Obama won the debate tonight. He was AWESOME!!

[beachmom]

Hillary was strong, but frankly my mind wandered sometimes when she was speaking. He was already starting his campaign against McCain. :)

Doesn't mean he'll get the nom, but nobody is going to say he didn't do what was needed when it was needed.

[sandnsea]

1. See all those glowing Obama/Clinton ticket threads?

Most of them from Clinton supporters. He won them over, but I think the people who are sick of the Clintons will always be sick of the Clintons.

The key phrase tonight is that the "mindset" is what got us into the war and what needs to be changed. We need to find that quote and spread it high and low.

[ginnyinWI]

4. An Obama/Clinton would be too crowded with the three of them there. n/t

[Dr Ron]

2. Yes, he won

I'm just starting to write a post for Liberal Values on how Obama won. The major reasons

1) For the most part they were quite equal. As Clinton's argument is that she is the one who is most experienced, simply looking as good as Clinton is enough for what Obama needed to accomplish

2) The major disagreement, which will probably be the clips on the news coverage (which really determines who wins) will probably be regarding Iraq. This was the major area of disagreement, and the one area where Obama totally blew Clinton out. Clinton is in a no win position. She is trying to copy Kerry's position but unfortunately this didn't completely work for Kerry. It is even harder for Clinton to do this as while Kerry opposed the war before it started, Clinton did not. If Kerry could not get away from his IWR vote, Clinton has much less of a chance.

3) Obama out smarted Clinton on immigration. Obama used it to sound more attractive to Latino voters where he is weaker. Clinton fell into the trap of letting it be a black vs. Latino conflict and took the black side. It won't be enough to get the black vote to move from Obama to Clinton, but it could pick up some Latino votes for Obama.

[ginnyinWI]

3. yes he did.

At times she seemed to have the idea that the one who could say the most words would win the point--and boy did she ever talk. Obama, when he spoke, actually answered the questions and also made a lot of sense. And he had a better sense of humor, getting in a few wry comments.

#1--His point about being "right on day one" was a very strong one.

#3--And he sounded like he had his facts down cold--where as she was out in the weeds somewhere.

[Inuca]

13. At times

I kept telling myself "she is filibustering". As to Obama having his facts down cold, I 100% agree, and that was a very good thing. He did not always in the past, or at least did not give the appearance that he did. And Clinton is always an encyclopedia of facts, sometime to the point of numbness, but overall giving the impression that she is very knowledgeable (which I am sure she is) and effective (which I am not too sure about; my feeling is that she is a micro-manager which I do not think is the best mind set for a president).

[ginnyinWI]

17. Oh I totally agree with that last point.

A micro-manager is good in the Senate, bad in the Oval office. Whenever either of them started in on legislative process, I thought, yeah but I want to hear about executive ability.

I know it's a good thing to understand the process. LBJ was a former legislator and really knew how to call up certain people and lean on them. He knew how the sausage was made. But you have to be able to delegate the details and rise above them so you can watch over the big picture, seems to me.

The other thing a president really needs is people skills. Not in making people do what you want them to via power plays, but being able to inspire and lead. To express a vision for the future and make people excited about going there.

[karynnj]

18. The ethics bill is a great example for Obama on this

per the NYT article at the time no one thought that piece could be done. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/us/politics/20ethics.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=senate+ethics+bill&st=nyt&oref=slogin

This is a great article to use because it is an amazing story that he stood against powerful people like Schumer and won - and it was on the very type of corruption the Edwards people speak of.

[beachmom]

5. I agree with you on all points. Kerry at least had some anti-war cred

from his history, and had quotes like "do not rush into war". Hillary has NONE OF THAT. So basically, a Hillary/McCain election will be Kerry/Bush all over again. Do Democrats really want to do that again? True, that the American people's mood has changed since '04, but Clinton is still pretty much in the Kerry '04 position -- that is not a good position to be in in 2008, especially when we've got Obama who can debate well and is so inspiring. And as someone mentioned on TV tonight, Hillary is in the Kerry position as far as the IWR vote but in a full left position now as to her view on the war and her votes against funding. How is she going to explain that major movement without it sounding like political expediency? Obama has SOME vulnerability with funding votes, but Clinton is worse off. I do think that if Obama actually gets the nom, he needs to have really good answers ready on why he voted against K/F, then introduced a plan similar to it, then voted for that timetable, then from May '07 onward voting against funding. He needs to talk about what sparked that change. Hillary has a lot more work than that to do in a General, however.

[Dr Ron]

8. Kerry had plenty of credentials

Kerry made his position much more clear at the time of the vote in his Senate floor speech and in an article jointly published in the NY Times and Foreign Affairs. He had his Georgetown speech where he told Bush not to rush to war. He protested at the onset of the war by calling for regime change in the United States.

Despite all of this, Kerry was still portrayed as pro-war or a flip flopper. Plus most anti-war Democrats are not aware of all of this.

In contrast Clinton didn't speak out against the war until it was politically expedient. If Kerry couldn't win on this argument, Clinton has no chance.

Obama will do ok with funding votes. He just argues that he was reluctant to cut off funds to the troops during war. Since he opposed the war from the start it is understandable that he had some conflict as to how to respond to these votes once the war was underway. The issue of going to war in the first place is far more important, and I doubt most voters will dwell over every little vote after we were at war.

[karynnj]

15. The funding issue is somewhat bogus

Even Ted Kennedy voted for the funding. The Clintons' statements that conflate voting for funding with "supporting the war" are patently disengenuous. I hope that Ted Kennedy slacks that down as often as possible. He is unassailable on Iraq with the left. He was against it, voted against the IWR, gave amazing speeches against it over the last 5 years, voted for Kerry/Feingold AND did not vote against the funding.

The Clintons are guilty of the same Rovian slight of hand the Republicans, aided by some on the left, succeeded with in conflating the "IWR" and decision to go to war. (I was happy that obama added the word "potentially" when he spoke of the IWR). Edwards pushed this issue either out of frustration that the President really does hold almost all the cards on how the war goes or to establish himself as anti-war.

Voting to defund the war would likely hurt not help in the general election - as it will be said to leave the troops without things they need.

[Dr Ron]

6. Post up at Liberal Values

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2816

[wildflowergardener]

9. liberal values

Has anyone else had any trouble with this website? I clicked on that link, got partway through that article and my browser froze up on me and I had to shut it down. I went again and was able to finish that article, then clicked on another link in that main article and my browser again froze up and I had to close it again.

I'm using firefox. Maybe I should try internet explorer.

Meg

[ginnyinWI]

21. I use Firefox and have had no problem. n/t

[MBS]

12. plus JK apologized for his vote pretty early on (2005?)

but Hillary still refuses to do so! Even last night!

[wildflowergardener]

7. debates

I actually liked Hillary better in this debate than I have in the past, (not better than Obama though) but one big thing for me is that Hillary still will not admit she made a mistake. For me this stance reminds me too much of Bush. One thing that I respect Kerry for alot is that he gets now that he made a mistake. I think enough time has passed that while maybe the politicians weren't quite there yet in 2004, by now enough time has passed that all of the ones who voted for the war, in my opinion should realize they made a mistake and should be willing to admit it.

Also on the immigration issue - it's a tough issue. I see both sides, both those of people who feel their jobs are taken by immigrants - I see it in the construction industry, and being a landscape architect, a contractor we work with, who pays his employee good wages feels he can't compete in bids against people who he thinks hire illegal immigrants. I feel Obama was more for the stand that you need to make things an even playing field, where all employers have to play by the same rules, and only then will you see all employees situations improve and the immigrants who are taken advantage of and paid really low wages won't be taking jobs from anyone because there will no one able to pay cheap wages to immigrants if employers are punished for doing this. I don't know if i'm making sense here but I liked Obamas position on a hard issue like this.

One thing I wanted to add, is I feel like Barack may not have started out as a great debater, but feel he is getting better with every debate and will be more than able to hold his own against the republicans. I did not see the first 12 or so debates - did not start watching until I was sure that Gore was not going to run - but am curious for those of you who watched from the beginning - do you feel he has steadily improved in debating skills from the beginning by getting this practice. I think it shows he has a great ability to learn quickly how to handle difficult situations and adapt.

Meg

[beachmom]

10. He has improved IMMENSELY. Hillary has always been good in

the debates (she only had one really bad one), and the debate was always Obama's weak point. Well, he has shown that he has grown as a candidate. I think he was running even, and then came out ahead because of Iraq. He very nicely kept attention on how he is different.

As to Hillary, did you watch the nasty exchange between her and Obama from last time around? That to me is the real Hillary. Not the phony "I'll take care of you" crap from tonight.

Did everyone see her take credit for s-chip? Sorry, that was Teddy's baby. Hillary's role was to persuade Bill to properly fund it during the final last minute negotiations on the bill. That really annoyed me that she keeps taking credit for something she was HELPFUL on, but hardly was the leader on.

Somebody needs to fact check that vets bill with Lindsay Graham. She tends to embellish.

[Inuca]

14. I think

that Obama was also better served by the 1-on-1 format. His natural way of addressing an issue is not in 60 seconds sound bites and when this is all that he had, he sometimes gave the impression of not really answering or not having all the facts, when he simply needed more time.

S-CHIP: I cringe every time I hear her "taking possesion" of it. I do not have all the facts, basically what you and others have mentioned about it, but I trust you more than her :-). Maybe Teddy will set the record straight on the campaign trail... By the way, CSPAN says they will carry a Kennedy campaign event at 12:45 ET (not on the web site, not yet at least, I saw it announced last night)

[karynnj]

16. I saw the S-Chip thing

She actually said in different words that it was her idea and her way to work the problem differently. It is amazing that the same media who wanted to not give Kerry credit for things he wrote because his name was second - not first lets HRC claim whatever she wants from the Clinton years or anything she co-sponsored. (The height of that was claiming that she was a co-sponsor to Feingold's bill that called for a policy change as an amendment to the last Defense appropriations bill - her name was added by a somewhat disgusted Feingold as it went to vote - for a vote she was not even there for.)

On S Chip, I wish Kennedy would point out that it started with Kerry and himself and that he then joined forces with Hatch to make it acceptable to the Republican controlled Senate. (Here's a NYT article from the time. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980DEFDC113CF932A2575BC0A961958260&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=1

Orrin Hatch is explicit in his Senate speech that this was NOT a Clinton plan. He also makes the point that it was not Kerry/Kennedy, but in that case it is to state that there are very significant changes - primarily that the states were given more freedom to design their program (so Bush, gov of TX did little) and that it had to be refunded periodically rather than being an entitlement.)

[ginnyinWI]

20. it was Teddy's baby!

She has done this before--exaggerated and embroidered on her role. Like the "35 years experience" thing. Please!

[ginnyinWI]

19. on the immigration question

Hillary's answer was simplistic and sounded naive. It's a very complicated issue involving many factors like cultural differences. You can't just say, in effect, that illegals have stolen jobs from black Americans without sounding childish to anybody who knows anything about it.

I knew an illegal immigrant(not from Mexico, and he now has his Green Card) who, although he had about three years of college in his home country, came here and was willing to work 12 to 15-hour days for a landscape company cutting grass and trimming hedges through the summer heat and mosquitos to earn a few bucks an hour. He also worked similarly long hours in a restaurant waiting on tables.

In my experience, immigrants are much more motivated to work hard to get ahead than someone born here, because they know how lucky they are to be here, where there is the opportunity for a future. In the country he came from there was no good future, even for someone who completed their college education. There would have been probably only one career choice for him there (teaching) and much less freedom. I can't really say why he didn't try to immigrate legally except that he probably didn't trust government bureaucracy to work for him and just overstaying his visa was so much more easy to do.

[wildflowergardener]

11. GD-P

I think that General Discussion-Politics is a much more pleasant place to be tonight as an Obama supporter - if that is any indication on whether he won the debate or not. I dont' see as much negativity, and I think ignore is not working - or maybe it is again and that is why - but even with ignore it's been pretty nasty out there to read messages - not so tonight - I'm actually enjoying reading the posts.

Meg