Clinton is clear winner

Hillary Clinton, during Tuesday’s debate, shows again why she is ready for the presidency

During Tuesday’s debate in Las Vegas, just four days before Nevada’s presidential nominating caucus, voters in Nevada and the nation got a better sense of the mettle of the top three candidates seeking the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.

MSNBC’s nationally televised debate among Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards was a civil exchange of ideas. Nonetheless, clear distinctions emerged.

The issues that dominated the debate were the Iraq war, those involving minorities and the nation’s sluggish economy, which recent polls have shown Democratic voters care most about.

Clinton, coming off a convincing win in the New Hampshire primary last week, had a commanding grasp of the issues that top the lists of everyday Americans and demonstrated she is more than ready to be president.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jan/16/clinton-clear-winner/

:puke:

Take two aspirin and call me in the morning.

I'm an Obama supporter, but if this were the only thing I had to make my decision on I'd probably be voting for Senator Clinton.

But with the NV caucus just days away, I thought this local Newspaper relevant to post.

.........A defining moment of the debate was when moderator Tim Russert asked Obama about a comment he’d made to the Reno Gazette-Journal. The newspaper reported that Obama acknowledged he doesn’t have the experience to run a bureaucracy, but he said voters weren’t looking for a chief operating officer.

Clinton responded that there was a difference between the two candidates on this issue, and that you have to be able to manage and run a bureaucracy and hold it accountable every day.

Indeed, President Bush’s hands-off style of governing, which can be seen notably in the fiascoes in the handling of the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina, is something the United States can ill afford again. We need proven leadership at the helm, not someone who will need on-the-job training.

the idea that he's adopting a Bush style presidency, because that's exactly what Bush said during the campaign, and did as president. It just doesn't reconcile with his platform of change.

Bush ran in 2000 saying he wanted to be the nation's first MBA president, and that he would run the country as he would if he were a C-level executive at a corporation.

Contrast that with Obama, who is saying that he would not run the country as though he were a COO.

I think the LVSun makes a strange and unfounded distinction when it suggests that delegation is part and parcel to corporate leadership, which isn't necessarily always the case.

All that said, I think all three candidates performed brilliantly last night. And in a sense, I think all three won. Edwards wanted to distinguish himself and contrast the differences between himself and the two other candidates (done). Clinton wanted to reach out to Nevada voters and show that she understood that state's problems (check). And Obama wanted to portray himself as being a candidate for all people, not just the "black candidate" (task completed).

All in all, I think every candidate probably walked off the stage happy with his/her performance.

I agree that the rhetoric is probably unwise. On the other hand, he made a lot of sense once he explained it in his rebuttal to Hillary. In the final analysis it was a near draw. IOW he made a reasonable case for himself, I can see both sides of this coin.

Clinton is a very smart woman, but she has no record of proven leadership on any significant level. In fact I'd put her accomplishments on par with Obama. However, Obama is equally intelligent but has much better political chops, and honestly inspires people of all political stripes. Clinton is generally not considered an inspiring personality.

The job of the president is to set the agenda. The job of the Chief of Staff is to make sure that things are organized. I can't even believe that I had to spend four minutes of the debate last night listening to this.

about the economy. Her depth of knowledge and command of the subject is impressive

But Hillary had the edge that won.

That scene was awesome! I hope that it shows up somewhere on youtube later.

B-)

every answer was focused and concise. I thought she was brilliant last night.

was pretty damaging.

Just making fun of spin. Sorry.

:hi:

In my eyes, and the eyes of many progressives and liberals, Hillary looked as she always did, simply another warmongering corporate whore who will do as her corporate masters wish, not what we the people need done.

She didn't win the debate last night, sadly though, we all lost.

BTW do you know who is caucusing this Saturday?

And yes, I know that NV is caucusing Sat, what's your point?

The point is clear unless your head is burried in the sand.

P.S. I am very proud of my track record.

Or is it some sort of super double secret point that only dedicated Hillary sycophants get to know? Or is it your own personal point that the rest of us don't get to share. Whatever it is, it doesn't really matter because it isn't germaine to my original point in this thread, which is that it isn't a matter of who is winning this primary, it is the fact that with all three of the top tier candidates being nothing more than corporate whores, we the people are the ones who are losing.

P.S. I'm happy that you're proud of your track record, which do you want, a medal or a chest to pin it on?

Our first female President in History.

It's hard to have a discussion with the clueless. Have a nice day.

Hmm, speaking clueless. . .

But hey, if you want to support a corporate candidate, fine. Just don't come back whining when you get burned by outsourcing and such under Hillary.

or go feed it a pretzel.

:rofl:

I saw the pundits on TV and read several articles from papers throughout the country and most commented on her impressive knowledge of the issues.

I think that in the long run her command of these issues will win her the nomination. The new debate format works to her advantage by giving her a chance to expand on her wonkish knowhow of policy and people are starting to take note. Obama is the fun candidate, fresh and appealing, but IMO he's not ready yet to be president. At least not this year.......

And if there is any doubt I'm sure somebody will find the video of TWEETY, of all people, actually saying she won the debate. Obama is simply not ready for prime-time.

I see you have raised some nasties from under their rocks...sad.

they have little choice other than to jump all over you for bringing us the true message of hope. Don't let them discourage you, keep tellin' it like it is...

as was Obama and Edwards. The reason the Clintons should be very concerned is that her patronizing tone which she lost in NH is gone and people just don't like it. Her supporters don't see it, it will have an impact in the polls. This image of invincibility will not work in the primaries.

Funny, no one else seems to think she was patronizing; or, at least, I haven't read or heard any one say so.

words like "impatient", "air of inevitability" some use "grating" another commentator used "imperial" but reflexive robotic clinton followers refuse to get the message even when it hits them in the head. There was a substantial style change in New Hamshire, people responded, they liked that person because she was connecting with them and I am not talking about the tearing up event. Her entire tone was different. Every single commentator remarked that she had changed back to the tone that she had in the earlier debates pre/post Iowa.

In general the population hates someone who smacks of a "know it all" Reagan and Bush beat (repeatedly) people who were considered smarter than they were. Bill Clinton who is extremely smart, camouflaged it in a folksy manner and people underestimated him. Gore, bless his heart, was very smart but had a slightly pompous tone in formal settings. A good speech coach could have eliminated it and saved us a war and alot of heartache.

Hillary Clinton enters the campaign with higher firm negatives than any candidate has since Nixon. She comes off as not being knowledgeable but someone who thinks she is considerably more knowledgeable than the listeners and she appears to be kind of put out by having to explain it to all of the uninformed who haven't been watching her do all this hard work "these last 35 years and is ready day one".

:toast:

Bumped

I really changed my mind after watching her debate - she won me over. I decided to vote for her last week but it was a previous debate that started my changed views of her. She comes across better than any of the other candidates in debates IMHO - this will be a major strength if she wins the nomination.

Hillary know of what she speaks and has a plan for each and every program she advocates..

I need to write up an OP about it but have not had the time:) Needless to say I know several other people that have now decided on her. I really think the GOP mess is going to help her as well - many of the independents are going to be hard pressed to vote for a Dem when they see they are needed to help clarify the GOP choice - independents hate Romney and Huckable and as long as either one look viable they are more likely to vote for McCain over Obama/Edwards even if they are Hillary hates, same is true of GOP cross over voters trying to put in a dem they feel is week.