Who won Clinton versus Obama, round one?

It's understandable that Obama admirers want him to get more scrappy, but unfortunately he's picked the wrong issue and is endangering the qualities that made him a contender in the first place:

http://ajliebling.blogspot.com/2007/07/obamas-wrong-turn_27.html

Who was the winner? Actually, both come across as losers wallowing in the muck of name-calling. When is either one of them going to come up with comprehensive and effective programs for overall (not just Iraq) military strategy, economic development, eradication of the nation's public school shortcomings, solution to inner-city crime, and realistically increasing the nation's energy supply? Better to go with Bill Richardson who, unlike Clinton and Obama, has executive experience. The presidency is no place for on-the-job training of how to run an administrative office.

The next give and take will get more interesting because the lesser polling candidates will have to weigh in to try to be relevant.

This goes for the GOPers on parade too.

Obama wins. I believe this country is tired of the isolation policies of Bush and little dick.

I think it's great that these Democrats are debating the issues that American's care about.

It must be a riot for the right to sit back and listen to this argument. They love to see the democrats spar between themselves and they don't believe in statesmanship either.

The clear winner was everybody candidate who isn't Obama or Clinton.

Neither won.

They both managed to reinforce their negatives. In Obama's case, being wet behind the ears; in Clinton's case being shrill and combative.

Whether or not those perceptions are entirely fair or accurate is beside the point -- they remain the common perceptions.

i dont care who won this debat i am voteing for hillary not obama

i dont care who won this debat i am voteing for hillary not obama

Please resist the temptation to frame things (so early) in terms of winning and losing. Please stick to reporting on the issues. If you ask "Who won?" people will only back the candidate they started with.

If you ask something like "Who has a better plan for health care, disaster response and international relations?"

Just a thought.

Clear win for Obama. This dispute just washed away the pretense that the makeover of Hillary was just false. The issue is not that she voted for the war, it's that she did so while pretending she didn't know what she was authorizing and only now realized it was important to ask for an exit strategy now that the war is no longer popular. Obviously he is getting under her skin.

The winners in this are the Democrats (Obama and Clinton) who have shown the American people that they are not afraid to debate the issues that American's care about, Iraq being #1.

Other than Ron Paul whom the Republican's are currently trying to keep out of their "debates" the GOP is a blank sheet of paper with the same message wriiten on it.

Anytime Hillary "scores" political points, it helps her because she has such a deep hole to work out of (and Obama does not not). For the most part, the general electorate still does not like Hillary and she has very high negative ratings among the American populous.

Obama is much more likable, and while we appreciate his "high road" approach and civility, he needs to appear stronger (especially against Islamic terrorism). For me, Hillary wins there, although not as strong as some of the Republicans.

Right now, I like Obama better, but Hillary has run a good campaign so far. I think this will still be a toss up for some time.

Obama won.

1) He showed he was willing to fight back. The last thing Dems want is another Kerry. Anybody who sits back and lets himself get swift boated is out as a canidate.

2) Hillary sounded shrill and mean. She started this by calling Obama "naive."

3) Billary shouldn't have started a fight when she was leading in the polls. You don't punch down, you punch up. The only fight a front runner should start is with the current pResident. By taking on Obama she lends him her credibility.

4) By calling Obama naive and questioning his judgement (about a minor comment in a minor debate) she allows him to openly question her judgement about the Iraq war. Nobody in "the know" had any doubts that Bush, once authorized by Congress, was going to attack Iraq. That arguement is bs.

Billary opened the door for Obama in many ways. She shouldn't be surprised when he walks through it, pushes her outside, and closes and locks the door.

Besides, she is a nasty woman who will say anything to get elected.

Neither candidate won. Why are they getting so much press? Biden & Gravel were the straight shooters. Politics aside,Clinton and Obama aren't being honest with the American People.

There's a clear loser in all this.

It's the Republican Party in '08.

Clinton stands for sameness and Obama ends the long darkness in the Bush-Cheney whitehouse.

Why do we need someone who is going "to appear stronger (especially against Islamic terrorism)"? Haven't we had enough of that macho "chase down the evildoers" attitude for the last 6 years? What about someone who is strong against the American terrorism that the current administration has carried out? I applaud Obama's answer to the 'controversial' debate question (although I hate how the media tries to sensationlize it so much rather than letting it simply be a difference between the candidates). I would love to see our president be humble enough to meet with leaders of nations that we don't agree with. After all, when people have civil conversations face to face, hostility and misconceptions melt away. I know this is an oversimplification, but are we afraid that we might see these rulers and the citizens of their country as real flesh and blood human beings just like us? I have yet to see how ignoring them will make the world any better of a place.

Hillary's plan is to continue the policy of "sticking-head-in-sand" which, in her case, leaves way too much exposed.

JFK wanted to talk to the Chinese in the early '60's. But like Clinton, he chose politics over practicality.

One can only imagine what dialogue sooner might have meant for American-Sino relations.

Obama is right. If we're too intimitated to speak to our adversaries, than our power is diminished. Nixon spoke to the Chinese and Reagan spoke to the Russians. We can't speak to Iran or Syria?

Please.

And who is everybody candidate Bruce?? You have a grammatical error or your not thinking straight today.
Is everybody candidate Rudy Giuliani?? The false patriot...the guy who was married to his cousin??

While the media may look at this as sparring, I think of this as two sides of the same coin. Neither side is discounting a diplomatic resolution, but Hillary does have a point - does meeting with a nutjob dictator legitimize him? As I didn't see the "debate", I don't know exactly what was said - it appears that Obama said he'd like to meet with heads of state for various people we've had problems with for the past several years. Hillary's position seems to be that one does all they can with the normal diplomatic forums available, and then, possibly if a crisis is at hand, then to meet. Obama appears to be taking meeting with various "problem" leaders less cautiously.

It's a pendulum, with Hillary in the middle, Bush on one end and Obama a little "left" of Hillary.

I'm for working with any means necessary - 6 years of no diplomacy at all has hurt us deeply.

Sheffield:

I have reconsidered my own beliefs on the issue, and have come to the conclusion that "executive experience," as a qualification for President, has been far overrated. Let us not forget that Duh'bya had "executive experience" in spades, having served six years as Governor of Texas before being elected President in 2000. Likewise, Jimmy Carter, who was a nice man but a disappointingly ineffective President, also had plenty of prior "executive experience" as Governor of Georgia.

On the other hand, John F. Kennedy had no prior "executive experience" in elective civilian office. His only "executive experience" came from commanding a P.T. boat in WWII that got sunk. Nevertheless, he was a dynamic, courageous and effective leader as President.

So, maybe it isn't true that the Office of President doesn't allow for some on-the-job training. It depends on who is doing the training. In any event, history does show that prior executive experience doesn't guarantee good job performance.

Next consider the possibility that many of the things you consider important - namely, economic development, school problems, and inner-city crime - are properly addressed by State governments and the private sector, and not by the federal government. We have State governments to address these issues, so the federal government can concentrate on its duties as outlined in the Constitution (which it needs to get back to).

Finally, I am a little disheartened that, of all the candidates seeking the Democratic Party nomination, you would prefer Bill Richardson. Sure, he has executive experience: in New Mexico where jackrabbits outnumber the people. He is in favor of keeping the border wide open and giving health care benefits to everyone who comes across the border into the U.S. To some, that might not be a bad ideal. But it doesn't reflect the economic reality on the ground, much less the will of the American People. From all appearances, Bill Richardson is just another "plunder" politician (much like Hillary) who tries to bribe his way into office by promising certain groups a bigger piece of the pie. That is hardly appropriate in a time when fiscal austerity is needed to counter the financial disaster left by Duh'bya and his administration.

"There's a clear loser in all this.

It's the Republican Party in '08."

Posted by: Doug Zook | July 27, 2007 2:22 PM

Doug:

That's just not going to be the case if the Democrats nominate Hillary. She is generally unpopular among all stripes of voters. And there is reason for it: her makeover failed, and everyone sees her as the manipulative dragon lady she really is. On top of that, she has no clear or apparent leadership qualities, and she promises to give away the house at a time when frugality should be the by-word. There is a lot not to like about her.

Based on what I have seen and heard from the debates and such, Hilary seems like a for sure politician and the best person if we wanted another politician. Obama seems like a leader, the way he acts and the way he talks. Hilary has not proven this yet.

As far as Obama's inexperience in foreign procedures and policies, he knows the old ways have not worked. Hilary is still going by the book and what has seemed to work before, which for me will not fly anymore.

Even though we are still early in this thing, I am really leaning towards Obama as winning this thing. The biggest hurdle is the pro-war and anti-war position Hilary has put up. It will be too late when she is in office lets us know her true plan of if the war will continue or will it end.

Hillary didn't score any points with this. I thought Obama had the better response.

O'bama won only because he gets race norming points.

SILLY SILLY SILLY.ALLTHE POLLS HAVE HILLARY AHEAD BY AN AVERAGE OF 13.5. YET I KEEP HEARING THAT THE MAJORITY HATE HER. IN THE END IT WILL BE CLINTON RICHARDSON

O'bama won only because he gets race norming points.

Posted by: whatnow | July 27, 2007 3:49 PM

TO Whatnow:

Grow up and research things before you speak!

I was all go John W. until you started knocking Richardson. It is not an American consensus that the border needs to be locked up. Americans are for some unexplicable reason (scare politics) preoccupied with their southern border when the 9/11 terrorists entered the country legally from their northern border. Also most Americans have no problem with the open border and welcoming immigration policies that brought their ancestors here.

Don't know much about Richardson, honestly. But if he's not afraid of Mexicans (seeing he is one) and he respect our immigrant heritage and is aware of the economic realities that propel immigrants across the border so they can contribute to our economy, he doesn't sound half bad to me.

As someone who is not a big fan of either I must say that Hillary won this hands down. THe only people that seem to think Obama won are his supporters who would argue the earth was flat if he said so. She showed that he lacks experience and showed that he is not above political bickering as he pretends to be. 2 points Hillary. Every article you read across the entire country claims Hillary made Obama look like an amateur yet Obama followers keep trying to convince everyone including themselves that he won. The Obamites are getting desperate as they see their man can not close the gap and is now running 3rd in Iowa.

Vinny,

I think you completely underestimate the American public's desire for a president who will pause before leading us into a war with out an exit strategy.

It does not matter how many articles stack up in Hillary's favor. The difference between Hillary and Obama is more evident than ever. Remember the bogus mantra that went out in 2000 how no one could tell the difference between Bush and Gore. Do you all see the difference now? Do you see a difference between Hillary and Obama on this issue? I hope so.

The whole point of immigration reform is not to only prevent terrorism, but to prevent unnecessary spending on undocumented workers and for the welfare of those immigrates. With the borders not closed but stricter, by not allowing people from another country to enter the country without any documentation or illegally, this will allow the ability to separate the people who wish to work and become citizens here and the ones who want to cause problems. This is has been the same for all immigrants who have stepped on to US soil wanting the American and should be the same for all immigrants no matter which other country you come from.

Naturally it may seem that Hillary is the right choice, since she is doing what all the other president candidates have done to get elected. Not sure if she was cut from the same cookie cutter as the rest of the president candidates or if Bill is guiding her with his hand up her arse. Maybe people are afraid of change or something different and so they vote for Hillary. I think it would be better to look at the way we have done things and realize maybe that was not the best thing to do, even though it sort of worked in the past.

I think talking to our adversaries is a good step, keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer. The scared kid looking over the fence to see what his neighbors are doing is not the way to go. Besides give a few more weeks I am sure Hillary will change her mind and say she thinks it is a great idea to talk to our adversaries.

Your wrong Vinnie: many of the people saying Obama won are not doing so because they support him so much as they hate her.

Hating Hillary is not just a Republican pastime.

John W,
I know the Repubs think they can beat Hillary but the lockstepping isn't going to work for your guys (GOP) this time around.

There's to much anti-Republican sentiment in the public these days and the Democrats are going to back Hillary lock, stock and barrel if she wins the nomination.....bank on it.

This is a no brainer MEN.

If you allow your spouse to vote, she will vote Hillary. Why 140 years of abuse by mankind. Heck we don't even recognize women during biblical times. I mean I'm a man, but I also recognize and respect a woman, all women.

Women need to step up to the plate and make this happen if there is to be anything left in America. FOR YOUR DAUGHTERS. Otherwise they will be treated as though they resided in a "THIRD WORLD Country."

Now I know all you men out there say, oh he is just a wack job. I say this: Is yo mama a wack job? Because until a man brings another man into this world and he thinks like that. Well he's just wacked also then.

Do you know that the day Sandra Day O'Connor stepped down the Supreme Court that your constitution went out the window. Women had rights to be who they became to be in our day and age.

Think about it would any of the laws that have just been passed passed? Would the tone of the courts be as they are? I doubt it, thus preserving "Life" as we knew it. Do you think we would be having the "Crisis of the Constitution" that we are having now? NO BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT would make their voice be heard in the media the wrongdoing or the misintepretation of the constitution.

So Hillary will win, unless mankind can't handle it and says "No Woman fo YOU" and pulls out his Magic Wand, in this case "Marshall Law" over the Mexicans Americans or anything that is Latino first and then us as we know or think "us" to be.

It's all good because I too have a MOM and she is a woman. I'm not scared, but I'm scared for her and so should you.

Gloria:

Pleas read stuff for what it says, instead of what you think it says or want it to say. I never said anything about locking up the border.

It is an American consensus that our immigration laws need to be enforced, and that more effort is needed to stem the tide of illegal immigration - even if it does not include building a fence. That is a fact. Deal with it any way you like.

John W.
Interesting points, especially when you cite Jimmy Carter. What a disaster and I will always be a Kennedy fan, though he had some growing pains in the office. Regarding issues, economic development is a national interest such as NAFTA, the World Bank and international trade agreements. Education is a Cabinet position and the Kennedy-Bush No Child Left Behind act certainly begins to address the problem. Finally, on inner-city crime,
the FBI has been involved from the standpoint of interstate commerce and violations of federal drug laws. All of these issues are national concerns as well as state and local and a presidential candidate must be prepared to confront them. To be fair, I am beginning to see some Kennedy attributes in Obama. And you are right: those jackrabbits don't vote
except in Chicago.

Gerald H.,

I agree with your sentiment that people have lost focus on what immigration reform is about. Securing the border has been muddled both the concern for protecting against a terrorist attack and preventing illegal immigration. Terrorist do not cross the border illegally and then attack. This hasn't happened in our nation. They don't work that way. They enter legally, walk among us freely with their legal status and plan a more effective attack. I just don't see how a fence would have prevented 9/11.

When you say "and the welfare of those immigrants" you do not go far enough. You can not talk about the unnecessary spending (though I find spending associated with your workforce legal or illegal necessary) with out talking about the exploitation of these immigrants and how that contributes to our economy. There is a wrong that must be righted here. Also, when you talk about these costs you must not forget the freebies on our part. We gain workers who we have not spent a dime on their education or welfare until they enter our nation. They come ready to work and we have exploited them.

I am of the opinion that our border will be more secure when immigration reform encourages immigrants to enter legally. Then those who enter illegally are the trouble makers. Our immigration system is bogged down. We are not keeping up with the demand for workers. A point system as proposed to favor the more educated does not make sense when low skilled labor is what is needed. Congress has yet to get serious about immigration reform.

John W.

Wrong again John. I do not concede that our laws need to enforced blindly. My zeal for democracy demands that a law be just before it is enforced. Laws that do not serve the people (our neighbors, citizens or not) must be reconsidered, amended, reformed before enforcement. I see parallels with this quote:
"The greatest obstacle to racial justice is the White moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice."Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., 1963 letter from the Birmingham jail.

Gloria:

You are attempting to counter facts with your opinion. I said the majority of Americans want to see more effort aimed at enforcement of our immigration laws. That is a fact. The most recent Gallup and Zogby polls bear this out as a fact. Your opinion cannot make this fact go away. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions; but no one is entitled to their own facts.

Furthermore, don’t kid yourself. You have no zeal for democracy if you believe individuals can pick and choose which laws they will obey. Democracy does not exist if there is no “rule of law” by which the will of the majority is expressed and enforced. A government that cannot or will not enforce its own laws loses its legitimacy to govern. Such a government is no government at all, much less a democratic one. To suggest that such a state of affairs is “good” isn’t a zeal for democracy. It is a zeal for pure anarchy.

You say you demand that a law be “just” before it is enforced. Yet you flatter us with no opinion as to how one is to determine whether a law is “just.” Nor have you given us any clue as to why you believe the immigration laws, as written, are unjust. There are no treaties, constitutional provisions, statutes, or even any generally accepted principles of civil or human rights by which the U.S. immigration laws could be found unjust, much less by which the United States could be denied its legitimate power to enforce its immigration laws. That is because no one has any civil or human right to live or work anywhere in the world other than in their own country of origin. So, you have a great deal of explaining to do. We’re waiting.

Your reference to the letter from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is entirely unjustified for the same reason. Unlike the civil rights violations against which Dr. King and his followers struggled, the enforcement of our immigration laws threaten no loss of constitutional, civil or human rights. Again, illegal immigrants have no such rights to be here. You can’t claim that our immigration laws unfairly target one segment of society over another for the simple reason that those laws aren’t being enforced. If anything, the laxity in enforcement has unfairly favored Mexican immigrants over other immigrants who cannot get here except by compliance with the law. As such, you belittle Dr. King’s important struggle by making such a petty comparison between what he accomplished and the current efforts to give amnesty to illegal immigrants.

Hillary should just tell us with whom she will and with whom she won't speak.

Then this will clearly tell us who are the "good doers" and who are the "evil doers."

Oh, wait, we've been on this road for the last 6 years.

Hillary loses the "intellectual debate," but Americans are not about "intelligence." American politics is "meat and potatoes." That's why we had a cold war that lasted 50 years instead of 50 days. We need an enemy to grow our military which helps to grow our economy. Don't believe it?

As much as this war has cost, how much do you think it has helped to spur the economy?

It's the economy. And anything that helps spur the economy is what matters.

I'm voting for Biden (he of the ultimate, "let's split Iraq into threes," which eventually will come to pass) but I can see that Clinton won this debate in the hearts and minds of most Americans. I also don't think the Democratic party has the cajones to nominate someone as bold as Obama.

With all due respect to the candidates, experience is irrelevant: 1) Ms. Clinton truely wants to make history as the first female President despite her real experience; and, 2) Mr. Obama truely wants to be make history as the first Black President despite his lack of real experience. Truely, where are we in these formulae? Please accept any misspellings.

John W.,

I agree with your contention that Mrs. Clinton cannot win a general election. Although for the life of I do not understand people's visceral dislike/hatred of her.

My reasons for her not winning a general election are that her negative approval ratings are so firmly entrenched and that no one (including me) is keen on electing a wife/husband tag team presidency. I just don't see Bill just hanging out while otherwise staying out of the affairs of state.

That said, if she wins the nomination I will be voting for her.

Blogbot "Bruce" upgrade status......................

complete

media attack function.......
enabled

copy and paste function.....
enabled

original thought............
disabled

John W.,

If your data is correct that the majority of Americans believe that our laws should be enforced with out regard to the current outcry that they are unjust then you are correct that a consensus, a majority exist. But a consensus is also defined as general agreement, concord, harmony. There is great disharmony is this nation as our contrasting opinions demonstrate. The recent raid in Chicago before the May 2007 marches did not cause a warm harmonious state to be generated in Chicago. It once again enraged Chicago residents on to the street. You may be willing to ignore those citizens concerns but I am not.

Please do not, based on a few postings, tell me what I feel for democracy. You have no clue about me.

I do not advocate anarchy. I advocate thought before acting. Our right to execute our laws are often suspended. There are moratoria. Total anarchy need not ensue. I do not advocate the dispensing of all our laws an a true state of anarchy. Congress has a lot of work yet to do on immigration. Then we can act.

Mind you, in order for our democracy to be born laws had to violated. Revolution is another example of lawlessness that creates a democracy or betters a democracy. Civil disobedience is yet another.

I wish we lived in a world where just laws were created based on the cries of the people. But I think your Gallup and Zogby polls demonstrate for me that just laws are not so easily attained. Also the framers of our Constitution did not have that much faith in us either, thus the electoral college that gave us our last president despite the will of the people.

But just laws are mot merely what the majority of us think goes. Again, the framers of our Constitution gave us a bicameral legislature, not the the House of Representatives but the Senate too.

I believe just laws do not create an under class of undocumented workers for our exploitation and to build the wealth of our nation. I believe just laws do not require immigrants to wait many years to gain legal status. I do not believe just laws limit the inflow of immigrants to leave our companies with deficient manpower and thus with no alternative but to hire illegal immigrants.

There are many who seek to cut off illegal immigrants from social services. If you take the time to read the UN's statement on civil rights you would see that this would be a violation.

Here is an example of loss of human rights due to our immigration laws:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-immigrant_thinkjul08,0,923681.story

Our laxity in immigration laws has favored our economy. This is the reason they have not been enforced. It is not favoritism, it is exploitation.

It is truly unfortunate that MLK is not here to give his opinion on this issue himself. The burden is on us to understand his legacy and continue his work. I do not know how you can be so sure that he would not be in those May marches. Here's another interesting aricle I came upon. MLK hit a brick wall when he came to chicago:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10654677/site/newsweek/

Sorry. I'm out of time. Will try to come back to this later.

Hi John W.,

Don't know if you are still out there. I know it took too long for me to get my last reply out there. There is not much else to add but to thank you for pointing out another key difference between Obama and Hillary. Her border plan is so contrary to the comprehensive immigration reform that I believe in. I could never choose her over Obama. Thanks for making that clear to me.

I wish I could copy a huge chunk of Plato's Republic and its discourse on justice but that would be too obnoxious. Here's the link to the on-line copy:

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html

Here's the tail end of the discourse. It's a dialogue. But I'm sure you'll catch on fast and I'm sure you've already read the whole thing so this is just a refresher:

And that human virtue is justice?
To be sure.
Then men who are injured are of necessity made unjust?
That is the result.
But can the musician by his art make men unmusical?
Certainly not.
Or the horseman by his art make them bad horsemen?
Impossible.
And can the just by justice make men unjust, or speaking general can the good by virtue make them bad?

Assuredly not.
Any more than heat can produce cold?
It cannot.
Or drought moisture?
Clearly not.
Nor can the good harm any one?
Impossible.
And the just is the good?
Certainly.
Then to injure a friend or any one else is not the act of a just man, but of the opposite, who is the unjust?

I think that what you say is quite true, Socrates.
Then if a man says that justice consists in the repayment of debts, and that good is the debt which a man owes to his friends, and evil the debt which he owes to his enemies, --to say this is not wise; for it is not true, if, as has been clearly shown, the injuring of another can be in no case just.

I agree with you, said Polemarchus.
Then you and I are prepared to take up arms against any one who attributes such a saying to Simonides or Bias or Pittacus, or any other wise man or seer?

I am quite ready to do battle at your side, he said.
Shall I tell you whose I believe the saying to be?
Whose?
I believe that Periander or Perdiccas or Xerxes or Ismenias the Theban, or some other rich and mighty man, who had a great opinion of his own power, was the first to say that justice is 'doing good to your friends and harm to your enemies.'

Most true, he said.
Yes, I said; but if this definition of justice also breaks down, what other can be offered?