Did Hillary Really Win the Debate? Let's Play Hardball
By Bill W. Friday Nov 16, 2007 8:38am
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t Heather)
Tweety had progressive radio giants Mark Green and Ed Schultz on to talk about Hillary’s big win at the debate in Las Vegas Thursday night and apparently Schultz didn’t get the memo.
Schultz: “I think all this postmortem of this debate about how wonderful Hillary is a bridge too far. I think it’s a sad day when a candidate has to start saying well its mud-slinging if you point out what my voting record is.” … “CNN, and especially Wolf, I think they were bending over for Hillary big-time last night.”
Ed also went on to make several other good points too that went against what’s become conventional wisdom regarding who “won” the debate. I’m not saying Hillary did poorly, because it surely was an improvement over her last debate in Philly and clearly she owned the audience all night who were quick to come to her defense to boo Edwards and Obama when each tried to attack her record, but she had a lot of help from CNN too. Not only was the network completely unfair in the amount of time they gave to most of the other candidates, they also were caught planting a softball question from the audience specifically for her to end the night that they had to admit to and then they followed that by having James Carville and David Gergen featured on their post-debate show, both of whom had previously held positions in her husband’s administration and Carville is currently listed as an “informal advisor” to her campaign. That’s quite a coup for any campaign to pull off and should be cause for anyone to re-evaluate the entire evening. Quite frankly, if Hillary won the debate, then any record of the win deserves an asterisk beside it.
So I’m wondering. Who do you think won the debate?
Login or Register to post comments.
Has HardBall become a Vespiary? ........frist?
I think Wolf Blitzer clearly won this debate. He is part of the new breed of policy hacks posing as "journalists" with an agenda to move forward. Don't be fooled, guys like Blitzer and Matthews only play journalists on TV.
So I’m wondering. Who do you think won the debate?
Not sure about winners, but I know it was spelled out completely who the losers were. The American people. If this is leadership, you guys are in BIG trouble.
I couldn't say who "won" the debate but it's clear who lost...
Us.
Great minds Canuck... :)
Mark Green needs to get a clue. John Edwards said that Hillary Clinton "DEFENDS A SYSTEM that is broken, rigged, and corrupt."
She does, and she is a spawn of it.
Mike Gravel won the debate.
I think we'd all be better off if someone could fire all of these people. Here's your hat, what's your hurry. And start fresh. People with political "experience" need not apply. Everyone nominate someone in their area who is community minded, fairly well known and liked. We'll go from there.
As far as this crop of individuals is concerned it seems pretty clear to this observer that Hillary is who the repugs want as the dem candidate. [does is matter what dems want? Has it ever?] They NEED her to be the dem candidate because all of their plans to steal the white house again revolve around hating her and making sure everyone else does too. At least as much or more than they hate the repugs. Being the lesser of two evils is the most positive thing they could possibly say about themselves and that's not saying much. Especially since hillary isn't the antichrist they all wish she was.
Did CNN stack the audience toward Hillary? Well, it sure seems that way. After all, Obama and Edwards were booed AND that cute college student asked that PLANTED question about 'pearls or diamonds' to Hillary.
Right out of the Republican playbook, to quote Hillary.
Anyone who had a problem with the Supreme Court deciding the 2001 election should be burn mad over this particular debate as well as the others. There are many ways to rig an election. They are all illegal, unethical and unconstitutional. A year away and we have already been cheated, manipulated and lied to!
Biden won....Blitzer lost
I meant burning mad. Too pissed off to spell correctly mad.
Mark @ 9:
Yeah, the booing was the topper. Where did that come from?
God, we are f*cked.
Fuck it, I'm still going with Stassen.
I'm a little confused. Isn't this what it's all about? A persons voting record? When Obama points out that she voted with Leibermann to name the Quds force as a terrorist organization helping to beat the drum for war that's mudslinging? It's all about a persons voting record. Without a persons voting record, how do we know where they stand? But what they tell us? You're going to take it at face value what a politician says and not by their voting record? Are we mudslinging DiFi for her voting record? Or is this a double standard when it's someones favorite politician.
I love the "Mike Gravel" post, you funny mudshark.
I don't understand these Clinton supporters? Look at her fucking voting record, she's a repug. Don't you people look at her record, repug 100%.
Is this really how we pick a president?
I can't stand the debates - they don't talk about specifics because they know that most Americans are too stupid or too easily bored to care, so they talk in generalizations that don't mean anything. The yelling, the fingerpointing... and then when it's over, the one that looked the least stupid wins? (Sigh)
Why do the candidates not take on the issue of how secretive and powerful the current president has become? Perhaps they could swear that they would bring back accountability to the White House by releasing documents that Bush won't let us see?
Plus, if you ever read "The Daily Howler", you'll see that Matthews and his ruling class of media elite have a tendency to announce a winner in real time, and then a few days later (after all the spin doctors have had a chance to muddy the waters) tell us that someone else actually won, without ever mentioning their original comments.
It's really all pretty pointless.
Greg @ 15:
No, it is all about manipulating the truth and the people to retain and gain power so you can manipulate the truth and the people.
The Clintons won, they always win, they are winners.
They willl be the next President so get on board to give karma to the gop.
getalife @ 19:
I am not on that bus. A more refined manipulator is not my desire for the White House.
Kucinich seems to be the only one expressing actual points of opinion on the issues, but no one wins in these debates, not as long as CNN continues in the same direction as Faux News
I'd say I won by not watching it.
This is totally wrong,, the audience was booing Biltzer and CNN for spending the first half hour asking questions primarily about Hillary Clinton.
Blitzer = AIPAC PR HACK.
I hate Hillary, hate'em all, except Gravel.
Terrible @ 22:
Hear, hear.
Matthews is a total buffoon and Blitzer's voice reminds me of Lieberman. When Blitzer blew off Dennis Kucinich, he dropped to the level of a hack.
The more I hear about Hillary and her voting record, the less I like her. She's as Republican as Lieberman.
I wonder how the folks in the Clinton camp will spin the "Murdoch fund raiser" that R.Murdoch held for Hillary in 2006 if the issue becomes a talking point....
Terrible @ 22:
That statement tells me we all lost, the Constitution lost. When it is considered a victory to have missed the "process" of electing a President then the nation exists in name only.
(Ok, i knew that but i had to say it anyway.)
Shultz nailed it. It was infuriating watching Hillary claim Edwards was using the Republican Playbook when all he did was point out how she had voted.
Besides, I thought the Republican Playbook was taking questions from planted audience members. Oh, and the Rovian Playbook is to try to paint your opponent as having your greatest flaw. In this case, Hillary's greatest flaw is that she is a machiavellian republican.
So, of course, she has to claim that's what Edwards is.
Who won the debate? Who gives a F*&K?
I don't care if the leader of the country can win a debate or the swimsuit competition. I'm looking for someone with the ability to clean up the mess from the last 7(8) years. I would rather have a "wild" accountant then someone with the ability to throw out soundbites.
Kucinich clearly won the debate given the small amount of time he was given and the concise answers he gave. He's boning up on good strong one-liners knowing full well he's being shafted. Notice all the commentators seem to have a need to say Clinton as many times as they can, even if it's redundant. Even Mark Green only said Kucinich once. The ultimate media/corporate fuck- VOTE FOR KUCINICH!
xoites defends Constitution @ 20:
Oh, so you want to lose?
When was the last time the Clintons lost an election?
They are positioned to win the general because they are strong on national security.
I would hope progressives will vote for her in the general because she is dem.
I think there two ways to change our government.
A larger dem majority with a dem President for 8 years or revolution.
Lets be real, the "me generation" does not care so there will be no revolution.
I think it’s a sad day when a candidate has to start saying well its mud-slinging if you point out what my voting record is.
THANK YOU!!!
i'm glad i'm not the only one who pick up on how pathetic and insulting that was!
Ed Schultz. The rest was theater of "approved questions".
getalife @ 31:
She's certainly not progressive. She's part of the same old corporate politicians that we see today. You want more of the same, vote Hillary.
I suppose none of the other Democratic candidates will ever get specific about R.Murdoch's fund raiser he held for Hillary in the summer of 2006 in fear of what Hillary may know and say about the sponsors of some of their fund raisers...But I can see Left as well as Rightwing Pundits making it an Issue....
Edwards and Kucinich were best of the speakers. Biden has one of the best moments. Obama was his usual over-trying self
The (to me very suspiciously biased) audience tried their best to support Hillary and booed any speaker at the mention of the word 'hillary'.
Wolf sucks and I hate him and his hypocrisy.
Ed Shultz is winning me over.
NPR's warmonger Scott Simon goes along with it, no complaints. It must be true...
getalife @ 31:
You don't get it. If Hillary becomes President I WILL LOSE!
And so will you.
Reagan
Reagan
Bush
Clinton
Clinton
Bush
Bush
Clinton?
Fuck that!
Really ? And exactly what is the difference here relative to MSNBC/NBC having ALL REPIGLICANS not only act as the moderators for the Dems Debate, but also the 'post analysis' which was/ is also by ALL REPIGLICANS ? ARE NOT CORPORATE SLUTS/ ROBOTS WILLIAMS, RUSSERT, AND THE STUPID RAPID BUFFOON CALLED MATTHEWES ALL REPIGLICANS AND 'SUPPORTERS' OF BUSH/ GUILIANI, ETC, ETC,. ETC ? WHY IS IT THAT ALL THE DEMOCRATIC DEBATES HAVE BEEN HOSTED AND ANALYZED BY REPIGICANS ? NOT ONE HAS BEEN MODERATED OR HOSTED BY DEMOCRATES ....
As for the debate on CNN, I find that Wolf is a poor choice as an interviewer. He isn't the greatest anyway in my estimation and I watch him every day. As for the booing... I took that to be a sign from democrats in general that they are tired of hearing Democrats complain about each other rather than complaining about the policies of Republicans. You constantly hear Republicans all over the airwaves bashing Hillary in particular, and I would feel that maybe Democrats would like their candidates to hammer at republicans rather than one of their own. Don't tell me that at some point if Hillary becomes the final candidate that republicans won't be showing ads showing Obama saying that Clinton is just like Rudy or Mitt, so why not vote for the real republican instead?
Dirty politics is what is expected from Republicans as the norm, and perhaps the booing shows that feeding off your own is not what they want to hear but comparing themselves to republicans and republican policies is a wiser move.
And finally just when does too many debates become overkill? They are so onesided.....Rudy and Romney get all the questions on one side and on the Democratic side.. it is Edwards,Obama and Clinton. It is disgraceful to see intelligent people on that stage being ignored while others get the most coverage. If there are 8 people up there then they should all get equal time and Biden or anyone else should not have to Quip..Please don't make me talk.. after being ignored for ages.
Bob in Thailand @ 1:
what exactly is a vespiary?
We were all losers. This Q&A ( I refuse to call them debates) was set up as
an opportunity for Hillary to rebound from her recent poor showing in Philly.
CNN and Blitzer should be ashamed of themselves,it looked like amatur night.
Clinton, Obama and Edwards got the bulk of the questions and the bulk of the time.
Talk about time of posession. If I had been any of the other four candidates on the stage I would have gotten up and walked out in protest.
What a joke. Is it any wonder that our elections and the results have become
such a laughingstock? Pathetic beyond words.
I like Kucinich BTW. Even if he is a vegetarian. as he said:
How would it be to have a President who (voting wise) got it right the first time?
vespiary
n. wasps'nest. vespid, n. social wasp. vespine, a. pertaining to or like wasps.
getalife @ 19:
I am not going to be Billary's revenge tool. F*ck that.
(Ya see, I knew there was an element of that here....God Damnit! F*cking lemmings.)
Greg @ 34:
No, I guess you are not listening to her because she bashes w every single day. Her positions are opposing positions not gop positions. Yes, the system is corrupt and yes the media is corporate. She has the best chance to win ,working this system. This not going to change in this cycle.
I know I am probably wasting my time but thanks for the reply.
to be hnest with you,if it wasn't for tha stoopid joke Biden cracked about 7/11's and Pakistanis.He'd be doing a lot better.He has a lot of expierence in all aspects of governing.
Yes, she knows how to work the system. She should, she is part of it.
xoites defends Constitution @ 10:
which is why getalife needs to get a life. this is all programming, including all the 'cheering' in the audience. wolfie stating he won't give hillary preference, then planting inane questions and I believe they 'stacked' the audience.
we are supposed to accept their choices while they are setting up the voting machines.
damn.......it's not my day for spelling or typo's
*
Did The Lizard Queen win the latest debate? Sure... she played it smart like she always does, she packed the gallery with her brown-shirts, Wolfie Blister pitched her softballs, the questions from the gallery were planted. That my moonbat buddies is how the glacier wins every time...
So sure the lizard queen won... the rest of those boobs made the mistake of bringing a knife to a gunfight.
HILLARY: BRING BACK THE FURNITURE... http://www.youtube.com/29nNIo
*
CoIntelPro @ 41:
It's an Italian motor scooter shop...Duh.
mudshark @ 50:
Well it certainly is my day, i have made several.
Who won? The corporations, as always.
If Hillary as our candidate isn't enough to throw the election to the Republicans (I think it probably is), she's the closest they've got to a Republican. Win/not much of a loss. Bets covered.
getalife @ 46:
Look "GetALife" any of the leading Dems could beat any of the leading Repubs this time so stop with the "only Hillary can win" meme...That dog won't hunt.
BERT CONVY @ 51:
Please feel free to say whatever you want, just do me the favor of not agreeing with me.
BERT CONVY @ 51:
Charles Johnson was not in the debate.
The closest thing to a high point: when Dennis explained that he voted against the Patriot act "because I read it."
Moral Compass @ 2:
beautifully said.
ralphbon @ 58:
He said more in the 5 minutes they allowed him to talk than all the others combined.
###HUGELY OFF-TOPIC###
Okay, okay...sorry to digress...
Not that much in life doesn't confuse me, but on a particular point--->
In recent days, regarding the Bishops statement (am not Catholic, but I think I'm getting that right) suggesting that Catholics do not need to be single issue voters (ie, can vote for pro-choice candidate and still not be subjected to eternal fires of hell if other positions align with church teachings), both Cafferty and Mathews made statements that they regard this as a "win" for Rudy.
Uuuuuuhhhhhh....how so?!?!?! Ya' mean pro-war, pro-torture, pro-gitmo, otherwise complies with the church's teachings??? I'll just never "get" this Christianity thing...
ralphbon @ 58:
Yes but he blew the union question and the ufo thing made him look like a kook.
Funny, how Obama did the same thing as Clinton on the dl issue. He did nail the Iraq issue.
Biden did well especially on Pakistan.
Imagine Dennis Kucinich becoming the Decider and Chief and having all the vast Executive power (thanks to Bush and Cheney) that being The Prez. now has....Imagine Dennis Kucinich having the power of an active spying program without any oversight....
MargeAggedon @ 8:
I firmly believe you nailed it. I strongly believe that our manipulators want Billary so that they can pillory the Democrats with that old time hatred of the clintons and rouse their hateful base to vote for one of the mindless SOWGs they have lined up.
They have been making the case very strongly for rudy recently, which tells me they want a hatefest election, which will allow them again to leave any and all faults at the doorsteps of the 'democrat' candidate.
Peter @ 61:
yeah.....they are a little hypocritical.............to put it MILDLY.
Peter @ 61:
As an ex Catholic i am appalled at how far to the right the Catholic Church has swung. When i was growing up i can not recall (except on one occassion) any leader of the church telling people who they can vote for.
It is a loss for the Constitution and seperation of church and state, nothing more.
Bashing Bush means nothing to me when she votes to invade Iraq, and then denies it, defends it and refuses (Like Dubya) to admit it was a mistake, but instead tries to say that Rummy didn't do things right. Bullsh!t. Want more?
She voted twice for the Patriot Act, voted with Lieberman to invade Iran (OK...so it was only to declare their army a terrorist organization; Just the excuse to invade, not a mandate), wants to keep the burden of supporting Social Security resting on the poor and middle class, wants a Medicare Part D type healthcare system. And where was she on FISA? Bush's nominees for Supreme Court, etc?
She IS a Repug.
Peter @ 61:
Its a Ponzi scheme for the Lord..
Hillary calling Edwards a mudslinger is beautifully turned out mudslinging. She steadfastly avoids taking positions, he just articulates it at the debate, and she calls him a mudslinger! Lord help us, she is awful. Hate her and her womanizing cant-keep-it-in-his pants husband. I used to be staunch supporters of both of them.
AND I hate that Dodd and Richardson seemed to gang up on Edwards after Hillary called him a mudslinger. And some "pundits" called Edwards angry. YES, we are all angry about the way things are going. We NEED someone to get angry. Or we will end up with (lord help us) Guiliani...because hillary will not win the general.
getalife @ 62:
No, referring to the UFO question makes you look shallow.
Mr. Hoffman @ 63:
Gee...IMAGINE ANYBODY!!!!
More to the point, Kucinich is oppossed to it and would dismantle it.
I thought Obama won, not so much because he sounded sweeter, but because he stuck to his guns. Even Karl Rove said Obama "missed the opportunity" to attack Hillary... and you know what, THAT is one reason I like Obama... I know that winning an election may come down to these "opportunities to attack" but what do we want anyway? Another bush? Another attack robot who knows when to wink? When to smile at the camera to get the most votes? I like Obama's style... and he is NOT a patsy for popularity that garners votes... well... not so much as the others...
Johnny2Bad @ 55:
I am looking at the national security issue which lost the last two elections.
Her position on Iran is the strongest of the top tier.
getalife @ 73:
Really? As i recall Bush ran the first time on the theme of bringing integrity back to the White House.
I am totally amazed how everyone from the blogs were so acceptable of the MSNBC clear agenda to bring down HRC or Tim Russert's badgering HRC on every question, and throwing such softball questions to Obama, namely the Halloween, and Mitt Romney questions. No one seems to care that Chris Matthews in the after debate show tried to spin the debate for Obama, and Edwards, and go over the top with negatives of HRC's performance. They are so biased against her, it is just ridiculous. I am so sick of the hate from the left wing of the Democratic party toward HRC, and the concerted effort of the media to shape this election. The media tried it with Gore and succeeded, now it is the media, and the left wing of the democratic party that is trying to do the same to HRC. Hillary clearly dominated the debate, and won. Obama's and Edward's performance was far worse than Hillary's in the MSNBC debate. You can be for a candidate, but why must people from these blogs be so viciously against one candidate, Hillary Clinton. What has she done in her life that warrants such hate?
It's pretty obvious Hillary won. I'm not suggesting she was the most impressive on stage, but that's not what these "debates" are about. The candidate who gets the most positive press the following days is the winner, b/c that's exactly what these soundbyte wars are supposed to provide - pundit fodder. Across the board, no matter how much a perversion of the democratic process the debate was, no matter how rigged it was, Clinton's had all the positive press. Obama could have kept his momentum if he'd handled the driver's license question better. All he had to say was, "Wolf, what did I say in Philadelphia? B/c unlike the candidate to my right, my position hasn't changed in the past two weeks." Throw aside whether or not she's changed her position, or who's even right - it doesn't matter in these debates, it's about creating a narrative. So the candidates have two options, play along, or rise above it. Wolf deserved a smack down. These aren't reality tv contestants, they're candidates for President of the United States.
Hillary won because she gave a solid performance and because she started pushing back when others attacked her positions.
The audience wasn't "stacked". Polls show that by a large majority most Democrats in Nevada support Hillary.
CNN didn't come close to being as unfair as Russert was in the last debate. Russert was a disgrace.
Drew @ 76:
She won a rigged debate?
WOW! I am impressed!
xoites defends Constitution @ 70:
At least he was honest and answered but lets face it, most people do not believe in UFO's.
CNN is to Hillary as:
Fox is to Rudy!
getalife @ 79:
You are correct. They believe in "Fair and Ballanced" news. They believe they can't change anything. They believe Bush won in 2004. They believe reality tv shows show reality.
Oh, and they like the "X Files" too.