The boys can take a page from the girl. Hillary Clinton took a leadership role in the second Democratic debate with all eight candidates present in New Hampshire at St. Anselm College last Sunday. Senators Biden and Clinton were like black and white bookends: Clinton topped the top tier and Biden best of the second tier. Observers thought she looked “presidential.” Early blogging votes (liberal sites) had John Edwards winning the debate. The pundits thought Hillary Clinton won the debate. I have to agree with them.
Overall, the top tier is still tops: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards comprise the first tier. There were put in the front (Clinton in the middle) where they made the most points, were given the most time, and rebuttal time on references or directs that included them.
The ground rules were more flexible this time. Sticking to an absolute one-minute response became difficult without bells or red lights. But it went well. Here are some highlights.
Moderator Wolf Blitzer asked for a show of hands: Should English not be made the official language of the United States? Everyone raised an affirmative hand. It is the national language, but not the official language. These Democratic candidates don't want to see it made the official language, some said for legal reasons. This informal vote may come back to bite, much like the evolution question for the Republicans.
The very first question went to Obama: Has terror at home been thwarted due to Bush’s leadership and the war in Iraq? Obama said no. Bush gets no credit for the lack of attacks at home. In fact, he said, the world has become more dangerous with more recruits joining the terrorists. He said he would be certain to phase out the war in Iraq, and most of all to root out al-Qaeda.
John Edwards was questioned about his statement about Iraq war being a “bumper sticker.” Does he stand by that statement? He said, “that’s exactly what it is, a bumper sticker,” and what’s worse, it is no more than a political slogan.
It was at this early point in the debate that Clinton and Edwards became aggressive. She was asked if she agreed with Edwards. Clinton said, “No, I do not. I am a senator from New York.” She said that she thinks we are safer than before. She did not ruffle any real feathers. She was the “uniter” tonight and held off on any direct attacks. Political observers believe this was due to her leading the polls coming into the debate.
Article comments
1 - Will
I think that 1st tier should be ordered as follows
1. Clinton
2. Edwards
3. Obama
I think that people like Obama becuase of who he represents and not wht he can offer to our country as a leader. I feel like he avoided giving straight answers and lacks the leadership quality that other candidates exhibit.
2 - Elizabeth Babbitt
I am bothered by your headline "Girl on Top" and you're referring to the candidates as "the boys" and "the girl." This is probably irrelevant since you stated that Hilary won the debate, but I'm just getting sick of people differentiating and segregating Hilary from the pac due to her gender.
Indeed, I have not noticed this behavior with Barack Obama, who is African American (though that would admittedly, be highly dangerous).
All I'm asking is why can't we just view Hilary as a candidate and quit putting her gender first?
I am not planning to vote for Hilary -- I just think she deserves more respect by the media and her fellow contenders than she currently receives.
3 - MBD
“Observers thought she looked “presidential.” “
I see something entirely different.
So, what did she do to… ”look presidential’?
Does Hillary have straight answers and leadership quality?
No.
Did Hillary read the NIE report before voting to support the Iraq War?
No.
Did Hillary ever say she made a mistake in voting for the war authorization?
No.
Did Hillary pander to CHA in the general election when she voted to continue funding a war that she now opposes?
No.
Is that leadership?
Hell, NO.
What is she good for besides “looking presidential’?
BTW, for two years she said she could not find subpoenaed accounting records which she took into the White House. Strange, because they were in plain sight in a White House hallway.
She’s too crafty. It’s unlikely she’ll ever be elected president. The country knows too much about her.
4 - Mystylplx
Most people I know thought Obama won. The pundits thought Hillary won in the last debate too... even though both post-debate polls said Obama won. The pundits are out of touch with reality.
Obama is the only one of them with any real leadership qualities. Hillary and Edwards are ruled by the polls. Obama is the only one of them who at least sometimes takes positions contrary to the popular opinion.
5 - Heloise
MBD,
your points someone made in reference to what Obama should have done. Clinton was on cover of TIME and they had her flaws there for all the world to see.
6 - Heloise
"Girl On Top" is in quotes because I borrowed that from a column that runs in the Dallas Observer. A woman did an interview with me, that was brilliant and that was the title of her column. I thought it was funny. Article was entitled "Queen Maybe"
I called her a girl, which everyone in Texas calls grown women BTW, I hate it too. But ask any Texan about it. They call men whatever.
Heloise
7 - Dee
Hilary is a joke. She is as fake as they come. President Hilary. Come on. No woman should be elected president of the US. Ever. Hilary will never answer the question that is asked. She always goes on repeating some statement that comes across robotic to me and that doesn't answer the question that was asked. She's not the only politician that does this but I don't want to hear about how well she did when she doesn't answer what is asked. God (which I don't beleive in) please give me a new party in this country. It is our only hope for avoiding ruin.
8 - Not a Democrat
As a life long non-Democrat I think the field for that party is abysmal. Unfortunately, it's not much different for my side either.
While reading the paper today I noticed a back page article regarding the Democrat positions on current matters. It seems that most want us out of Iraq immediately; most want everybody to have free health care except for those that can pay for it. A few like Dennis Kucinich are relegated to the loony fringe and Chris Dodd's main position was to restore our constitutional rights. The last time I checked mine were not missing but maybe yours are. These are not very original positions and seem to be in alignment with what the pollsters and the liberal media think we all want. Everyone's favorite, John Edwards, seems most interested in his hair but really wants what working Americans have to be redistributed to those who choose not to contribute. This of course doesn’t apply to his palatial estate in North Carolina. BTW, he got the money to pay for all that by suing those evil doers out there like obstetricians because all our babies aren’t as perfect as he is. He is, in his most basic form, just another ambulance chaser.
If the Democrats ever want to regain power with dignity then I think they need to think out of the box. Most Democrat positions are of a socialist bent. They believe that the government should take care of everything and that wealth needs to be redistributed evenly in order to accomplish that. The more social dependants that they have the more votes will come there way. I try to vote for a candidate who will protect what I have earned and not for what I may receive that I haven’t earned. They believe that parents have no legitimate rights to raise their children the way they see fit but only and government agencies prescribe. They believe we only need a military to rescue the helpless from cesspools like New Orleans, that we should only defend ourselves when attacked here at home (oops, forgot about 9/11), and that if they are back in power the world will love us.
Our enemies are watching what's going on right now and are I’m sure quite entertained at the internal strife that our current political landscape is embroiled in. The enemies are real and want to kill all of us. This includes even you Democrats.
I would really like to hear one of the candidates tell me how they are going to protect our nation in the future. The last Democratic administration did about everything in their power to weaken us at home and abroad and was basically asleep at the wheel for most of the eight years they were in power. So far it’s only about what government can do for us. Personally, I don’t need most things they have to offer.
9 - Heloise
good post not a democrat.
I voted for Bill twice and I voted for George twice.
You know I did not want to say the C word. But you're right. All the stuff that the dems are touting do come from the people. JFK fought Communism and at the time MLK was considered a Communist. But guess what? He eventually did have to side with MLK. Why? Because this would still be the mecca for white supremacy if JFK and RFK had not stood up.
Are we leaning left as a country? If we are leaning toward what the people want, this is a Republic, not a democracy, then we will probably head in that very direction. People are really sick of the wasted money for wars that rich white people profit from. It would have paid for health care for the next 200 years for everyone.
I almost became a doctor, but changed my mind because I thought we were going in the socialist direction with socialized medicine back in the 80s. It was really on the wall back then.
We KNOW it AIN'T new. I said it in my piece. We did not get it in the 60s, 80s or 2000s. So every twenty years it recurs for us to look at.
Would you rather have health care or a f&^(*^ WAR dead? I ask you.
Thanks for making us think you Rights.
10 - Not a Democrat
Heloise - I'm a Vietnam veteran who still has a distaste for the way this country turned on the military back then and see the same thing happening today. In hindsight with what we know today, I don't think Mr. Bush would have ever invaded Iraq or at least used another strategy. I also believe that if we had stayed united as a country after 9/11 this war would be over but unfortunately those who just can't stand the idea of America flexing its military muscle rolled out the protest and gave the enemy exactly what they had predicted. If I were in a tough fight with someone and saw their camp distancing themselves from my opponent I would be emboldened to fight harder knowing that this guy was slowly but surely being abandoned.
I bring up this about the military because you asked "Would you rather have health care or a f&^(*^ WAR dead?" Nobody wants war and especially the military. Unfortunately, we must from time to time sacrifice to achieve some objective that is deemed vital to our national interest. People will always debate what is or is not vital but they must understand that those accountable for maintaining our national security make the best decisions they can based on the knowledge available at the time. George Bush has done it as well as Bill Clinton and all other executives charged with that responsibility.
On to health care. This country is in a precarious position regarding the long term "health" of our health care system. We are slowly but surely moving to socialized (or subsidized) medicine due to our “unofficial” commitment to treat an ever growing base of non-contributors. The illegal immigrant population is a large part of this group as well as those who survive off of welfare entitlements. When you see that an aspirin was $9 on your hospital bill it is that pricey because 100 other people got theirs for free. Also, did I mention that if I had an adverse reaction to that aspirin that I would feel obligated to sue the doctor, hospital, and the drug manufacturer for my situation? The liability insurance that must be carried by the providers in the health care industry is excessive and contributes significantly to the rising costs. How about those "evil" drug companies pitching their remedies in the media like it were candy? Although I don't think they are evil as many liberals do, I do think their profit motives should be questioned based on the fact so many prescriptions are doled out needlessly to those may or may not be able to afford it or more importantly need it. I just retired and went for my first post-retirement doctor visit the other day. While sitting in the examination room I could not get over all the posters for this drug and that drug plastered all over the walls. I assume they were there to entice a patient to inquire about whether they need to take it. I don't take any pills and will hold off for as long as I can to not fall into that trap.
Rest assured that we will get some form of national health care some day but you can be guaranteed of one thing and that is your taxes will go up to pay for it and the quality of care will go down. If that is OK with you then keep up your drive to get it. Personally, I can’t afford my taxes to go up and really don’t want to compete for my health care with someone who pays nothing into the system.
11 - Dr Dreadful
'On the Question of “taking out Bin Laden” Clinton Scored Again'...
That absurd Hollywoodesque expression always makes me smile. Makes it sound like the candidates should go on a date with him.
As far as I know bin Laden is straight, so Sen. Clinton is the only one with a chance there.
Vote for Hillary! :-)
12 - Phyllis
This is good Leslie, my question to open health care is will chiropractic
care be included and will they require Herbs and vitamins to be prescribed?
Phyllis
13 - Heloise
Not at Dem wrote: "How about those "evil" drug companies pitching their remedies in the media like it were candy? Although I don't think they are evil as many liberals do, I do think their profit motives should be questioned based on the fact so many prescriptions are doled out needlessly to those may or may not be able to afford it or more importantly need it. I just retired and went for my first post-retirement doctor visit the other day. While sitting in the examination room I could not get over all the posters for this drug and that drug plastered all over the walls. I assume they were there to entice a patient to inquire about whether they need to take it. I don't take any pills and will hold off for as long as I can to not fall into that trap."
Heloise: You know you read my mind re drug companies. I have to keep my TV muted because when the commercials for the damn drugs starts I get mad as hell.
The money it costs to run commercials and the fact that we PAY more for drugs here than anyone in the freakin world makes me turn off those commercials.
I am like you I limit my drugs to aspirin and to synthroid. That's it. I hate to take this much, but I have to now.
That's why I don't want to see Edwards in because he is in bed with the drug companies too, as a lawyer.
Heloise
14 - Not a Democrat
See Heloise, you can align with a right winger.
You'll notice that I made no substantial comments earlier regarding the two liberal favs Hillary and Obama so I'll do it now.
Hillary scares the hell out of me because she has no executive experience (like Obama) and if she gets elected it will be a Bill behind the curtain administration where he will be back at the controls again. I can only pray that she does not make it.
Obama, like Hillary, has no real experience running anything. After all, he's a lawyer like Hillary. I also have become quite amused at how troublesome people have determining exactly what race he is. If you are truly a 50/50 mix then what are you? Many people think we need a black as President so things that are currently broken with the races will magically disappear. It will be just like "24". On the other hand, Obama is not like Jessie or Sharpton meaning he's not really "that black" based on how they come across. So I guess he can be black or not depending on the audience. He’s also very well spoken but then again that is often perceived as a slam against blacks who generally are not well spoken. I’ll admit, he is a breath of fresh air amongst all the other polluted gas bags that are running.
I'm a firm believer in the conventional wisdom that Senators don't make good Presidents. If Hillary does get the nomination this country will be in for a long bloody campaign season because of the two Clintons, she causes the most despair and angst. More political division is the last thing that this country needs.
15 - wayoutleft
just a couple of points:
everybody is generally opposed to war in general. but that sentiment is worthless. few stand up to the military and oppose a specific war before it begins. because it takes courage.
also, give it up on how nobody's going to make you pay for health care for "those who don't contribute". you will pay some of your income back to maintain a healthy society with functioning common institutions like you are now and always have. and- yes- that includes funds for those who can't provide for themselves. sorry if that's a big moral injustice for you. i feel your pain. but you will pay what is asked of you so people aren't sitting in doorways with horrible diseases. you will be helping a lot of veterans- just like you are now.
16 - Not a Democrat
Wayoutleft - first of all, I am not opposed to the war so don't include me in the "everybody" statement. Secondly, you “stand up” to the policy makers NOT the military if there is a disagreement because they are the ones who make the decisions and shoulder the accountability. Anybody who protests against the military is a traitor in my opinion. I am also, along with others, tired of the way we fight wars in general. In WWII we were in it to win it and the country was behind it. Starting with the Korean War we chose to settle for a tie and that trend continues today and as we saw in Vietnam ties don't work. Wars are a dirty business and you can't fight one with "sensitivity". Soldiers are warriors not policeman.
I also recognize that in a compassionate society that the haves will always provide some subsidy for the have nots. This is OK as long as the have nots are in the minority. Unfortunately, that minority is growing and if we suddenly add 12 million more have nots in the form of our current visitors from Mexico then the balance will shift further. I personally think many Americans will not like socialized medicine when they get it. I heard a statement the other day that really sums up why it's a bad idea. A popular radio personality said "why do we think that taking the second most inefficient enterprise (health care) and placing its operation with the MOST inefficient enterprise (government) will ever stand the chance of survival. If you really want to protest something then spend your energy of how poorly our government is run.
The bottomline is that the Democrats see the have nots as their voting base and will do everything thing in their power to win their hearts. Of course that will eventually hurt those Americans who work hard everyday and pay taxes.
17 - Clavos
Not a Democrat says,
"I personally think many Americans will not like socialized medicine when they get it."
Dead on. Having dealt with Medicare on behalf of my wife for two years now, I can tell you unequivocally that, if universal health care is managed by the government (as it almost certainly will be), it will be an absolute nightmare.
18 - Christopher Rose
Clavos, a poor implementation of universal healthcare doesn't invalidate the system. The Spanish health service is great. There is a lot of bureaucracy in the USA, but that doesn't invalidate the model...
19 - Clavos
I didn't say (or mean to imply) that it invalidates it; I'm just pointing out that if it's handled by the government (which is pretty much a slam dunk), it will be a nightmare.
The Federal government of the United States of America is incapable of pouring piss out of a boot which has the instructions printed on the heel.
Witness: The War on Poverty, The War on Drugs, Medicare, Medicaid, The Great Society, etc., etc., ad nauseam.
20 - bliffle
Hillary just used the common politicians debating trick of seizing a question and twisting it to your own purposes. It's a way of being unresponsive and hiding things while appearing decisive and confident. Condoleeza Rice is a master of that, incidentally. I bet she gave W lessons.
21 - bliffle
Clavos: "Having dealt with Medicare on behalf of my wife for two years now, I can tell you unequivocally that, if universal health care is managed by the government (as it almost certainly will be), it will be an absolute nightmare."
Nonsense. NOTHING could be worse than the privatized hyper-bureaucracy scams that the commercial insurance companies are running.
What's wrong with Medicare? I had a little tussle with them last year that got straightened out when I wrote to my congress-person.
Who you gonna write to when your commercial insurance company stiffs you? What you gonna do, find a new ins. co. in the midst of cancer treatments? Don't make me laugh.
22 - Dr Dreadful
I'm posting this on here because there isn't an article about the second Republican debate yet, so this seemede the most appropriate place...
Watching the PBS Newshour coverage of the debate right now... Anyone else think Mitt Romney looks like Charlton Heston?
23 - Heloise
Guess what I forgot to watch it. I would have watched and written an article.
He is good looking and yes, he does look like Moses!! But I want to say to him: where were you 8 years ago before we got stuck with Bush?
Heloise
24 - Heloise
NEWS: Mark Strama, a Texas State Rep, is endorsing Obama...
Read below:
Fellow Texans,
The 2008 presidential race will mark a turning point in American history. I'm extremely proud of the strength and depth of our 2008 Democratic field, and any one of our candidates would make us proud.
After a lot of thought, I've decided to publicly endorse Sen. Barack Obama for President.
He inspires young people and new voters like no candidate I've ever seen, and I sincerely believe he can change American politics as we know it.
Senator Obama's unifying message is exactly what America needs after eight years of divisive and hyper-partisan politics.
Before Barack Obama was a U.S. Senator, he was a grassroots organizer who registered 150,000 new voters on a shoe-string budget. I challenge my fellow Texans to follow Obama's grassroots leadership. This Saturday, Obama supporters across the country will "Walk for Change."
I invite you to join this inspiring grassroots campaign!
* What: June Meetup & Walk for Change
* When: Saturday, June 9 - 10:00 a.m.
* Where: Hoover's Restaurant, 2002 Manor Road - Austin, TX 78722
(Don't live in Austin? There's over 35 cities across Texas getting organized this weekend, so please see below to find a walk near you.)
If you're still on the fence about whom to support in 2008, I hope you'll at least come for breakfast to meet some like-minded Texans. Then, if you're so inspired, you can join us for some old-fashioned neighborhood block-walking.
If you're out of town this weekend, then mark your calendars for the next presidential debate on June 28. Texans for Obama will gather together at 7:00 PM at the Victory Grill (1104 East 11th Street).
Thanks for your time and support.
Best regards,
Mark Strama
Texas State Representative
District 50