A Final Thought On Tonight's Debate

Finest moment of her political life? Bit of a stretch. It was a good moment, but she needed more. Too little, too late.

Posted by mike | February 21, 2008 10:10 PM

Marc, this is, uh, quite a post.

Does anybody know how to clean semen off a laptop screen?

Posted by D-Train | February 21, 2008 10:13 PM

Pure vulnerability, or contrived? Honest question...how long after Hillary's closing speech did it take for her campaign to email you about it?

Posted by SDinIA | February 21, 2008 10:14 PM

But her final answer sent a message to her party: this won't be decided by superdelegates. If Obama beats me in Texas and Ohio, the last thing I'm going to do is stand in the way of his nomination.

Funny that you see it that way. Because even if she "wins" Texas and Ohio (and, what the hell, let's throw in PA) she still can't catch up in the pledged delegate count, and isn't terribly likely to catch up in the popular vote either. So it's OK that she's willing to stake her candidacy on the will of the sup ... er, automatic delegates at that point?

Too bad her "finest moment of the campaign" came with 2:30 left in the fourth quarter, when she's 3rd and 27, and trailing 31-10. But hey, 31-17 looks a lot better in the final accounting, doesn't it?

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 21, 2008 10:15 PM

Marc makes a good point. It's not hackery to point out that Hillary showed tonite she knows how to lose gracefully. D-Train, you have no class.

Posted by lampwick | February 21, 2008 10:17 PM

Whatever the worth of that moment is, it's canceled out by her "Change you can Xerox" line (which she plagiarized from Bill in 1992).

Posted by Anonymous | February 21, 2008 10:17 PM

The funny thing is if anyone ever spoke about Obama in such effusive tones, they'd be derided as a delusional Kool-Aid drinker.

Posted by RS | February 21, 2008 10:19 PM

It's honestly too bad that she is so afraid to show that side of herself more often. This would have been a different race. Although I think Obama is our best option, so I've been a bit gleeful at her spiteful misteps ... but at least she will hopefully go down gracefully.

Posted by Anna B | February 21, 2008 10:20 PM

Another funny thing is that "change you can Xerox" sounds like it's something out of 1992 (or 1972 for that matter.) But I guess "change you can scan, photoshop and print" is still a little stilted.

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 21, 2008 10:21 PM

How is it that Hillary can be gracious and help Obama in November and still think she can win? How is it that she can put the party first tonight and spend the past 2 weeks talking about stealing pledged delegates and winning the nomination without winning pledged delegates and the popular vote? How is it that Hillary has a history of backing big business and tell the good folks of Ohio that she is an advocate for the worker?

I think Hillary has just mastered her political skills tonight, telling people exactly what they want to hear even though there are blatantly contradictory statements.

Posted by Ann | February 21, 2008 10:22 PM

Also, I think it's a little too early to be giving Hillary kudos for bowing out gracefully. Show, don't tell, Hillary. Don't drag this out to Puerto Rico (a/k/a "the new new new new new firewall").

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 21, 2008 10:22 PM

And Ben Smith reports the following:

Clinton Tonight: ?

You know, whatever happens, we're going to be fine. You know, we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we'll be able to say the same thing about the American people. And that's what this election should be about.?

Edwards the December 13 debate:

?What's not at stake are any of us. All of us are going to be just fine no matter what happens in this election. But what's at stake is whether America is going to be fine.?

It would be ridiculous except that considering the Xerox line this is not going to go over well AT ALL !

Posted by Benjamin | February 21, 2008 10:24 PM

lampwick, that may be true, but I can't help but notice that Vulnerable Hillary only seems to show up when Getting Her Head Handed To Her In Eleven Consecutive Elections Hillary is nearby. Warmth and contrition impress me more when they're not forced by circumstance. Can we possibly set a higher bar for our public servants?

But more to your point, the header on this thing says "A Reported Blog," and this post isn't reporting. It's a A Magical Trip Into Hillary Clinton's Innermost Thoughts Brought To You By Marc Ambinder.

At least, I think that's what the header says. The screen's still a little blurry.

You know, from all the semen.

(I kid, I kid!)

Posted by D-Train | February 21, 2008 10:27 PM

I'll say this...my first preference is and always has been Obama, but the Hillary during most of tonight's debate was the Hillary that I could have been fairly satisfied with as the Democratic candidate in the general election. The Hillary that I always thought Republicans hated irrationally and was a very qualified candidate.

But then after the Iowa caucuses, she reminded me that maybe some of that Republican hatred isn't entirely irrational. The tone she chose to run her campaign with sickened me. And of course now we know that her tactical decisions have been utterly disastrous. Obama barely had to lift a finger to beat her - and oh the material he would have had to work with had he wanted to go negative - because she beat herself.

If Hillary had run her campaign with a little more sunshine and a lot less garbage, who knows where we would be right now.

But then, I'm an Obama supporter, and my candidate is about to take down one of the most powerful political machines in America. So I'm happy no matter how it happened.

Posted by SDinIA | February 21, 2008 10:30 PM

But more to your point, the header on this thing says "A Reported Blog," and this post isn't reporting. It's a A Magical Trip Into Hillary Clinton's Innermost Thoughts Brought To You By Marc Ambinder.

There's not a lot of reporting going on here either. Go figure.

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 21, 2008 10:31 PM

Daniel Drezner just compiled these quotes at his blog:

Hillary Clinton, February 21, 2008 debate with Barack Obama: "You know, lifting whole passages from someone else's speeches is not change you can believe in, it's change you can Xerox."

Hillary Clinton, later on in the same debate: "You know, the hits I've taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country."

Jack Stanton speech, in Primary Colors (New York: Random House, 1996), p. 162: "Y'know, I've taken some hits in this campaign. It hasn't been easy for me, or my family. It hasn't been fair, but it hasn't been anything compared to the hits a lot of you take every day."

http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/003724.html

Posted by David | February 21, 2008 10:37 PM

Jeff:

Could you be any more ungracious?

Posted by Tim K | February 21, 2008 10:40 PM

As someone who makes frequent anti-Hillary comments, I must applaud Marc. I think he's right. I am the kind of jerk who did not buy Hillary's New Hampshire cry (not because I'm convinced it was fake, but because she was delivering her attack lines right through the mistiness). That final moment at the debate, however, actually convinced me. I thought it was genuine. She's not conceding the superdelegate issue, however, as one person above noted.

She, however, is conceding that if she does not win both Ohio and TX, she'll bow out gracefully. There won't be "See you in Pennsylvania, plagiarizer" speech if she loses either Ohio or Texas.

Posted by RaymondA | February 21, 2008 10:41 PM

I think you a right on Marc.

It was a very good moment for her. It makes me wonder if having more female leadership would produce less partisanship and give way to solutions. On both sides.

Hillary needs to give a WHY? to her accomplishments. A personal story to what motivates her. She is strong when she does - and craven/grating when she does not. Obama constantly gives a WHY? build a coalition to create change, a multi-ethnic candidate looking for the best. He is as power-hungry as the Clintons, but the message is powerful.

I'm basically an Edwards 2004 sunny-optimist supporter who did not like his 2008 campaign much - and have sided with Obama over Hillary in the last week or so. However, I have admired Hillary since early 90s watching her speak at Dartmouth a few times. I hope Obama can learn a few things from Bill Clinton's many early errors.

Demographically, the younger white males have been so difficult for the Dems. They went for Nader in 2000, and would have been difficult for Hillary. It's pretty obvious they will not be a problem now.

Posted by chris | February 21, 2008 10:46 PM

Didn't watch...did she address the Michagan and Florida delegations?

I bet Icky Harold is plotting to steal the nomination even now.

She reminds me of what the Hollywood producer said...Sincerity is everything...once you can fake it, you've got it made. (A parapharase, don't shoot me.)

Posted by Chris in Virginia | February 21, 2008 10:47 PM

Hillary locked up the nomination tonight. Case closed.

Posted by Toobie | February 21, 2008 10:49 PM

Tim, I probably could, but I'd have to know which comment you're referring to before I could tell you for sure.

If it's my most recent comment, I think it's fairly obvious that reporting doesn't appear to be a very big component of Marc's blog, no more than the similarly promised posts on aviation and cognitive neuroscience. Not necessarily a criticism, just the way it is. You think I spend so much time here because I'm worked up about it? Trust me -- I have better outlets for my frustrations in life. ;)

On the other hand, if I seem ungracious to you in the aftermath of what appeared to be a validictory, it's because I don't fully trust a campaign that spent the better part of a month floating various trial balloons to subvert the will of the voters. What can I say, I voted in FL in 2000, and I'm still a little bitter about that result.

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 21, 2008 10:49 PM

I'm going to read the transcript and blog my own response in a bit. My initial reaction to the end clip is that it's one of three things:

(1) Preparation to concede the nomination to Obama if (more likely when) she loses either Texas, Ohio, or both.

(2) A manufactured "crying moment", a sign of vulnerability intended to gin up a burst of sympathy from the voters.

(3) A cheap way to make Obama look like a glory hound because he didn't extend the olive branch first.

The one thing it definitely wasn't- as the Politico has revealed, thanks both to you guys and to Keith Olbermann just now for mentioning it- was genuine.

Posted by Kris Overstreet | February 21, 2008 10:51 PM

It gets easier everyday to imagine President Obama and Majority Leader Clinton working together to sensational effect.

and, D-Train: Try running your laptop through the dishwasher.

Posted by unclesmedley | February 21, 2008 10:53 PM

After reading about 20 political blogs, several of which have already reposted your comments, I think you have the post of the night. It was a valedictory and a signal to the party, that if she loses on March 4th, she's bowing out.

Posted by Martin | February 21, 2008 10:56 PM

Hillary's finest moment was her closing comment. Was this a farewell speech by Hillary?

Posted by Ajaz Haque | February 21, 2008 10:56 PM

Marc, as much as I'd like to believe you are right and HIllary wants to go with dignity, that expoitive statetment of "the moment" by Howard Wolfson totally undermines the authenticity of it.

Posted by RKA | February 21, 2008 10:58 PM

But if she doesn't lose on 3/4 -- yet still can't win -- what does she do then? I think that speaks more about her intentions (and her character) than an effective manufactured moment she used as her final thought of the debate.

Like I said, I don't place a lot of faith in a candidate whose campaign has spent the better part of a month publicly signaling its commitment to winning at all costs.

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 21, 2008 11:03 PM

For her to use that "xerox" line and then to close with a speech that relied heavily on borrowed phrases, from Edwards and her husband ... it's almost like she WANTS to lose.

Posted by put a fork in her | February 21, 2008 11:07 PM

What a bunch of sentimental bullshit these comments are.

Whether or not Clinton *wins* OH and TX is irrelevant. She will still be far enough behind that prolonging the race will only hurt the party.

Don't you see that she's effectively claimed to continue the fight so long as she gets 51-49 wins in these states?!

Now everybody is feeling all sorry for her and shit. Pathetic.

Posted by wj | February 21, 2008 11:08 PM

As long as there's the barest shred of hope that she can prevail, fair or foul, she will press on.

"We'll just have to win it, then."

But if she does win the nomination by means perceived to be foul, she'll deal the party immense damage for many years to come.

Posted by Chris in Virginia | February 21, 2008 11:08 PM

Jeff Larson:

As an Obama supporter I think what you need to acknowledge is what Hillary didn't do, rather than what she did.

What she didn't do was eviscerate your candidate for lacking in experience and not being prepared to be president. She certainly had little to lose at this point, and it's not as if she lacks ammunition on that front. And we know that no matter what Hillary says or doesn't say it's going to be McCain's chief argument in the fall. Hillary could have provided an excellent sound bite for Republican ads this fall and she didn't.

I think if Obama supporters showed more graciousness in this way some Clinton supporters would have an easier time getting behind him if and when he becomes the nominee.

Posted by Tim K | February 21, 2008 11:12 PM

Tim K,

HOW can Hillary eviscerate Obama for "lacking in experience" when he has MORE legislative experience than she has?!

The reason why she can't make these arguments is simply because they're implausible and unpersuasive. Nobody buys her 35 years of change mantra--not even her own staff!

Don't for one second think that IF Hillary thought she could have made an argument that would destroy Obama and keep her in the race she would not have made it.

Posted by wj | February 21, 2008 11:16 PM

WJ:

You're right, I doubt it would turn the race in her favor. But it could help cripple him for the general election against McCain. Don't kid yourself into thinking Obama isn't vulnerable on experience. That would be willful blindness. There are examples to bring up to make the case for Obama's lack of experience, but even her asserting it on live television would be damaging enough.

Posted by Tim K | February 21, 2008 11:24 PM

Tim K is not an Obama supporter.

Posted by C.Michol | February 21, 2008 11:25 PM

"Hillary locked up the nomination tonight. Case closed."

Posted by Toobie | February 21, 2008 10:49 PM

Hillary has paid millions of dollars to Mark Penn to say this kind of stuff.

Stop working for free.

Posted by Michael | February 21, 2008 11:25 PM

I've had a number or strong moments during this campaign of coming close to strong personal dislike of HRC, due to the ad hominem, and obviously incincere, nature of her attacks on Obama. There were a couple of moments of that tonight ("change you can xerox" was obviously rehearsed, and obviously put forth a position a person who write her own speeches much less closely than Obama doesn't really believe). But she did show a bit of class tonight, and gave me reason to revert to me previously higher opinion. Just not enought to chose the intelligent and well meaning politician over the brilliant one.

Posted by Matt | February 21, 2008 11:26 PM

Guys and gals, please remember that we are trying to elect is our, "OUR", President. We are not a movement, or the Gong Show, just because a lot of very popular actors, entertainers and you guys are being moved by passion and eloquence will not solve our problems. Actions only will.

At the end of the day, words are just not cutting it, for either Democratic candidate. Our Nation is in need of more than the latest trend or frenzy.

Posted by Juan | February 21, 2008 11:26 PM

C. Michol:

I was calling Larson an Obama supporter, not calling myself one.

Posted by Tim K | February 21, 2008 11:27 PM

Feb 19: "Obama landslide! Will Clinton go negative?"
Feb 20: "She's going to go negative! Don't do it, Hillary!"
Feb 21: "She didn't go negative. And she even said some nice things. Hooray for Hillary!"

You play the media well, Maggie Williams.

Posted by CG | February 21, 2008 11:28 PM

Is that you Juan McCain? Making a none-too-subtle argument for "solutions." Or perhaps you're with that new 527 group that shines a "backlight" on middle class issues.

Posted by the fuzz | February 21, 2008 11:29 PM

Actually the middle class will be fine in the end. The less fortunate and low income families will be severely affected by "great words" coming into their midst to feed their loved ones.

Posted by Juan | February 21, 2008 11:36 PM

folks, the hysterical media canard of the last weeks that the evil clintons intended to subvert democracy by trying to get superdelegate votes even if obama went in with more pledged delegates is just that---a canard. the clintons, being fighters and pros, have been fighting to get and retain every super they can while the race is still on, which they have every right to do, but no way were they ever gonna try to do a closed-door, backroom "steal" if obama went in with the most pledges. god, weeks ago bill clinton was answering an interview question about a fight at the convention by saying, no, no, no, this will be wrapped up before then. like all infatuation-based relationship commitments, the obamamania phenom is going to wear off, and when it does, it won't be pretty---this won't occur in time to even up the appalling disparity in coverage of these candidates during the primary, but seen in hindsight, the class act here is senator clinton, and THAT is what she "knew" tonight.

Posted by Elizabeth Bennett | February 21, 2008 11:38 PM

Hillary did well tonight, but remember that most of the problems she has had to deal with during this campaign, as they always have throughout her personal and professional life, were not of her making - they were of Bill's making.
And there's no getting around it, if she gets the nod, he'll re-appear like Houdini from a coffin locked in chains from the bottom of the ocean. And he'd be so smug, as if he made it all possible.
She simply has to lose to keep him out of the White House.

Posted by fougasseu | February 21, 2008 11:40 PM

Marc, you've really driven this once informative blog into the ground with statements like "this was Hillary's finest moment of the campaign."

If that was Hillary's finest moment, no wonder she's losing.

Posted by Natascha | February 21, 2008 11:42 PM

It ain't over till it's over, and my money is on Hillary using this "vulnerability" approach to sucker in some more votes.

Yes, you can be that cynical with the Clintons

Posted by tg | February 21, 2008 11:48 PM

I almost -- almost -- fell for it--but then Hillary spoke at an Austin hotel and she didn't mesn it

I think she realized the "xerox" line bombed so after that she gave the magnanimous super delagate line and then the Bill Clinton/John Edwards closing--

Would be so much easier to believe if she was so schizoid a campaigner-- did you hear that intro in Ohio two nights ago- the virulent horrible words that Sen Clinton allows her surrogates to speak for her

It's not over - my guess is she realized she didn't do it tonight -- so she is trying to lull Barack into believing she may be gracious --but TUESDAY in Ohio on MSNBC -- she will say the men bounced on her etc

I will not believe she is really going to to the right thing until Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson are history

This is Maggie Williams - NH strategy -- Ms Williams joined the campaign the day before the big cry

(and i am a 50+ white woman saying these horrible things -- but I really think this is the case)

Careful Barack-- keep your guard up
It ain't over

Posted by barbara levin | February 21, 2008 11:50 PM

Well done Hilary.

The problem is, she generally does well in the debates. It is the attack dog that is unleashed after civil debates that brings her down.

Let's see if she maintains this tone in the next few weeks.

Posted by Phil | February 21, 2008 11:52 PM

Also note that Hillary's moment of pure vulnerability came after losing 11 straight contests. I've been called a cynic, and maybe I am, but something tells me that's not a coincidence.

Listen, if Hillary demonstrated tonight that she's prepared to bow out gracefully, more power to her, and as a lifelong Democrat, on that day I'll appreciate and thank her for her loyalty to the party, which is bigger and more important than any of us or any single campaign. (Recently while looking up my polling location, I came across a list of Democratic accomplishments on the state party's website; truly inspiring.)

But given the last few weeks, I can't get past the idea that a narrow win on 3/4 will allow Hillary a pretense to stay in the game, even though it's very mathematically improbable that she can accrue more delegates without backroom machinations -- which might well destroy the party. I'm not prepared to abandon that very strong impression on the basis of 45 seconds of phrases and formulations lifted from earlier in her candidacy, her husband's candidacies, and those of her opponents.

If that makes me ungracious, or a cynic -- well, so be it.

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 21, 2008 11:55 PM

Bill Clinton, 1992: "The hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits the people of this state and this country have been taking for a long time."

Hillary Clinton, tonight: "You know, the hits I’ve taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country."

Posted by alison | February 21, 2008 11:58 PM

What a bunch of MORONS. The mere fact that Obamessiah's nonstop PREACHING, plagiarized or not, doesn't make you want to VOMIT instead of drool, moan, pant and faint is sickening.
He's a lying panderer and will have his ass handed to him after the MSM gets done bamboozling you worse-than-Naderites. What's really funny is how the people MOST bemoaning the fact that Al Gore didn't run are the very Naderite cult-fodder who used to swallow Nader's offal about "they're all the same" not to mention the MSM bs about how "boring" Al was. Here the blowhards were on CNN after the debate, spinning turds into soylent green for the likes of you to gobble down. They had some hag even saying how the body language showed how Hillary "couldn't even look at Obama" --- while the FOOTAGE they showed proved the OPPOSITE. Hillary was gazing intently at Obama. It doesn't matter that Obama is an arrogant lying HACK.
Until it's just him and McInsane, no one's gonna bring up how he lied to his constituents that, if elected, he'd serve his term instead of run for president, or how he LIED that his parents met at Selma and how he'd not have been born except for Selma when the lying sack of RACIST crap was already 4 years old when they marched at Selma. But you can believe they're gonna bring all that up and more in the general election, and when you morons are howling and sobbing I'll be here to LMFAO at you. We're all gonna have to pay for your ignorance so we might as well rake you over the coals when the time comes. So much for flipping "unity."

Posted by Zee | February 21, 2008 11:59 PM

Clearly Senator Clinton has retaken the momentum and will now be the odds on favorite to win the nomination. If I had to bet, I would double down on Hillary.

Posted by Toobie | February 21, 2008 11:59 PM

Unfortunately for Hillary, half the electorate doesn't know what a Xerox is.

Posted by The Other Alan | February 22, 2008 12:00 AM

Hey alison, you think you're so clever. My comments go double for you. What part of Obama's lies to his constituents and his lies about how his parents met in order to PANDER to Black Americans, don't you understand? Let's see you come up with a parallel, chick.

And as for you peabrains falling for his pandering to you on the Iraq war, he is LYING that he would've not voted to give Bush the go-ahead. How do I know? Actions speak louder than his lying purple lips. He's toed the Bush line and voted every penny Bush asked for in order to continue the war. Get a clue....I know it's asking the impossible. But just remember when you grow up, just think back and remember how easily you were hoodwinked.

Posted by Zee | February 22, 2008 12:05 AM

True, Other Alan, but that's not even scratching the surface of what they don't know. They need to use You-Tube to watch home movies of puppies and learn to freaking READ about the candidates instead.

Posted by Zee | February 22, 2008 12:08 AM

zee, that is some real passion there.

toobie, we get it, you know sarcasm.

Posted by K Mit | February 22, 2008 12:08 AM

Marc, I agree that Hillary didnt hit Obama as hard as she probably, deep down, wanted to. Its clear Obama held back also.

However, let's say she was being genuine and gracious at the end, that graciousness scared the shit out of Wolfson and Co, causing them immediately to spin the moment as a major coup. The press could have easily written that as a concession-lite speech, and that would have lost them another news cycle, at least.

So point is, she could be commmended for this; however, her campaign has been slinging slime since SC, so I'm not eager to pat her on the back for one (potentially) magnanimous moment. sorry.

Posted by lord of them thangs | February 22, 2008 12:09 AM

The Obama campaign hasn't exactly been the paragon of positivity. The moral righteousness is getting a little tired.

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 12:12 AM

Didn't watch...did she address the Michagan and Florida delegations? I bet Icky Harold is plotting to steal the nomination even now. She reminds me of what the Hollywood producer said...Sincerity is everything...once you can fake it, you've got it made. (A parapharase, don't shoot me.)
Posted by Chris in Virginia
--------------------
Actually, Chris, it would be a mercy if someone did shoot you. I don't know who would benefit more from the relief of stupidity...you or the rest of us. I guess you are IGNORANT of the fact Obama outspent Hillary in Florida. But of COURSE you are. You all are a bunch of mindless lemmings.

Posted by Zee | February 22, 2008 12:12 AM

Tim, the moral smugness couldn't get tiresome fast enough for me. I can't believe anyone could stomach it ONCE let alone nonstop...and call it "inspiring."

And, yeah, K, morons are a passion of mine...it never ceases to boggle my mind how Rove and the MSM can play you tools. And pointing out facts never works because just like the Bush faithful you cult tools are...in a cult. Will you wake up and say...gee...yeah, he lied to his constituents, he even lied about his birth in order to pander to Blacks...oh, hell no. It will be MY problem instead of yours or the liar you're worshipping because I brought up ugly truths and you have to somehow go la-la-la-la-I'M NOT LISTENING!!!!

Will anyone go...oh, gee, I didn't know Obama outspent Hillary in Florida? Hell no. You'll go right on with the corporate media's fanning your true-believer flames about how Hillary doesn't deserve her Florida win.

Elizabeth Bennett, you are fortunately named! Or nymed, if you are an Austen fan. And a class act yourself. Well put. Thank you.

Posted by Zee | February 22, 2008 12:26 AM

The "change you can xerox" line was a good zinger and I was also pleased to see Clinton use her "more cattle" line, which has been very effective lately, especially in TX.

Posted by Toobie | February 22, 2008 12:29 AM

Zee, unless I am mistaken, Obama's name was not on the ballot in Florida. So what if he reached out to tell Floridians about who he is and what he stands for?

He was not on the ballot, ergo, he did not take part in the primary, as agreed with the very national committee that overwhelmingly supports Hillary (because she is named Clinton), who is oddly (dishonestly) the only one who DID put her name on the ballot in Florida.

Is any of this sinking in? Or are you simply infatuated with pursuing the corronation of the candidate you were promised since 2000 would be the inevitable shoo-in nominee of your party?

Posted by T.K. | February 22, 2008 12:32 AM

We voters are not stupid, or are we?

Can we all not see that Hillary is for Hillary and that her motivation is for herself and not for the country?

Here is a candidate that first criticizes the use of only words as words and then gets anointed from the media by a closing speech that moves people due to words that are not even her own. See John Edwards’s speech. Did she give credit to Sen. Edwards for those words?

Here is a candidate that talks about the fate of the troops and the senseless of it all and she is the one who sent them there.

Here is a candidate that takes a stand and now backs down from it because of the political incorrectness of it all as view by opinion polls. If the war was popular by public opinion she would not be backing down of her vote then!

Here is a candidate who criticizes Obama for not holding debates and in the New York Senate race she would not agree to any debates once her lead was in double digits against her opponent.

The problem with Hillary is character and her inability to connect with the common person because she has never been the common person and is acting like she is.

Just look how she has handled her campaign and read tomorrow's New York Times article and you will see her in action. Just look what a disaster she had in health care in Bill's administration.

Here is a candidate that talks about Obama having substance and yet she has none of her own.

Lets bottom line it : She is a person that cannot be trusted!

Posted by rfoulelection2008 | February 22, 2008 12:35 AM

Barack Obama congratulates himself on living a rather obvious and privileged life, as a "minority." He makes it seem that his life story is somehow special and gives him the qualifications to become commander and chief. I am a minority, was abandoned by my father, ect.....too, but I know I would be an awful executive. Somehow his life experience can replace qualifications.

He has not shown good judgment, and every time he makes a mistake, which he admits he makes frequently, I cringe because he comes just that much closer to becoming a "bonehead." And let's get this straight, he allowed his associate Rezko to run a slum in his congressional district when he was the state senator of Illinois. Watch this video if you don’t believe me.
http://obamawho.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/hey-obama-and-rezko-march-3rd-is-coming/

Posted by lynn | February 22, 2008 12:39 AM

Ok, here's my question. Given that the final question was not one that should have been unanticipated, where did that answer come from? It wasn't an answer to the question; it sounded like an outtake from an answer to a question along the lines of "what happens if you lose"?

I guess what I'm saying is, it sounded to me like a part of a concession speech that might have been written but not delivered one of the past 3 Tuesdays (and which ended with one of Edwards' stock lines).

Posted by Gus | February 22, 2008 12:42 AM

Not that the Obama campaign needs more money... but, I think they could raise a lot more if they sold the endless notes he takes during the debate.

Posted by Steve Kranz | February 22, 2008 12:42 AM

TK, I'm fairly certain that all major candidates appeared on the Florida ballot. It was Michigan where Hillary was the only major Dem on the ballot.

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 22, 2008 12:42 AM

Hey, Tim K -

You gonna jump on Zee? I mean, I don't want these blogs all the time by any means, but I feel like I have a pretty good sense of the negative comments made about you. Obama supporters have called you a fool, have told you that your arguments were stupid, and have even impugned your sexuality. Obviously, many of those comments crossed a line.

But I don't think I've seen anyone yet say that "it would be a mercy if someone did shoot you."

I merely mention it because I think there are some things that are a lot more offensive than "moral righteousness." And to point out -- unscientifically, but still -- that the negativity is surely running high on both sides.

That's all. G'night, folks.

Posted by moff | February 22, 2008 12:48 AM

Lynn, Obama is not rambling, incoherent, or fixated on skewering his opponents by saucing up alleged past misdeeds and making them seem inhuman and inexcusable.

Reasonableness, focusing on the big picture, trying to unite people - there is nothing wrong with these things. And to the extent that Obama has allowed his international upbringing and high-quality education inform his worldview, he has taken a mature and commendable approach to his life that many people in America would do well to emulate.

Posted by T.K. | February 22, 2008 12:48 AM

@moff: Er, that would be "watch these blogs."

Posted by moff | February 22, 2008 12:51 AM

moff:

That's fair. Although I don't really think I'm responsible for what Zee says or anyone else. All I know is I haven't ever said anything like that. As you have pointed out plenty has been said just about as bad to me.

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 12:53 AM

Jeff Larson,

You are correct, he was on the Florida ballot, I was thinking of Michigan.

Zee,

My appologies for the confusion. My point about there being nothing wrong with spending his supporters' money to get out his message stands, though.

Posted by T.K. | February 22, 2008 12:54 AM

Gee, I guess "Zee" is a Clinton supporter. Surely, it's time for your meds...sour grapes and lithium.

Posted by Hans C | February 22, 2008 12:58 AM

I'll say it:

Zee, fuck off.

Posted by swarty | February 22, 2008 1:03 AM

And just when I was thinking that maybe my vitriol against Bill and Hillary was damaging Obama, and that if I wanted to support Obama maybe I should back off a bit, along comes Zee to pee in everyone's Cheerios.

Thanks, Zee, you've made me feel good about feeling angry again.

Posted by Kris Overstreet | February 22, 2008 1:24 AM

Typical of lemmings. All the partisans come out to talk past each other about who's gonna win in 12 days.

For all we know, one could be diagnosed with terminal cancer in that time. It gets nobody anywhere selling insults and certitudes.

Neither is the devil. Neither is the Messiah.

And Texans aren't listening to comments flame wars to figure out who to vote for. They know they and Ohio can keep or reverse the momentum and they are listening to the debate and to their local news in the next two weeks, saying "Which one of these folks can improve my family's life, community's life, make the nation safer?"

Sure, the odds heavily favor Obama but they don't have to decide tonight and no one can really predict how Texans will think because they've voted for good and awful before. Even Texas Dems.

And few of them are going to think "oh, she copied her husband's lines." They're going to think she did a classy and respectful close. They may not vote for her, but most people would grant her that.

Who cares if it translates to votes? I want a President with class and this pair has displayed it. Both are a ton better than the last miscarriage that Texas let loose to run the country.

Posted by Kevin Hayden | February 22, 2008 1:26 AM

ok, Zee, I'll bite.

normally my policy is to ignore flame throwers like you, but what the heck, its late and I cant sleep.

cultists. this is a new knock on obama...it certainly didnt exist in the popular discourse until this month, so i get that you want to keep repeating and repeating it. but let's just look at the facts: obama has so far won the popular vote; won more states; won more delegates; won more primaries; won more caucuses; and won more "big states."

i dont count florida or michigan because rules are rules; hillary said as much in the debate tonight. rules are meant to be adhered to, and as such, someone who wants to try to change the rules during the middle of a campaign ought to be mature and responsible and honest enough to own up to what they're trying to do, and not pass off this BS argument about disenfranchisement. Hillary's own delegate guru voted last year to strip Michigan and Florida's delegates from the convention. The hypocrisy of him, and team Clinton, after signing a pledge stating that these states wont matter, the hypocrisy of trying to go back on their word so blatantly is appalling. Its trying to say that rules dont apply to them, that they are better than everyone else. It's a shame.

the cult argument is lame. plain and simple. the problem is, people havent seen this level of energy or excitement about politics in 40 years. its new and different and therefore it's being bashed as cultish/weird/overly emotional/personality based...et cetera.

Hillary supporters and surrogates have been on a near constant effort to de-legitimze Obama's success and gains in this campaign since day one. from undemocratic processes to larger than average black populations in voting states to outspending clinton in some states...her campaign has an excuse for every victory in obama's column; some reason why the win shouldnt count. its really, quite pathetic. not to mention demoralizing to people who live and vote and concern themselves with politics in states that "dont count."

and this latest cult slander is just the newest in a long line of assaults on the progress obama has made. call his supporters cultists so as to demean them, and him.

i would have thought that obama's victories in rural states, working class states, his endorsements by the teamsters, and iron workers and many other unions would have driven a stake in the heart of this stupid idea, but i guess not. you really want to argue that the voters in idaho, the rural and working class people in kansas belong to a cult of personality?

would independents be lining up to vote for a cult figure?

tell the truth about florida zee: Obama bought a national ad buy and a small percentage of that buy spilled over into florida. that's how national ad buys work; they run across the country. now, you want to talk about campaigning in florida, why dont you talk about the 3 "fundraising" / photo ops trips that Hillary did in florida before the election, as well as her pre-announced and widely publicized "victory party?" or the unions in florida that were delivering and disseminating her literature in the weeks before the election. Obama never went to Florida with wink-wink non campaign tactics the way Hillary did. further evidence of trying to say the rules dont, or shouldnt, apply to her.

i'll admit, i dont know what the f*ck you mean when you say: "he even lied about his birth in order to pander to Blacks." white mother, black african father. born in hawaii. which of these things is a lie or a pander to gain black support?

you want to talk about lies, why dont you ask hillary why she seems intent on trying to posture herself like a person who had to struggle growing up. she's from suburban illinios. two parent household. all signs point to a pretty darn priviledged growing up; and yet, to hear her on the campaign trail, you'd think she was begging on the street for food...talking about growing up in a middle class, working family. she is absolutley trying to downplay her family's money so as to relate to the "regular folk."

and why dont we ever hear hillary supporters lament the fact that she wont release her tax returns? that this kind of secrecy is the exact reason many americans are distrustful of the clintons? saying she will do it after getting the nomination is a total cop out: once you're stuck with me, i'll tell the truth about how i get my money. lame. and undignified.

or why is it that she and bill have dragged their feel at every turn to ensure that NO ONE gets to see the documents from his presidential library? understand this: hillary's campaign has been a magnificent blurring of the lines between bill's accomplishments as president and how this gives her "executive experience." all the good things, she claims credit for; all the bad, she wants to reform as president. but these documents actually tell us what she did as first lady; her schedule, the meetings she had, the memos she wrote...et cetera, and again, she wont let the people see them. the ONLY physical evidence that would support her claims to gaining real on the job experience in the white house, she wont allow to be be released to the public. have you ever asked why that is?

obama's records are in the public. his "present" votes get blasted. whether or not you believe that these votes were part of a legislative strategy or not doesnt change the fact that his work, his record, can at least be corroborated by actual documents; hillary's cannot. we are supposed to believer her word that she gained all this experience. why wont she show us?

we know she didnt have security clearance. we know she didnt attend cabinet meetings regularly, or if she did, participants said she rarely, if ever, spoke. i respect that she tried to reform healthcare, though i disagree with how she did it, but that's pretty much all we know from her tenure as first lady...aside from, of course, her efforts to destroy the reputations of women who brought claims against bill clinton.

and lastly, on the corporate media...this Zee, is the biggest crock of shit i've heard yet about this campaign. and it drives me nuts.

people say that the media is too harsh on hillary and treats obama with the kid gloves. i agree obama has gotten a good deal of positive press, however, hillary has gotten the absolute best press ever, and here's why: because no one has ever, EVER, really challenged the thinking that 1) she is best qualified to lead, 2) that she has legitimate "solutions" or achievements in her resume. EVER.

every single media talking head has pretty much accepted as scripture that she is the most experienced candidate and that she has some tremendous record. has anyone in the media really scrutinized those claims? have they questioned her experience in any serious way (aside from the snarky gas bags who say sexist things about her being a wife)...i mean grown ups, real journalists...have they? has anyone really examined her record? what has she accomplished as a senator? does the media examine the bills or her legislative record in any way? no. they say: "she's been a very effective senator," or a "great senator for new york." i live in new york and i work in politics, and trust me, her legislative record aint nothing to write home about.

what kills me is that no one in media calls her on these things. she says, EVERY DAMN DAY, that she helped bring health insurance to millions of kids in America. by this she means the SCHIP program. by the way she describes it, you'd think she wrote, sponsored and passed the damn bill herself. she wasnt even in the Senate when the bill was passed! she was first lady. she didnt author the legislation, she advocated for it, and she did so not even immediately after Ted Kennedy introduced it. how does she have the gall to tell millions of americans that their kids have health care because of her? its astounding to me. this is an example of her blurring those lines AND NO ONE IN THE MEDIA YOU LOVE TO BASH EVER CALLS HER ON THIS.

she talks about 35 years of experience. and her first job out of law school working to protect children, et cetera...would it surprise you to learn she held this job for less than 1 year before going into corporate law. to hear her tell the tale, you'd think she dedicated her whole career prior to being first lady to women and children. well, no. less than 1 year actually then off to walmart and big monied corporate law. does the media expose these things, no. they accept it as is, and millions of americans come to believe things that really are not true.

Zee, do your homework and come back with something real. You got something factual to say, i'd love to hear it. otherwise, go find some other message board to play on.

Posted by lord of them thangs | February 22, 2008 1:26 AM

Oh, c'mon. She completely conjured that ending.

The point of this entire debate from her campaign, after her staff spread rumors that she was going to go tough on Obama in the debate, was to show her vulnerable but experienced side. She demonstrated both wonderfully, throwing Obama off (who expected that he would just have to play gracious the entier time as she came out swinging (which she never did - at best, she landed a few jabs). Trying to cast herself as fresh, she threw out buzz words that've appeared on recent magazines like "Innovation Nation." And she did sound fresh. But, again, the Clinton campaign was trying to produce another New Hampshire moment. Of course, a series of events led to that moment: Obama's cool "you're likeable enough" comment, an unexpected defeat in Iowa, a press corps that turned on the once inevitable candidate, convenient sexist outbursts at Hillary campaign events with women that were being televised (an old political trick), etc.

If Obama could've said something after her final comment, it might've been something like this: "Well, I feel for you experiences at the military hospital, for the wounded warriors you speak of who did what they were asked and served us so bravely. But you had a chance to help them, Hillary, and instead of helping them you voted for the Iraq war and showed bad judgement..."

Posted by centerboy | February 22, 2008 1:31 AM

I'm not sure I understand how Hillary actually coming out, (instead of just explicitly implying it at every opportunity), and saying that she thinks Obama is unqualified to be President would be devastating to his chances in the fall. Who is this hypothetical swing voter who would lean towards John McCain on the basis of Hillary Clinton's opinion of Barack Obama?

Posted by Raindog | February 22, 2008 1:34 AM

Zee... We live in a democracy. If you don't like Sen Obama and he happens to be the democratic nominee, may I suggest you look to Sen McCain. And may peace be with you.

Posted by Benniefly2 | February 22, 2008 1:39 AM

The most important thing Hillary understood tonight is that SHE CAN'T WIN. Her pathetic closing remarks were a just weak attempt to position herself for VP. As if. Stick a fork in the Clintons. They're Done.

Posted by bustoff | February 22, 2008 2:04 AM

Raindog:

Such a direct attack on Obama's readiness by Senator Clinton could be used by the John McCain and the Republicans, either directly, through surrogates, or in attack ads. It would fit very nicely into McCain's central critique of Obama as unfit to lead. Being able to cite a prominent Democratic leader like Hillary Clinton (somebody who, contrary to what a lot of people on this blog think, has credibility with a lot of people) in such an attack could be devastating.

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 2:15 AM

I just want to say "It's a A Magical Trip Into Hillary Clinton's Innermost Thoughts Brought To You By Marc Ambinder" is just sort of the funniest thing I've read in a comments thread in a long time.

Posted by Japhy Grant | February 22, 2008 2:38 AM

So I thought people might want this info. I'm still not sure what to make of it. But I thought Dems. might want to know in light of the recent McCain scandal.

1) A family friend in September said that her friend and next door neighbor went to Columbia with Obama and that he dated Obama at Columbia. No big deal, but interesting because the guy (who is openly gay and thinks kindly about Obama) says that others knew about it. (No one's business but Obama's, to be sure, but worrisome for Democrats). I wouldn't have brought this out, but it makes me more worried about this:

2) I keep coming across this Obama/Larry Sinclair allegation that he did drugs and had sex with Obama in '99 and am worried that it might come out in the general election. They've been talking about it on talk radio on AM790 in L.A., and it comes up on YouTube easily. Given the first piece of info, I also worry that there might be truth to it.

FYI--Here is the video of Sinclair:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY

Here is a radio interview with Sinclair from late January:
http://rense.gsradio.net:8080/rense/special/rense_Larry_Sinclair_012308.mp3

Not sure what to believe, but wonder should we be worried that if true there are possibly others who did illegal drugs and/or cheating with Obama and that this will come out?

Supposedly whitehouse.com is going to do a lie detector test with Sinclair on Tuesday, which really won't tell us anything whether it is positive or negative. I also suspect the media has known about the allegation for a while, as the LA Times said that they had a salacious story about one of the candidates that they had decided not to run (and this is as salacious as it gets). Of course they could have been talking about McCain. But Robert Novack also mentioned some type of alleged Obama scandal as well.

PS--I will vote for whoever the Dem nominee is either way.

Posted by Concerned Dem | February 22, 2008 2:45 AM

Will that final answer re-energise HRC's support - or will it prove a cathartic moment for the Dems, allowing them to wave goodbye to her with affection?

http://marbury.typepad.com

Posted by marbury | February 22, 2008 2:58 AM

I would like to be the first to say I think those allegations against Senator Obama appear baseless, shameful and beyond the pale.

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 3:13 AM

Looks to me as if the 'men in the gray suits' (see Margaret Thatcher) pointed out the obvious to the Clintons: if she keeps on keeping on, she can't win but she can make the Democrats (and not just Obama) lose. If she loses Texas and Ohio (and the polls look bad), she'll either exit gracefully or she'll be pushed out.

Posted by Tom J | February 22, 2008 5:24 AM

I hate the plagerism story, but a lot of the Obama supporters are missing the point. Some are making the point that Hillary has also made points that were made by others. For instance that the lives of your average citizens are more difficult than the lives of millionaire senators. But no attribution is required for a commomn and obvious statement.

Attribution is necessary for using somebodyelses words, and the former editor of the Harvard Law Review is aware of this distinction.

He could have said, "you know, similar charges were leveled against my friend, the current governor of Massachutes, and I liked his respnse .... -- Hardly a rhetoric killer.

Posted by sisyphusjns | February 22, 2008 5:53 AM

For all you Obama-Haters out there: Man, it's gonna be sweet when Barack wins the nomination and the election.

How do you like them apples?

Posted by JP | February 22, 2008 6:14 AM

sisyphysjns, how's this:

A little more than a month later, ABC News reported that he used the same line at a Portsmouth, New Hampshire campaign event, crediting Deval Patrick as the author: "But you know in the end, don’t vote your fears,” Obama was quoted as saying. “I’m stealing this line from my buddy (Massachusetts Gov.) Deval Patrick who stole a whole bunch of lines from me when he ran for the governorship, but it’s the right one, don’t vote your fears, vote your aspirations. Vote what you believe."

Posted by Daniel Munz | February 22, 2008 6:20 AM

One somewhat obvious point:

Clinton has always been more restrained in her arguments against her fellow candidates in the debates. The booing of the Xerox line shows why: going negative with your opponent right there and some of his supporters in the audience gives them a chance to respond.

The real test is whether Clinton and her surrogates start taking a different approach when there is no one around to serve as a direct check on their behavior. For example, will we see them stop making the argument Obama is unqualified to be Commander in Chief out on the campaign trail? Will they give up their standard tactic of sending out misleading mailers about Social Security and abortion rights the day before an election?

We shall see, but I know what I am betting.

Posted by DTM | February 22, 2008 6:37 AM

"...that there are things she just cannot say about Obama because it would hurt him in the fall..."

What "things"? I didn't hear her mention any "things". Did you? Are there some "things" about Obama that only you and Hillary know? Or are you just dropping a little turd in the soup for the sheer joy of it?

Posted by Mark F | February 22, 2008 6:57 AM

Dude--What flavor Kool-ade was it?

Posted by Steve | February 22, 2008 7:11 AM

DTM: The Clinton campaign will most likely continue the negative attacks. Negative attacks work because they appeal to people who know little about a candidate other than the moronic garbage they receive via email from their equally ignorant friends. Unfortunately for Hillary, negative attacks are all she has left. If she had decided to fight the good fight from the beginning, she might not have been forced to sing her swan song last night.

Here's something to consider: Hillary's campaign, for all intents and purposes, has been an unmitigated disaster. She's squandered millions of dollars in donations, she's alienated African-American voters, she's lost 10 states in a row to a guy who was trailing by 30 points only a few months ago, she's lost top campaign staffers, and she was recently forced to loan her campaign five million dollars from her own bank account. Word is she owes Mark Penn two million and is looking at a stack of unpaid bills that stretch back to the time when her campaign first started getting into trouble. And yet, she continues to insist that she is uniquely qualified to lead this country. To be commander-in-chief. I think that's commonly referred to as chutzpah.

In contrast, Barack Obama has come up from relative obscurity and is now closing in on the nomination. And he has accomplished this by running a brilliant campaign that seems to have an endless supply of resources and talent. He has managed his money and his campaign strategy like a true leader. If anyone thinks their management styles would change once they reached the Oval Office, I'd say they were probably wrong.

We don't need to wonder what kind of a leader each of these candidates would be. We've seen it. The proof of who can achieve results and who is all talk is in the campaigns.

Posted by Mark F | February 22, 2008 7:22 AM

Why should Clinton stop pointing out her opponent's lack of qualifications for being Commander in Chief? Compared to McCain, Obama is unqualified to be commander in chief if familiarity with military matters is the defineding attribute of such qualification. So what? In the four most recent elections the less qualified candidate has won. Why should 2008 be any different? Obama is not Mike Dukasis and McCain in not Reagan's VP. So let them make the charge and watch it bounce off.

The problem with the whole experience meme is the *relevant* difference between Clinton and Obama is that the Clinton husband/wife *team* is percieved to have faced down determined Repblican oppoenents before and won, while Obama has never faced a viable Republican opponent.

But, were Republicans really powerful opponents in 1980's Arkansas, a state that *still* is fairly Democratic? And would Clinton have won in 1992 had Perot not run and Bush not alienated his base with his tax increase?

But this is largely irrelevant because in this primary we see a direct contest between the election machinery of the two canidates. Who has the better ground game (recall it was the superior GOP ground game that beat Kerry in 2004)? Who is more likely to get favorable media coverage (recall the anti-Gore media bias that cost the Dems the election in 2000)?

In head to head competition who is winning? This drawn out campaign is a great thing. We need our canidates to show what sort of election campaign they can mount, because this *campaign* has to *crush* the Republican machine in the fall if the Dems are to elect enough senators to make change possible.

I think it is clear that Obama is running a better campaign. He seems to have better command of the rules of the game. His strategy produced a bigger delegate yield in the contests he won which has more than offset Clinton's victories in all the big states except Obama's home state.

All Obama need do now is show he can win in big states. Wins in Texas and Ohio will pressage a victory in Pennsylvannia too. With these, Obama will have won in big states, plus he will have far more delegates and votes. The superdelegates will flock to his campaign and he will win outright.

Clinton knows this and so if she fails to win her firewall states she will withdraw just as Guiliani did. But if she wins these states, then Obama will still not have closed the deal with the big states (ALL of which he will have lost) and he will not gain the alleigance of a majority of the superdelegates.

So Obama needs to win in Texas and Ohio to show he as the right stuff to crush McCain in the fall. Assuming the main reason to favor Obama over Clinton is his potential to score a big victory in November, he simply has to win Texas and Ohio or he is not the real deal.

After all, if his campaign really *is* better than Clinton's in running a *national* campaign, then he should easily win in a really big state like Texas now that he is the front runner and has lots of money.

I expect him to sweep all four contests on March 4 and the campaign to be over on the 5th. If he fails to win either Texas or Ohio then I will rethink my support for Obama should Michigan hold a second caucus latter in the season.

Posted by Mike Alexander | February 22, 2008 7:55 AM

Hillary lost the evening as soon as she went uber-nasty wit that "change you can Xerox" comment.Boos cascading down on stage, priceless reaction from Obama. Bad for HRC.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | February 22, 2008 8:05 AM

I agree that the experience vs. inexperience argument has not worked for Clinton against Obama, and that's no doubt because there isn't that big a gap between their years in government. However, I suspect that McCain's entire attack on Obama is going to be based on the experience argument. First of all, McCain has to go on the offense about his own age, 71 -- and the best way to do that is to hammer away at Obama as too young, too inexperienced, too callow etcetera. For that reason, I agree with Tim K. Anything that Clinton says about his not being ready to be the Commander-in-Chief is a gift to McCain in the general election. I took her performance last night as an indication that she knows it's probably over, and she doesn't want to help out the Republicans in November.

Posted by teacher | February 22, 2008 9:05 AM

This was also a night when Clinton first told Obama you are nothing but an empty suit and then finished by saying that it is an honor to be on the same stage with him. I am so tired of this kind of double talk.

Posted by embrace | February 22, 2008 9:33 AM

I've said it before: the Clintons are smart enough not to try to effectively steal the nomination. Say what you want about their politics or the choices they've made in this campaign, but I'm sure each of them realizes that they will be neutered in a general election campaign if the base abandons them.

Posted by Brian | February 22, 2008 10:17 AM

Anyone who thinks the Clintons are going to "graciously concede" are delusional. This morning HRC says in interview with Texas Monthly that they are going to aggressively pursue getting Michigan and Florida delegates seated...they are going to fight this thing. This was an attempt to lull the electorate into a sympathy vote "because it's over anyway and I feel sorry for Hillary". Don't ever let your guard down against the Clintons. The minute you do they sucker punch you.

Posted by anthony | February 22, 2008 10:48 AM

Hillary has been kind this whole cycle: this week more than any we can see how totally lacking Obama is in international experience and military know-how or know-anything.
He went to visit his father's family to provide a dramatic ending for his first book and that's about it.
No significant committee work or anything. Hillary could have hit that particular drum all night, all week, and through the whole cycle but it would have weakened democrats.
The only way he can sew it up before the convention is make a deal with her about VP or secretary of state or something.
She can sew it up if she wins the three big states: the momentum turn would speak loudly and free the superdelegates to marry up and put her over.
How cool is that?

Posted by Michael C. | February 22, 2008 10:51 AM

This is an interesting interpretation Marc has of Hillary's remarks, but I disagree. I think she was trying to turn attention away from the cult of personality that has helped lift Obama's campaign. She was reminding viewers of what the campaign "should" be about. Her final comments fit right in with her theme that experience matters more than inspiration.

Posted by Anne Michaud | February 22, 2008 11:34 AM

What BS...then why is she going after Michigan and Florida? Not very "gracious"...

Posted by prince l | February 22, 2008 12:06 PM

I think I know who Toobie is. Is that you, Patti Solis Doyle? I was wondering what happened to you after Billary "took you for a little ride". It's nice to know the queen gives you computer privilges in the Hillaryland jail.

Posted by kchall5 | February 22, 2008 12:59 PM

I don't think it is fair to dump on Hillary , or any candidate, about when / if she calls it quits.

POTUS is not an office for quitters.

When Bush & Gore fought it out in 2000, it was good to see Gore take it as far as he could.

Posted by circus watcher | February 22, 2008 4:17 PM

Funny thing that whoever writing and answering this blog will not be voting.It will be mostly latinos based at Texas will determine the outcome.Not like internet surferes or bloggers like us.
About the debate,I liked both of them.Both didnot got to the lowest means.Hope all future election debates should learn from this.

Posted by Xerox | February 23, 2008 3:16 AM

A Final Thought On Tonight's Debate

Comments (106)

Recent Posts

Monthly Archives