I think this is probably the first debate (and there have been twenty) where a candidate really got clobbered and clearly lost. The debate in Philadelphia was the only other debate where I thought a candidate did poorly, but that was only Hillary’s tortured answers on the driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants question. Tonight, she hurt herself repeatedly from the first question to the last. I actually expect her to lose support as a result of her performance tonight, and I rarely think that about debates.
About The Author

BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
I have been questioning my own bias on this… but I think you’re right. I can’t think of one time where Obama inflicted harm upon himself, but she did it repeatedly.
I agree though with Rachel Maddow. This debate did not excite. It may have done more help for the republicans than the democrats. I blame Tim Russert.
Even Pat Buchanan, who has consistently defended Hillary and knocked Obama after every debate, conceded this one probably went to Obama.
Maybe that’s how Obama got David Duke’s endorsement. When these characters who have histories in intelligence start endorsing a candidate it’s time to double your security.
Stephanie Tubbs Jones: Come on, girlfriend, let’s do this???
Is she serious? OMG. The sooner she drops out, the sooner I can look forward to not hearing her. Ugh.
I don’t see this as very different than the debate-before-last. There were a few minor differences, but like I said earlier, I don’t see any dynamic changes.
Wait…calling Timmy out on his Iraq fantasy was good. Other than that, all of Clinton’s answers were either lies, petty, peevish or pointless.
I haven’t been watching the post-debate spin that closely. Has ANYONE come out and said that Hillary “won” or “did well” in this debate who actually appeared to believe their own spin?
Not anyone not directly connected with her campaign.
Reading around the tubes it appears that the major point of agreement on all blogs is that Hillary had a bizarre moment when she complained she always had to go first and made references to the SNL sketch and this was not a good moment for her.
So I predict that’s will be what’s on teevee a lot tomorrow.
MSNBC has been talking a lot about Hillary’s comment that there will be a big change in the way things operate in Washington if there is a woman in the presidency.
What kind of changes? Did she say?
nope, just sort of let it float out there during closing remarks
ah … hope.
Obama looked at her and almost interjected, in my opinion, when she voiced that “hope.” But he wisely held his tongue.
That’s it. She’s smart, but he comes off as wise, and that’s a much rarer quality.
I’m really tired of that bullshit. Ditto for the idea that things will change if a black man is president. Aside from being openly sexist and/or racist, it simply isn’t borne out by history. There have been female heads of state before, and there have been black heads of state before, and some of them have been heads of major states. Some were effective leaders, and most were not — just like governments run by white men. None of them were notably more humane or compassionate than contemporary male-run governments.
The election of a woman or a racial minority to the office of president is a symptom of a change for the better in the electorate, not the cause of it. Not many racists or sexists are going to change their views with Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama as president. They’re bigots in the first place because their minds are closed to reality. The bigots are much more likely to use the election of a woman or a minority to argue that there is no sexism or racism anymore, a la Dinesh d’Souza.
By no means am I saying it would be a bad thing for there to be presidents who are not white men. But such an election is the result of social change, not the cause of it. To suggest otherwise, as Hillary Clinton as done, and as supporters of both Clinton and Obama have suggested, is to fall into the same kind of bigoted delusion that erected barriers to women and minorities in the first place.
The election of a female or black president would be a manifestation of change, not a harbinger of change to come. It’s something worthy of celebration but it’s not a reason in and of itself to cast one’s vote one way or another.
Yeah. That was totally unprofessional… like a 9-year old brat who’s used to always getting things her way.
When I saw Obama in Dallas last week, he had a line… something close to “I’m not running for President out of a sense of entitlement.” I hadn’t heard that from him before, but I immediately understood at whom it was directed. It’s a strong talking point for him should the Clintonistas keep their heel-biting going all the way to Pennsylvania. Clearly there is an overriding sense of entitlement among the Clinton camp, and Hillary’s behavior lately (not just tonight) confirms it.
Not as loud as the Xerox line boos, but there were boos when she said that line. It was so sad really. The entire debate, she didn’t do herself any favors and Obama handled most of the questions with dignity. She really did come off as desperate.
They’re already talking about it. Nearly every commentator on MSNBC had something to say re that. They all thought that was silly. And of course, it really was.
She was as tired as I’ve ever seen her. Angry, off her game, not pleasant. She recovered about halfway through, but Obama got more charismatic about halfway through, so there was no catching him.
This goes to the fact that few people actually watch SNL. Most people didn’t know what the hell she was referring to so it came out sounding bizarre. Her timing was terrible, and it’s not like she really is asked the first question all the time. It was another canned line she had to use and she used it too soon.
MSNBC said out of 90,000 – 70% thought Obama won the debate. Caveat – Younger people text message more.
Commenters over at Taylor’s place say that the Obamabots have been piling on to scew the vote at MSNBC….
That could be true, but not by much. Do they honestly think “their girl” did even relatively well? Perhaps they are the delusional ones.
I hope you took a bath in clorox after going over to Taylor’s cesspool?
LOL
Probably a good suggestion, was feeling a little grungie around the edges of the screen.
Commenters there are are relieved that it was so obvious Hillary won the day and Taylor chimed in that the HRC site was getting alot of $ right after debate closed.
well, I will avoid that term, but she is not a person who has demonstrated moral virtue during this period.
Yes, be a partisan, but by god be fair once in a while.
Maryb suggested I stay away from TalkLeft for the duration. At least I had a history there. I have no excuse to go over to Taylor Marsh except to look at the picture of her appearing to laugh heartily.
Debate is about to be rerun on the West Coast.
We have seen most of the debates (aargh!), and been heartened to watch Obama grow and mature in how he handles himself, his self assurance, and the quality of his answers. The primary process may have been agony for most of us, but it has benefited him a lot. He has been seasoned, but not stewed into blandness.
Some complained of his expression when not answering questions. This is always where people get into trouble (remember Al Gore and the sigh that lost him Debate II).
I saw him once or twice, and he looked pretty calm. He is a poker player, if I recall correctly. Poker teaches you to still your expression, and reveal nothing. That’s probably the best training for a debate.
In most of these debates he’s communicated his disdain for the whole thing. Understandable, but as you say, not good.
Hillary accused Barack, in one way or another, of anti-semitism. Is that the business where she wanted him to abjure the support of Farrakhan?
What a scummy little request!! No one can forbid persons from supporting them, even persons who are controversial.
Must have been. The old “When did you stop beating your Farrakhan?” game.
Living in a Jewish community, I hear a lot of support for Clinton. But my very well-read neighbors need to pay attention to both Russert’s question and Obama’s answer. (I’m in the minority with Russert. I think that he lays the subrosa issues on the table so that the candidate can reject/discredit them.)
Obama had the nerve to stand in front of a black audience on MLK day and say that prejudice against anyone–black, Jewish, gay, or any other minority–was wrong. He’s the first who’s done that. He also had the nerve to “speak truth” last night about how grateful blacks should be for Jewish support during the Civil Rights years, and that he had been actively working to repair areas where the “relationship had frayed.” Not just talking, working! This is something he would have “on the pavement” background on it.
A Clinton (and that moron Russert) can imply that a black man is an anti-semite (after he has denounced an anti-semite), to his face, and no one blinks. If BHO implied that HRC was a racist, to her face, in similar circumstances the world would be on fire.
He’d be a horrible “race-baiter”.
So very true.
This kind of ugly racist propaganda has really been racheted up in the last few days. I think that the oligarchy is starting to get nervous. I’ll be interested to see how this affects the voters. The most stupid, baseless lies and ugly attacks are the ones that score. Obama has been the best Democratic Presidential candidate to handle these attacks, but I’m not sure if the best is good enough against the mighty Wurlitzer.
Isn’t it just typical that the issue of anti-semitism was raised, yet not a word about the I/P situation. One of these two, hopefully, will be President in less than a year, facing a sisyphean task of mending relations with a large part of the Islamic world. The political naiveté and/or cowardice of both our elected officials and large groups of the press leaves me highly skeptical that any significant steps in that direction will be taken. The rest of the world realizes the crucial significance of that conflict, yet we merrily keep pretending there’s no connection. I have marginally higher expectations for Obama, but neither one has had the courage to address this 800 lb gorilla.
I thought Obama was too darned polite. He choose not to look bad stomping on the crazy lady. I guess that was the right decision but I would have been more gratified if he’d been more forceful. He did get in a dig about not “whining” about campaign tactics.
Clinton just went on and on and on. It was like she had a store of set speeches she intended to give and didn’t always connect them to the question provided.
Hillary has been getting botox shots! She looked so smooth and glowing. Did she arrange to have a soft spot shining only on her?
When she jumped in on the end of the “Jewish” questioning and tried to turn it into a criticism of Obama, she looked incredibly petty. Obama reminded everyone in the viewing audience about parsing the meaning of “is.” That was a clever dismissal.
I was kinda horrified to learn the Hillary thinks mocking hope is fun.
Hillary’s worse moment was “being too busy” to pull out her tax records. I can produce my tax records in under five minutes and I don’t have staff. I’m sure a lot of people had the same thought.
Finally, how come I never before noticed that Obama is left-handed? Ya know, us lefties are always in our right minds.