniel | November 16, 2007 11:49 AM
I thought Obama brought up an interesting point for all those who say "he is for immigration."
He said a business owner has better odds of getting struck by lightning than prosecuted for hiring illegal immigrants. Why do we go after the immigrants themselves, and not those giving them jobs? As Obama says, "they aren't coming here to drive around." (Though if I'm going to get into a car accident with an immigrant, I'd much rather them have a valid license and insurance.) The point is, they are coming here because business owners give them a REASON to come here... good hard workers for cheap labor. I know, I have an ex-boyfriend who's father made his fortune off the backs of illegals. My ex and his father are very "pro-illegal." And why wouldn't they be? My question is why do we not go after the business owners, the true "source," of the problem?
Regardless, if you are a proclaimed anti-immigration citizen, then fine... but you must absolutely insist on equal aggression towards those that would hire them. Otherwise, it seems hypocritical.
Posted by: make a decision | November 16, 2007 12:19 PM
All you campaign workers posting here need to stop and go do your politicking elsewhere. I cannot trust one candidate for it seems the goal is the Presidency, not a call that comes from deep in the spirit. Put that candidate up as the Democratic nominee and there will be another Republican being sworn in Jan 2009.
We average folks are not fooled by you campaign workers and your aggressive antics. Please stop with all the polling and lies that mean nothing to us. I guess you all really buy into the thought that if you tell a story hard enough and long enough the public will believe it. A reality check in order and Democrats need to try to get behind an electable candidate.
I say an Obama/Edwards or an Edwards/Obama ticket is the way to go. Biden and Dodd would be great knowledgeable elders in the cabinet or staying in their current positions.
Hillary has a warmth and sincerity issue with too many of us common folks. This woman is the most capable, but the she conducts her political career in a too calculating fashion for the average person to believe that she cares anything about the people. She should have run for office out of Arkansas instead of the calculating move to New York. Why didn't the people of New York call her on this? You mean there was no capable person who really lived in New York and cared about the people?
Posted by: Pat | November 16, 2007 12:37 PM
Why wasn't any press given Dodd, Biden, Richardson, or Kucinich? I know they are not the frontrunners, but they were there. An unbiased news report would have included their comments. The Democratic Party, as well as Republicans have more to offer than the top three candidates. How are we supposed to learn about our options as voting citizens when not every candidate is given a fair shot?
Posted by: April | November 16, 2007 12:55 PM
I, for the life of me, can not figure out why any politician (Dem or Rep) would be in favor of giving illegal aliens anything much less a path to citizenship. The media is calling it a wedge issue, it is not if you believe in the law.
I guess the potential votes for the democrats in the future outweighs what is in the best interests of the public today something I can't support especially when you consider that the Dem's will be the first to state someone was disenfranchised.
My vote will even count less when we add millions of new voters from country's that don't have the U.S. best interests at hand and became legal because of illegal entry. Does that make any sense to anyone?
Posted by: Terry | November 16, 2007 12:57 PM
What am I missing about Joe Biden? Why is he not considered to be a legitimate candidate?
btw...horrible job by Blitzer
Posted by: Mark | November 16, 2007 1:19 PM
Hillary is too self centered, and too socialistic to become the Leader of this Country. How can a proven anti-military person become the Commander in Chief. He husband ruined the military every year he held office, with his cuts in military spending, and his non action against attacks that took place on his watch ! Imagine how that pants suit egotist, will handle terrorist actions, when she is against profiling, and listening into overseas calls emminating from terrorists countries. Will she take PERSONAL responsibility for American deaths, if she allows the laws covering information gathering against the terrorists, to be liberalized, or removed from the books ?
A vote for Hillary, in the long run, is a vote for the terrorists, worldwide.
Posted by: Jack Lambke | November 16, 2007 1:24 PM
WRT Obama and his missed votes, if he doesn't do the job he was elected to do why would you expect him to do any other?
Posted by: Watcher | November 16, 2007 1:25 PM
Obama is wrong in not placing his hand over his heart for the National Anthem. The United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171 states:
"During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with THE RIGHT HAND OVER THE HEART. Men not in uniform should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart." So, Mr. Obama, what's up with you?
Posted by: Preston | November 16, 2007 1:38 PM
The amazing thing is how people say that Hilary is going to be better than Bush, no matter what. Here's a news flash, Bush had his two terms (the second with the electoral and popular vote mind you) and no matter who the Dems put up, they won't be going against Bush. It's time to stop showing the Dem possibles as good, just because they aren't Bush. I want someone who is a decent candidate of their own merit. Personally i think Biden did himself the most favors last night.
Posted by: B | November 16, 2007 1:49 PM
"Will she take PERSONAL responsibility for American deaths...A vote for Hillary, in the long run, is a vote for the terrorists, worldwide."
Right.
So... can you tell me how many Americans have died under the Bush administration again?
Posted by: no more American deaths | November 16, 2007 1:59 PM
"Will she take PERSONAL responsibility for American deaths...A vote for Hillary, in the long run, is a vote for the terrorists, worldwide."
Right.
So... can you tell me how many Americans have died under the Bush administration again?
Posted by: no more American deaths | November 16, 2007 2:04 PM
It is ironic though, that the Demoncrats would debate in Vegas, thouugh. First of all, they are all losers. Second, they expect us to gamble our lives on them, with the odds strongly against us. Third, some of them are all glitz and no substance, while a few others are like the ole Orleans Hotel and Casino: cheap, old, and a bunch of riff raff. And then others are like the Paris, New York New York or Venetian: seemingly nice, but in the end make believe knockoffs of the real thing.
Democrats: Not worth the gamble.
Posted by: John D | November 16, 2007 2:16 PM
After watching last nights debate I feel a need to speak out. America listen up I have served 19 years in the military under three presidents (Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr.)and I have been deployed all over the world. I have never leaned to the left or right in the political arena. I serve all Commanders and Chiefs with loyalty, but I would love Bill Richardson to be the last I serve under. Give this man a fair shake.
Posted by: GI | November 16, 2007 5:56 PM
Wow, what a hostile bunch of bloggers! Kudos to those few of you who keep it reasonable.
I thought Biden was outstanding, and has been underestimated on the Presidential scene for years. Kucinich really helped himself, too, but what Republican is ever going to cross the line for Dennis?
Sorry to the Hillary camp, but I can't see voting for her after this primary. I have defended her since 1992, but now that I see how her constituency thinks, I have to agree with a lot of her detractors. Her people boo. Her people plant. Her people believe that the ends justify the means. This is not the person who represents me. As a loyal Democrat, I am afraid that in a general election, the electorate will reveal that she does not represent the country.
On paper, I still love her. Watching her in action, not so much.
Even as an Obama fan, it amazes me how many Republicans tell me they will vote for O, including my neighbor who FINALLY removed his damned W sticker from his SUV.
I suspect the blog entries here are not really indicative of this cross-party appeal, which has been ably documented elsewhere.
Posted by: Ronald Loui | November 16, 2007 6:45 PM
Preston, you are quite correct, and thank you for the careful citation (you should add some links, too). However, maybe you can help me. I was taught that the hand-over-heart clause referred only to the Pledge of Allegiance, and that such body language was an indication of the Pledge's deeper significance than the Anthem (an artistic work, not an oath). Similarly, it was the privilege, not just the responsibility of the military, to salute. For a civilian to salute during the Anthem, there had better be a good reason (such as exuberance in the moment), lest it be interpreted like a false wearing of military honors.
It seems clear that the 1976 amendment to the code, July 7, 1976, Pub. L. 94-344, Sec. 1(18), 90 Stat. 812, is when the hand-over-heart requirement was EXTENDED from Pledge to Anthem. That would explain Obama's and my different schooling from yours, if you are under forty years old.
What I need help to find, if you can help, is the original statement of Section 301b prior to the 1976 amendment, and in fact, prior to the two 1942 revisions. It would be interesting to see what the true historical requirement was, especially since I don't see baseball fans with hands over their hearts in old newsreels.
The 1976 revision is also where 24-hour display of flags was made legal, PROVIDING that there is proper night illumination. We could all use a bit of a refresher on what the law urges, as opposed to what the practices have become. I am sure that there is sloppiness on all sides of the poltical divide (which we really ought to trying to bridge).
Posted by: Ronald Loui | November 16, 2007 7:18 PM
The MSM is so much in favor of Hillary Clinton that they are going to get a reaction from the Democratic electorate that will backfire in their face. We want a candidate who can beat the Repugs in the Fall. Hillary, Obama and Edwards cannot give us a winner. Joe Biden can and will. We just have to be sure to nominate him!
Posted by: Like It Is | November 16, 2007 9:47 PM
Obama certainly raised some eyebrows yesterday, at the Nevada debate. After some waffling, he gave Wolf Blitzer a yes to the question, Should Illegal immigrants be granted Drivers Licenses? In addition, he said he wanted to pass Comprehensive Immigration reform. Personally, I think he might have cooked his own goose, by offering that ultimatum. With this a burning question on the majority of taxpayers lips, not paling to any other major issue. He has identified himself as a danger to the American economy even unto the small communities. He obviously has sold himself to globalist aggressive agenda of the free movement of itinerant workers throughout America. This has become a growing plague in Europe and is causing major confrontations, even in the United Kingdom. Senator Obama has stepped in it, as the question rising to the ominous political surface of whose going to pay for all the needs of illegal immigrants and their extended families. Certainly not the big business employers, who leave the billion dollar tabs for individual states. However a number of states have realized the devastation to their treasuries, and have enacted strict immigration laws. The by-product being that illegal immigrant families are packing-up and fleeing to more tolerant destinations. There is a strict vigilance on all presidential candidates by anti-illegal alien organizations and they are well aware of each politicians immigration grade. Within days every newspaper throughout America, will have a commentary by anti-advocates informing the taxpayers of the consequences of voting for the wrong public servant? Governor Richardson has also shown his true colors, along with Hillary who cannot be trusted in my book. I would have voted for her on Universal health care, but the would definitely have to omit illegal aliens. The rush for millions more for foreign laborers to break into our sovereign nation, would be catastrophic thinking they could be eligible for citizen health-care. I have yet to see how the other presidential wanna-bees stand regarding a path to citizenship, guest worker programs or anything else to do with the momentum growing with this massive controversy? Mark my words the question of illegal immigration, is going to be raised over and over again during the Iowa and New Hampshire Primaries. It will not go away and the motley crew better listen to the U.S. Taxpayers!
Posted by: Brittanicus | November 16, 2007 11:11 PM