What Clinton Lost In The Debate

While Clinton may have appeared to have "won" the debate, I think she lost something else much more important.

We all know Clinton is a great debater; but I found her delivery to be quite disturbing, and in many instances lacking sound judgment and substance.

I did not know she had voted for the bankruptcy bill. All I could say was "WOW" I just sat there. How am I to believe that she will have my best interests in mind. How am I to believe she will have any of our best interests in mind?

Even if you could somehow overlook the war vote... That was a HUGE one too.

ALL that talk about her having an emotional moment, and how she was not really just a political machine kind of went out the window. I couldn't help but notice she was the only one really going on the attack last night.

I sat there amazed as she answered the first question. I wanted to cry out "Shots Fired" to Obama as she wasted no time going after him. Some Truce.

Where was that "human" "sensitive" "real" woman who had an emotional moment; which was supposed to have carried her to a NH win? I didn't see that woman last night.

I saw someone take cheap shot after cheap shot. I saw someone cold and calculating; completely scripted and rehearsed. I saw the REAL Hillary Clinton.

She may have won the debate, but she lost a lot more.

I liked her performance... but I only saw maybe 1/4 of the debate.

And yeah, she was fighting alright, but I'll tell you, for the first time I understood why people say her voice just bugs them.

bye the end of the second hour... I was just cringing every time she spoke.

Jeez.

I'm the first to tell you about that? Just listen to her for a while. If it's still up, you should watch the whole debate on MSNBC. You'll see.

:toast:

just sayin...

I figured she'd take care of the country like a mother does her child.

Then I came to the conclusion she would just treat us like...
Red-Headed Step Children

:eyes:

My husband lowers his voice an octave when he answers the phone. He can really reach "da bass" tone, I tease him about this behavior ... but, oh well - he's not running for President. ;)


It's a part of the "people don't trust her" philosophy, i.e., she's NOT talking in her natural voice. :shrug:

Damn it Hillary... I thought you just found it.


.....'cuz we are dream girls..... boys, we'll make you haaappy.....

I can't see anything *truly genuine* or *empathetic* coming across when HRC address the public.

IMO, the women who continue to fall for this "HRC is ALL WOMEN" meme are seriously freaking me out! :scared: ;) :hi:

to the grating nature of her voice when she gets into a patronizing tone talking down to people. She lost it in NH but she got it back again and she will feel it between now and super Tuesday.

but I still think she won the debate. The part where she called president Bush pathetic was priceless.

i don't know what it is about her voice, but its shrill and just plain annoying for some reason. my husband feels the same way. what she has to say is overshadowed by her voice. i would hate to be Bill Clinton & having to listen to that the rest of my life. no wonder they lead somewhat separate lives.

Yeah, she can scruffy but at what cost?

For the security of its citizens?

A better future for all?


I'm not sure I understand your question...

have a different opinion of her than you do. I feel she is fighting for herself to be in power so the clintons can get back to business as triangulating usual..but, we all have different perspectives and I'm fighing to make sure the clintons don't get back in the whitehouse.

I am still indecided, I love them all

She didn't look human, she looked like a political machine.

And I don't think that played well with Americans.

in order to "sound tough." I saw a woman whose HUSBAND will truly "mix it up" in the Executive Branch. I see never-ending scandals (not all of the M$M's making) if this calculating, disingenuous PERSONALITY snags the Presidency. :thumbsdown:

Unlike the OLD "Big Dog" (not the NEW neutered "barking" one of today), Hillary has No Elvis.

The American People want "The Genuine Article."

We don't want "bravada" on one hand - and - gratuitous demonstrations of "emotion" on the other. :(

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

His tone was level. Her volume fluctuated and she often spoke rapidly.
He got several favorable reactions from the crowd. She received nothing.

A couple of other observations:
1. She pointed out that her weakness was "impatience" and then went on to demonstrate that impatience in several of her responses. Bad move.
2. I think that Obama realized that, after a week of intense Democrat infighting, that people might not enjoy a hostile tone to the debate. Hillary was undeniably on the attack. That may have scored her well with the analysts, but it's not likely to not sit well with the average voting American.

Obama was subdued because his ass had been whupped. Big time.

How very "Clintonian DLC" of you to say that? :evilgrin:

The "REAL" democrats are sick of all the back and forth bs.

That was obvious.

When he spoke of his mother, his life without a father, his beliefs regarding the importance of having a father around. My respect for him grew exponentially.

And the paper issue... well, all I can say is I can relate!

This might hurt him when you couple this with his perceived lack of experience. It might seem like he doesn't know what he's talking about. He cracked me up when he said that his wife was amazing and his kids were above average. I laughed out loud.

What I am hoping is that people will realize that he is just putting thought into his answers.

He seems more genuine that was; less rehearsed. His answers have sound substance, and the fact that he doesn't just spit them out shows he's not just "acting" in a play.

I agree with you. He's coming up with the best answer on the spot, not regurgitating something that he listens to on his headphones while he sleeps.

...considering so many statements have been mistinterpreted lately.

looked like he wanted to be anywhere but there

than the other two put together.

have a lot of office space in delaware
what's clinton's excuse?

i didn't watch--too depressed about what happened w/kucinich

:eyes:

Any people of color want want to comment on that statement?

just my opinion. I"m sure some will disagree

...just sayin'

We all know that Bill Clinton does not play well with others when he's relegated to second tier/chair. :evilgrin:

:smoke:

:evilgrin: :nuke:

:toast:

:puke:

Men who have had personal smackdowns by strong women may be reluctant to support her. While sad, it's easy to understand.

I see traces of it everyday here on DU.

Her tirade against Bush's current mideast trip was amazing.

When the tone of the evening was a thankful cordial one, I didn't see the benefit of Hillary's pestering John Edwards. I thought it made her look petty and diminished what would have otherwise been a good performance by all.

Obama looked like a deer in the headlights.

He wasn't just "rehearsed"

And, HRC didn't vote for the 2005 bill, which was different from the 2001 bill.

HRC didn't attack -- NO ONE last night attacked except for the mods of the debate. But, as usual, you like to just make stuff up.

The rest of your post is eye rolling" "cold calculating" woman, instead of "Human," eh?

Your candidate deserves better than you, unless that candidate is Huckabee or Romney. Then, I'd say they deserve you.

You truly are. Maybe you need to go back and watch it again.
Almost 50 comments on here, and YOU are the ONLY one to say that. Give me a break.

She didn't attack anyone except the mods?

You must be off you MEDS!

And, the 2001 bill is what led to the 2005 bill.

The 2001 bill and 2005 bills were different, and the 2001 bill didn't make it out.

Personal attacks are against DU rules.

And, if you read all of the remarks about the debate from legit posters (on this and other threads), everyone remarks about how cordial everyone was last night. No attacks.

Now... scat. SHOO!

NO goober... That hillary didn't attack.

And, I post on plenty of topics, the vast majority of which are not "hit pieces" as you say. If you bothered to scroll down, you might have seen my post about MSNBC today.

This post was in response to the "Hillary Won" posted earlier.

So... lets see, either way that still makes you Delusional now doesn't it.

Calling other posters delusional and "off their meds" is a no-no.

Hillary wasn't attacking anyone, as a matter of fact all 3 were very cordial.

I think you are just looking to stir up more shit and encourage fighting where there is nothing to fight about. Now why would you do that?

You need to do your research on the bills you are talking about.

Hillary added the amendment that made the bill unsignable for the President and therefore had to vote for it. She effectively stopped it from becoming law. She then voted against a different form of the bill in 2005.

I asked for someone to clear that up. I was going off of what I heard on the debate, and since Hillary didn't argue the point, I assumed it to be true.

And, I did watch the debate, in it's entirity. The very first question she went on the attack. She was very coy about it, but please, we're not blind.

And if you can't see that, then you are just ignoring the truth. (is that better than delusionsl?) And to say that I only post "hit pieces" is no worse than calling him out for saying it.

It's perfectly okay to disagree with others. But when you start claiming that you know the truth and anyone who doesn't believe your version of truth is mentally ill....then that becomes an issue.

It is very obvious that you and I saw very different things while watching the same footage. It is all in the tone you set.

Why is it that when someone posts an anti-obama post it's fine, but if I post ANYTHING that doesn't kiss Hillary's ASS you call it a hit piece?

Don't Be A Hypocrite!

she voted for, had protections for single parents that she wanted. Secondly I have heard that she poison pilled it so Bush wouldn't sign it anyways. Another DU'er mentioned this. Maybe someone that has time can research that.

Russert said that her vote is the one that really set it up to pass in 05. I don't know exactly how that worked, I am just commenting on what I heard.

What I do know, is that Obama was the only one of the three up there last night to vote against it.

Anyone out there want to clear this up for us?

She just wanted to filibuster. It seemed like it didn't matter to her what she said, only that she had the floor and could continue to talk, and talk, and talk, and talk.

By the end, I was tired of her voice and just wanted her to shut up.

Obama and Edwards were succinct. When they spoke, I listened.

When Hillary spoke I went out to the kitchen to check on how dinner was coming.