Scattered and sundry debate gleanettes

A handful of gleanettes, rendered more or less randomly; as always, check out the cool NYT interactive video, the easiest and most elegant way to scour debates for details, quotes, scenes and such.

The heckling at the start played to Clinton's advantage, as it was most noticeable while Obama was trying to parry Clinton's shots at his health care plan. Whether or how Clinton would fight back against specific opponents was one of the most anticipated questions going into the debate. Nailing Obama for not covering everybody under his health plan was the first time she went for it. When it came time for Obama to answer, yahoos in the crowd forced him to suck up some dead air on the teevee, and he was thrown from his game. It seemed to establish a sense that Clinton was better at fighting back than maybe she actually was. Or that's how it looked to us, anyway. (For the record, Clinton's health care plan is, in point of fact, a more aggressive progressive approach than Obama's, perhaps because Clinton stole it from Edwards).

Edwards didn't bring any new material. His old material sounded OK at the start, but the sheen was quickly stripped as Richardson, Biden and Dodd busted out their Rodney King shtick, hoping everyone could just get along. And of course boos were creeping in from noisy members of the Borg collective. Within the first few minutes of the debate, when Edwards was asked if he would support the Democratic nominee, he answered, "Is that a planted question." We make little notes to ourselves while covering stuff. The note following that line reads "The End of the Edwards Campaign." As is often the case, we hope we're wrong.

Hapless viewers who flipped to CNN early were of course subjected to an hour of Crazy Fucking Lou Dobbs frothing and snarling and spitting about illegal immigration, his big make-up caked noggin seemingly on the cusp of exploding. Poor Bill Schneider and Candy Crowley, who were forced to nod their heads politely and pretend that Dobbs belongs on teevee instead of in an assisted living center full of similarly paranoid and angry old coots, were clearly fearful that an impending Dobbs cranial eruption was going to leave them covered in the hateful poisonous bile that courses through the mad xenophobe's veins. And so kudos to Bill Richardson, who made himself uncharacteristically useful during the inevitable argy-bargy over what CNN apparently thinks is the most consequential issue facing the future of this or any other nation: whether drivers licenses should be issued to illegal immigrants. "Yes. And I did it," Richardson said. Not only Bush, but also Congress, didn't or wouldn't do jack about immigration, and "My law enforcement people said it's a matter of public safety," Richardson said.

Obama's strongest moment was when he unpacked the disingenuousness of Clinton's Social Security triangulation by noting that only 6 percent of households have income of more than $97,500, so raising the cap on earnings that are taxed for Social Security would not touch the middle class, but the upper class. In the spin room later, Nevada state Sen. Steven Horsford, an Obama guy, predicted that the Social Security issue could become a "centerpiece" of the campaign going forward. That's probably a tad optimistic. But Obama is clearly right. And Clinton's strategy on Social Security, both in the campaign and as a matter of policy, clearly does not extend much beyond whispering the occasional sweet nothing.

No matter who their candidate, several Nevadans in the spin room were disappointed that the much promised airing of Nevada and/or Western issues failed to materialize in any meaningful way, and some were also quite unimpressed with the Wolf and his gang. As Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie put it, CNN "scripted and controlled" the town hall section of the debate, botching it.

Yes, Joe Biden was funny. But his objection to professors on the Supreme Court, preferring instead someone who "knew what it was like to live a life," is exactly the kind of celebration of popular anti-intellectual sentiment that so frequently causes this nation to do stupid shit like electing a warmongering psychopath to the White House. We're just saying.

"People are not attacking me because I'm a woman. They're attacking me because I'm ahead." That was maybe the line of the night. But later in the exchange, Clinton's description of fathers who "drive hours to bring their daughters to my events" and the women in their 90s who were born before women could vote and now want to shake her hand, etc., was all very, very good stuff. As one observer described it to the Gleaner at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner later, Clinton wrapped the gender issue up in a very beautiful package and lovingly tied it up in a nice bow. Well, we should expect nothing less from Blackwater's public relations firm, s'pose.

Comments

[Tailspinterry]

The booing of Obama and Edwards was clearly a bullying tactic, intended to intimidate them. I don't think it was specifically orchrestrated, but a few supporters started and others scattered around the Cox followed. At times, Obama's and Edwards' words were inaudible and the episodes threw them offstride. I'm sure this is different from when the Repub goons mobbed the recount rooms in Florida and I'll figure out how in just a minute. The booers seated in the row directly below me were in seats marked "DNC," oddly enough.

[Obiter Dicta]

The Penguin's comment yesterday is absolutely dead on accurate:

There are no true political "debates." All we get are talking-point responses in convenient TV-news sound bite format to carefully scripted questions (in both parties) that ultimately result in few if any concrete ideas that voters can analyze. It's a sham, and a shame.

This alleged "debate" was nothing more than a made for TV sound bite collector.

I was there and my impression is that it was nothing more than "the Hillary show" with a little "Obama drama" thrown in. Her supporters made up the vast majority of the crowd and as Tailspinterry commented, they drowned out many of the other candidate's comments. Someone actually yelled out from the crowd, "Can we hear from the other 5 candidates!" Not that it helped.

Not only was the event a waste of time to attend, after watching the repeat, it appears to me that Nevada was once again made to look foolish. Do we really give a rat's ass about Hilrod's jewelry preference? Ugh!

[Pedro]

"..were of course subjected to an hour of Crazy Fucking Lou Dobbs frothing and snarling and spitting about illegal immigration, his big make-up caked noggin seemingly on the cusp of exploding."

-Hugh Jackson's best line of the month

[The Penguin]

That's why I boycott political debates as a matter of principle, Ober, in the same way I boycott Paris, Lindsey and Brittney (oh and OJ too). Aside from the fact I went to the gym instead.

""People are not attacking me because I'm a woman. They're attacking me because I'm ahead." That was maybe the line of the night."
To the word, this was Chris Matthews line of advice. This was NOT an original HRC comment.
Penguin, you probably has a better time at the gym.

[Nevada Scandalmonger]

I liked the description of how Clinton handled the gender issue. It truly had that Martha Stewart touch.

[Not Bob]

Pedro, this is not only Hugh's best line of the month but probably his best post ever. If there was a single individual at CNN or the state Democratic party who had the intelligence to understand, let alone write, analysis this pithy and accurate, about both the substance and form of the debate, then last night's debacle never would have happened.

[What?!]

I, too, cringed, deeply, at Edward's "planted question" comment. 2nd rate.

Obama spent 2 weeks going after Clinton and her 'odd' answer(s) regarding illegal immigrants getting a drivers license and then when he got the question....wow! Bad. Embarassing to sit through his answer(s).

[Gus]

Hillary Clinton is one funny woman.

[IronJawed]

I walked in to the Cox Pavilion really hoping to solidify my support for Clinton, but just couldn't because of her answers to the questions. I was also embarrassed at the hand full of Hilary supporters who did the booing.

I always thought the first woman president would be a conservative Republican. But now that we may actually have a Democratic woman president, she is supporting the same policies Republicans do. Clinton's support for the frightening Lieberman policy on Iran, and her anti-progressive taxation policy stood out. No one else on that stage even got close to being as conservative (nay, neo-con?) as Clinton.

All of my Clinton supporter friends say she is running a general campaign now, and that she is trying to "appeal to Republicans and Independents." They assure me that in the end, she will be a lefty.

But what if she gets into office and is who she says she is?

[crazymonk]

"I was also embarrassed at the hand full of Hilary supporters who did the booing."

It was disrespectful, sure, but also politically expedient. Wolf never at one moment asked the audience to quiet down, and now the media, including the HuffPo, is running with the "audience boos Edwards and Obama" story. A win for Hillary, taken by dirty tactics.

"But what if she gets into office and is who she says she is?"

Indeed. I gather from many Clinton supporters that they don't care about her spoken positions and that she will secretly work toward what they believe when she's in office. Sort of reminds me of how evangelicals viewed the Bush administration.

But votes don't lie. She voted for Iraq, and now she's done the same for Iran.

I would love to have a woman president, but not at the expense of open government and a sane international policy.

[VegasWary]

Ironjawed/etc.:

Look, Clinton has to get ELECTED first, to do anything while in office. That means being careful. She can't repeat Kerry's infamous mistakes about the war in Iraq, or his weaknesses, and let the Republicans take issues away and paint her as weak on terror, weak on immigration, etc.

It's right for her now as the 20- or 30-poll points frontrunner to consider independent and moderate GOP voters, especially moderate GOP women.

So, Hillary HAS to talk tough on Iran, etc.

And those of you who didn't like these "debates," by all means get out of the kitchen and go work out!

This is how it's done -- the debates are like that because CNN and the telemedia (Fox, MSNBC, et al) use them like "entertainment." To make money with. To help hype and pay the bloated salaries of talk show personalities like Wolf, Campbell, Tim Russert, Bill O'Reilly, etc.

It's the Ratings, Stupid. It's a compromise. How else do you suggest this thing be done with 7 or 8 candidates, on commercial TV? Consider the medium.

The Dem nominee vs. Repub nominee debates -- surely to take place on commercial network/cable TV -- will be more like real debates, but still with them using their talking points as well.

The questioners will have to make it "seem" spontaneous with "surprise" questions. But the candidates always quickly lapse into their prepared responses, which are their views on issues.

How else are debates to be conducted?

You debate complainers, get a life! These quasi-debates are still spirited, and revealing, and show a candidate's intelligence level, judgment, personality, and veracity.

The "debates" are flawed, but they are the best way to see the candidates "live," and this is as close as we get -- in the brief time allotted on commercial TV -- to a "debate" that the most people in the nation will watch.

All candidates are somewhat scripted -- how else can you "prepare" your message and deliver it verbally? Get over it.

[crazymonk]

"Look, Clinton has to get ELECTED first, to do anything while in office. That means being careful."

I understand that's how her supporters are rationalizing her conservative actions and words. Some believe the ends justify the means, others don't. But I believe there's a difference between being careful and actively taking the wrongs stands on things.

You know, Bill Clinton said in my life that he absolutely *had* to vote for the Defense of Marriage Act because the 1996 election was right around the corner. The ends justify the means, you know? And oops, maybe he's sorry now that that vote has had ramifications that still are felt today.

You are sorely mistaken to believe that Hillary will eliminate this side of her as soon as she takes the oath of office. The whole point of a campaign is to clarify what kind of president you'll be.

[IronJawed]

Hm. Not only did VegasWary refer to us as "Stupid," but s/he did so while clarifying my point. Machine politics hurts us all in the end.

Beware the Borg.

[Johnathan L. Abbinett]

Everyone attending was told, repeatedly, to be very, very respectful of one another, and all of the candidates - and let the candidates drive the direction of the debate (with only applause, or witholding of applause) - so, that Nevada, Nevadans and the NSDP and Clark County Democrats were cast onto the national political stage on our best behavior, which was (and still is) very important to ALL of us!

Sadly, it was only Clinton supporters who made us look bad with their like of public etiquette - and they were encouraged by a few DLC and DNC operatives!

Shame on the few Clinton supporters, and CNN for making Nevada and all of us look less professional and polite than MOST OF US truly are!

So, now, the "gloves come off" between now and the January 19th Caucus - just remember it was the Clinton Campaign that started the ugliness!

Edwards is right - SILENCE IS BETRAYAL! And if anyone thinks a corrupt, corporate sponsored Democrat is at all much better than a corrupt, corpoate Republican - well, than, respectfully, you're obviously not very politically astute (and may need to take a look at your naivete)?

Let's get real shall we?

Look around at who's already supporting who will ya?

Many of our elected State Senators and Assembly Representatives, as well as some of our State and County elected Democrats (privately) are supporting Hillary (and working for her covertly behind the scenes), but, you've got to really know "who's who" and be more than just vaguely, or broadly, involved and aware to discerne this reality - you've got to be deeply involved...and few, even in the County and State Central Committees are very, very well informed and on top of such things.

Then, look at who our field activists and issue advocates are supporting - and you see a whole different group - and most of them are supporting Edwards!

Then, look around and see who's supporting Obama - mostly our students and young people!

I can see it coming, Nevada is already been bought and sold by Hillary for Hillary...Edwards will come in second and Obama will come in third in our January 19th Caucus - the Caucus process is rigged!

And it's not Jill Derby or John Hunt, or anyone's fault involved at the County or State levels of our party - that responsibility falls elsewhere. All any of us can really do is support the system whether we like it or not - for now.

This is why we need to do away with the Caucus system and the Electoral process and go to a taxpayer funded and popular vote - to clean out the temptation to rig and cheat and the corruption! But, of course, that will probably never happen in our lifetimes - because, then, it would just be to hard for the wealthy and corporate connected and corrupt to control the will of the people and keep pulling the wool over the eyes of the sheep wouldn't it?

So, I'm hoping Edwards finishes a respectable 2nd in Nevada - and kicks butt elsewhere in the other Caucus' and the key Bellweather States...there's always hope!

And when Hillary "wins" in Nevada - I'm already hearing a lot of people will move their focus from the Presidential race to helping State and local candidates on their campaigns, and/or, continue working on the issues that matter to them most - and that will be a good thing!

So, let the fight begin - through January 19th! But, after a couple of media cycles pass from that debacle - let's all plan on coming together and supporting the party...

...it's not like we've got a vialbe 3rd choice!

Trusting, Shutting Up, or Going Away is not what patriotic, rebel, citizen advocates and activists do - so, let's fight the good fight (knowing the progressive Democrats of Nevada still have a lot of work to do - and it will take years to get where we need to be) - we are making progress, slowly but surely, and the JJ Dinner was the best in Nevada history - so, let' be proud and keep on keeping on! Surrender is not an option...

...and silence IS betrayal!

[KICKBOXERMOMMA]

Hmm the bought borg bandwagon got on board early.Obama supporters are not all young students. Simply because Clinton gets the most media coverage exposure and name recognition I think she takes #1 in the polling. If she wins in IA and OH it's all over but the handclapping. If she doesn't take IA and NH it's wide open and a hell of alot of work for the other candidates. The caucus is not a given for any one candidate. If most of the supporters live in certain districts that can eschew the results. For example if all you have is eight delegates in your precinct it doesn't matter if you have 100 participants voting for the same candidate.You still only get 8 delegates.In the rurals even the smallest precinct will get 1 delegate. So if only person shows up in that precinct it still gets one delegate. Some interesting things can happen on January 19.

[Johnathan L. Abbinett]

KBM I was NOT even implying that all Obama supporters are young or students...just the majority of who showed up last night (please don't try and put words in my mouth - PLEASE)!

All the "IF's" you mention are valid - but, "if" you don't think the Nevada Caucus hasn't already been "locked up for Clinton" - I think you need to take another hard, and very deep, look at what's already unfolding - it IS rigged to give the greatest advantage to the wealthiest candidate with the most corporate support and the ability to PAY PEOPLE to show up at Caucus locations and support HILLARY!

Let's get real shall we?

[kickboxermomma]

"Then, look at who our field activists and issue advocates are supporting - and you see a whole different group - and most of them are supporting Edwards!

Then, look around and see who's supporting Obama - mostly our students and young people!" Sorry JLA I didn't put words in your mouth these are your words. The Borg has certainly bought up alot of prime property and if they could I believe they would rig the process. Have they yet? I think they are pretty dang close.But they haven't bought my vote they still haven't bought the votes of people I know who are undecided. I still say anything can happen and Hillary doesn't have a lock only because of the quirkiness of the caucus process. If we were having a primary, I would say Hillary has it hands down. But since we are having a caucus I don't think anyone can accurately predict the outcome. Hillary's organization has money, money,and more money. Plus organization with attention to a lot of detail. Why such a big showing of Hillary supporters at the JJ dinner- $70,000 of donation toward tables. That's a reality I recognize but the caucus itself is still an unknown. Hell even with Hillary and the money we still don't have all the temp chair positions covered.

[Johnathan L. Abbinett]

"Most" and "mostly" you got my words correct the second time - thanks for that (now, please try a little harder to do it the FIRST time you quote someone)!

You're right about money, and organization - but, you left out "connections" and who's already "locked in" and using their universe of family and "friends" - it's a done deal (whether you, or I, or the Democrat next door, understands it, or believes it or not isn't really of any consequence) - the NV Dems Caucus is already bought and paid for in full!

I'm going to work for a miracle, and at the very least, maybe, just maybe - Edwards will come in a close second and deny Hillary any sort of mandate - that's a realistic goal.

As far as the Temporary Chairs positions go - believe me, everything will work out in due time - and timing is imporant!

[Eric]

Obama spent 2 weeks going after Clinton and her 'odd' answer(s) regarding illegal immigrants getting a drivers license and then when he got the question....wow!

yeah that was pretty bad, but it only evens out with HRC on this issue. still, he did eventually say 'yes', while HRC has changed her position 3 times in 3 weeks. CNN: you ruined this debate. HRC won(and I'm an Obama guy), but this format and the questioning was not fair. gee, let's give a trial lawyer unlimited time, he won't use up all the air, will he?

[Dave]

Eric, I don't believe Obama has been attacking Hillary over her actual stance on the drivers license issue, rather he has been pointing out that she has given contradictory statements on her stance, (which may or may not be true, knowing how quotes are taken out of context by the media). As for contradictions, I didn't hear any from Obama. He said that as a state senator, he voted for giving illegal immigrants driver's licenses as a public safety measure, which seems like a reasonable thing to do. By the way, in New Mexico Governor Richardson signed legislation creating a program that would allow illegal immigrants to get driver's licenses and it has been very successful.

[A weary Independent]

I'm so happy that Hilrod is wooing the Independent Party. She and her illegal/amnesty proponents are what drove a lot of us away from the Democratic Party.
America has spoken, 70 to 80% are against Drivers Licenses to illegals - no amnesty and no priveledges for ILLEGALS. Illegal is illegal no matter how you try and massage it. I wish you verbose activists would start speaking up about America, we're a Sovreign Nation with borders to be respected, immigration laws which are not being upheld by this do nothing government. Mexico needs to take care of its own population instead of sending them here.

[KICKBOXERMOMMA]

AWI America has not spoken. A fringe element that is very well financed and very vocal has spoken. You speak about border. Well we have more than one border. We have a border to the North where known terorists have attempted to infiltrate and have been caught. We have borders to the East and West which still have not been made secure as uninspected container ships come to our shores on a daily basis and provide a huge security risk.The greatest number of "illegals" are visa overstays from countries such as Germany, Italy, England, Ireland. Yet your focus based on your Mexico statement is pinpointed on people who are brown and may not speak English.

As far as the vocal fringe I consider them unAmerican, rabid, xenophobic rabble rousers who offer no doable solution. Employers who are in compliance with an unworkable law are made scapegoats and the fringe exemplify the worst in our country. We can do better than the racist, bigotted offerings of the fringe to address this complex issue.

[nuffsayd]

KBM,

"With all due respect", as Richardson said to HRC but not to Edwards and Obama (brown noser he is, hey?), the greatest number of illegals are not from Europe. They are from Mexico. As Dr. Phil says, you can't fix the problem till you own the problem.

..."oh, the Irish are briging down the school test scores!, Oh, the number of German speaking teachers we need to hire in the ELL program is so high!...and the Italians, too! So many kids in our school speak Celtic and Itlaian and German! What will we do???!?!!"

Good golly does anyone believe that? NO and the data doesn't support it either. Cnetral America is where most all illegals migrate from.

..and the Canadians!, they are flooding our schools!

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA

[KICKBOXERMOMMA]

nuffsayd You ignorance speaks volumes.

"Around 75% of today’s immigrants have legal permanent (immigrant) visas; of the 25% that are undocumented, 40% overstayed temporary (non-immigrant) visas.

(Source: Department of Homeland Security (http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/index.htm)"