Hillary and Edwards share a moment

[RecycleMichael]

This from the Washington Post...

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/22/offstage_action_at_dem_debate.html

Offstage Action at Dem. Debate?
By Shailagh Murray

The nasty spat between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama last night sure created fireworks, but after the debate attention turned to an offstage encounter, between Clinton and former senator John Edwards.

According to eyewitnesses, they both walked out of their green rooms after the debate and agreed to talk, then went behind closed doors in Edwards's green room.

Clinton left 20 minutes later. No word on the subject matter, but as Edwards struggles in the polls with no wins to date, his post-campaign strategy is surely in the air.

"They were catching up, as they tend to do at the events, and probably discussing the evenhanded media coverage of the race," quipped Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz.

I know how you people think from this forum. I am just waitng on the blue dress jokes...

A Hillary/Edwards ticket would be pretty strong...

[spoonbill]

In the S.C. debate Hillary brought up that Obama had a client that was involved with illicit sex and that he lied about his position on the war. What do you think her position would be if she found out that amongst her closest associates there was a person that used his position to prey on his staff for illicit sex and not only lied to the American people but also committed purury?

[inteller]

now that you mention it, Edwards did have a big change in tone from other debates where he largely agreed with Obama.  That would be very interesting.  I just couldn't see those two getting together though.

[FOTD]

Edwards is admirable. Billary will force others here from calling me a liberal.

I feel so dirty: http://www.lastchancedemocracycafe.com/?p=1216

[Breadburner]

Were they sharing a moment the urinal....Was Hitlery tapping her foot telling John the water was cold and deep.....

[spoonbill]

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by Breadburner

Were they sharing a moment the urinal....Was Hitlery tapping her foot telling John the water was cold and deep.....

now that is funny.

[Hometown]

I can't remember which Democrat insider it was on television a few weeks ago that said Edwards spent his time as Kerry's running mate laying the groundwork for his – Edwards' – second run for president.  Edwards was not a team player and he hurt all of us by not giving Kerry the support he needed.  It was a devastating criticism of Edwards.

One problem with Edwards is that he doesn't come alive until he is engaged in a down to the wire fight.  And his populist message has a hollow ring to it, having heard the pat phrases over and over by now.

I want Edwards to be better than he is.  I could go for a populist but unfortunately I don't see anyone out there that can sell populism now.

Obama is probably a better person that the other two candidates but better person doesn't make for a winner in the general election.  Clinton is already playing hard ball and I think she has demonstrated she is up for the fight.  We don't need everyone to love Hillary.  We just need a percentage or two or three more than our rivals.  

[pmcalk]

^There's where I think that Obama makes much more sense than Clinton.  It's not a matter of winning a few more percentages than the other side.  That results in nothing but stalemate.  To get anything done, you must have 60% of the Senate.  How do you do that?  By showing congress that the overwhelming majority (i.e., 60%) of people support you.  If we elect yet another president by a very slim margin, you can bet that nothing will be accomplished for the next four years.  That's what Obama meant when he said that Reagan changed the trajectory of the country (for the worse, of course).  To really get the country behind you, to move in a new and better direction, Democrats need a landslide--they need independents and republicans.  Clinton is appealing to the base, and she may get the base.  But she will never win over the vast majority of American people.  I say that despite the fact that I like her, and will vote for her if she wins the democratic nomination; I just know too many people (even democrats) that would never vote to put the Clintons back into office.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

^There's where I think that Obama makes much more sense than Clinton.  It's not a matter of winning a few more percentages than the other side.  That results in nothing but stalemate.  To get anything done, you must have 60% of the Senate.  How do you do that?  By showing congress that the overwhelming majority (i.e., 60%) of people support you.  If we elect yet another president by a very slim margin, you can bet that nothing will be accomplished for the next four years.  That's what Obama meant when he said that Reagan changed the trajectory of the country (for the worse, of course).  To really get the country behind you, to move in a new and better direction, Democrats need a landslide--they need independents and republicans.  Clinton is appealing to the base, and she may get the base.  But she will never win over the vast majority of American people.  I say that despite the fact that I like her, and will vote for her if she wins the democratic nomination; I just know too many people (even democrats) that would never vote to put the Clintons back into office.

You know, I agree with most of what you've said. Note, however, that Bush accomplished a lot with a slim (non-existant some say) win in both elections. He did not have the overwhelming support of the American people. Yet he used his imaginary credit and bought his program in spite of that deficit. How it was done is subject to a lot of argument. I believe he and his cronies to be consummate liars and manipulators. The Clintons are part of the past and share that cynical view of politics as spin and manipulation. At this moment in time I would prefer a leader with little baggage, great optimism, a capacity to learn quickly and earn the peoples confidence rather than steal it. Obama is the Jack Kennedy of this generation. Yet, like you if Clinton is the party choice, it is my only choice.

[pmcalk]

True, WB, but I believe that was primarily due to 9/11 and the subsequent war he got us into.  Had 9/11 not happened, I believe he would have spent four years in office, accomplishing nothing, and then voted out next term.

[Hometown]

Obama was absolutely right about Reagan and the watershed of ideas that he represented.  And he was right when he said that Clinton was a good president but was not Reagan's equal.  You have to go back to FDR to find a Democrat that was a watershed president.  Unfortunately no on the left and no one on the right has the new ideas to move us beyond this Reagan defined era.  What Clinton has is the team and experience and determination to win in the general election.

Yesterday Obama looked like a spoiler (and caving in like that in the face of a solid fight from Clinton is not a good sign) and Clinton is already playing the uniter (while her surrogates do what she has to do to win).

She is not a great orator but being able to get the job done is ultimately much more important to a nation that desperately needs a Democrat in the White House.

[pmcalk]

While Clinton may have had a high approval rate at various times in his presidency, he never had the overt approval of the majority of Americans through voting--he didn't receive even 50% of the popular vote in either election.  Within two years of his presidency, the Democrats lost control of the House, and the rest of his presidency was pretty much characterized by investigations and special prosecutors.  I am not saying he deserved any of that (though I think he is partially to blame for the Lewinsky incident simply for being so stupid).  But I suspect that Hillary Clinton will be more of the same, and that she won't be able to get anything done.

Everyone clearly has a different perception of how the candidates performed.  I don't think Obama looked like a spoiler at all--I think he looked like someone ready to dish out what was put on him.  

It is difficult to predict who might be a watershed president ahead of time.  Even FDR had some rocky points in his presidency.  Among all of the democratic candidates, I believe that Obama has the best shot at being a watershed president.  He speaks differently to Americans, in a way that, like JFK & FDR, makes people feel hopeful, that there is something better.  And he is the best at pulling in independents and young people.

[USRufnex]

Ronald Reagan had "Reagan Democrats"...

I'm surprised at the generic Obama commercial with state of IL Republican Dillard and Indiana's Repub Senator Dick Lugar... seems like a general election strategy in a heated demo primary... but...

Would ANY Republican in Congress appear in a commercial spot for Hillary Clinton?...

And will there ever be such a thing as a "Hillary Clinton Republican"?!?

[Conan71]

I caught a little bit of Hillary's BS on TV last night.  She's still running against Bush II.

Ruf, what's so great about Lugar?  I've heard you mention him several times in other posts.  Is it a Chicago thing or what?? []