Live Blogging the Democratic Presidential Debate

(02/26/2008)

8:56

Hey everyone, and welcome to tonight's Democratic debate liveblog. I'm your host, Andrew Romano, a.k.a. Stumper, a.k.a. the hamster who's going to running on this particular wheel for the next hour and half. In case you haven't been counting, this is debate number 20--yes, 20--for the Donkey party, although it's only the third sans "distracting" second-tier candidates for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. (Hey, at least they never had to deal with Alan Keyes.) What am I watching for tonight? To tell you the truth, I have no idea. Over the past few days, Clinton has pursued what her advisors call a "kitchen-sink" strategy to gain ground on Obama--in the debate, it was comity; since then, she's called him George Bush and George McGovern, mocked his messianic tendencies, challenged him to "meet her in Ohio" and chastised him the words "shame on you, Barack Obama." Her supporters have done everything from railing against sexist media coverage to suggesting that he's a Somali native. So let's be honest. Unless Obama makes a huge mistake, this debate probably isn't going to change the dynamic of the race. I'll be watching mainly out of curiosity. Which Hillary Clinton will show up? And how will Obama react?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 8:56

8:58

Barack Obama shakes hands with Tim Russert! He so gracious! Just like JFK! (Sorry, I'm imitating "the media" there.)

Tuesday February 26, 2008 8:58

8:59

Chuck Todd just said "a boring debate would be good for Obama." Hmm. Anyone agree? I'm not sure that boring is best way to go when you have a chance to propel yourself to the nomination with a double win in Texas and Ohio. I mean, he's losing in the latter and only tied in the former.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 8:59

9:00

[Comment From LiamLiam: ]

It's true he's trailing in Ohio, but he's been trending up. If it's relatively "boring," is there any reason that trend wouldn't continue?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:00 Liam

9:00

[Comment From Bryan KBryan K: ]

Well I think he's probably gonna play it safe

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:00 Bryan K

9:02

Sorry, Liam -- think my MSM bias showed there. I want drama, excitement, fireworks. In all seriousness, I suppose that running out the clock is a smart strategy. But I'm still not counting Clinton out in Texas and Ohio, as some pundits seem to be doing--and if she wins there, then this race goes on a lot longer, whether or not she wins in the end. So Obama has an interest in putting this away.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:02

9:02

[Comment From EGD-VEGD-V: ]

I believe this is Obama's opportunity to remain steady and sure footed in the face of how ever HRC chooses to portray herself.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:02 EGD-V

9:02

Absolutely. Steady and surefooted is a good way to put it.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:02

9:03

[Comment From Mari AnnMari Ann: ]

If HRC shows her "Sister Hillary" side again, the fireworks will begin. She can sound like an angry teacher in front of children.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:03 Mari Ann

9:04

[Comment From BryanBryan: ]

It should be interesting to see if Russert asks a "gotcha" question to Obama tonight. I heard Chris Matthews boasting about how tough the debate was going to be.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:04 Bryan

9:04

Brian Williams goes to the video vault, showing Clinton's gracious closing statement, then juxtaposing it with her somewhat intense "Shame on you" moment. It almost made me laugh. She admits that it's a contested campaign. There's no way she's reprising the confrontational tone of the "shame" moment tonight. It just won't play on this stage.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:04

9:05

[Comment From JoshJosh: ]

Why did MSNBC purposely make her look bad by opening with those two clips back to back?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:05 Josh

9:05

She's certainly on the hotter seat, Josh.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:05

9:05

[Comment From TylerTyler: ]

Any takers on the over-under total of the phrase 'woman/lady/mother grabbed my arm?' I'm settled on 6 utterances of it.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:05 Tyler

9:06

[Comment From Mari AnnMari Ann: ]

If HRC shows her "Sister Hillary" side again, the fireworks will begin. She can sound like an angry teacher in front of children.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:06 Mari Ann

9:06

It's a smart move on Hillary's part, I think, to start with health care. She gets to criticize Obama for his misleading health care mailer and emphasize her passion for the quintessential kitchen table issue--especially seeing as it's her major policy difference with Obama.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:06

9:08

Williams goes there, asking about the "dressed Obama" photo and whether she can deny that it came from her campaign. She doesn't--but frankly, I think her explanation (that she can't know for sure and will fire the party responsible if she does find out) is reasonable. Obama dismisses it quickly in his response, saying he takes Hillary at his word. Classy all around--at least at this level. Surrogates might be a different story, on both sides.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:08

9:08

Anybody hearing anything new in the health care back-and-forth?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:08

9:09

[Comment From Lisa TLisa T: ]

I for one do not like the idea that I have to have my wages garnished for health care. I am interested to see how the candidates are going to address how universal health care is going to affect health care professionals.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:09 Lisa T

9:09

[Comment From LiamLiam: ]

Not really, but I think that might tend to favor Obama, if only because it's not a "game changer."

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:09 Liam

9:10

[Comment From BryanBryan: ]

This sounds like every other debate we've heard. At least it seems to be starting off that way.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:10 Bryan

9:10

[Comment From MarilynMarilyn: ]

What are the ramifications if one elects not to endorse the mandated health care system? are there any fines? if so, how much?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:10 Marilyn

9:11

[Comment From Lisa TLisa T: ]

As a health care professional who works in a nursing home, I would like both candidates to expand on how Medicare will be affected by their health care programs.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:11 Lisa T

9:12

[Comment From AlexAlex: ]

If it's anything like the one here in MA then YES. If you don't get health insurance then you get "fined."

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:12 Alex

9:12

It's interesting that Clinton keeps saying that Obama doesn't believe in universal health care. I suppose that's a somewhat valid point. Anyone can "obtain" health care if they want it under Obama's plan, but because it's not mandated, is there any way that it can be truly universal?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:12

9:14

[Comment From BryanBryan: ]

I think Obama has struck a chord here on how Hillary plans to enforce the mandate.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:14 Bryan

9:14

[Comment From Mike LMike L: ]

Wouldn't you prefer to choose to buy the insurance or not? Just making sure that it is available and affordable would be a HUGE improvement over the current system.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:14 Mike L

9:15

[Comment From LeeLee: ]

Can't you also refuse to pick up health care even if it's mandated? You just get basically punished for it?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:15 Lee

9:16

Clinton's probably can't be "universal" either--people are going to refuse to buy it, despite the mandate. (Think car insurance.) That said, experts say a similar number would go uninsured under both plans--so I'm of the mind that this is a political issue. I.e., which plan is the most politically feasible? Obama's seems designed to be more palatable to Republicans, while Clinton's is more idealistic. Either one would be a huge improvement over the current system.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:16

9:17

[Comment From DanielleDanielle: ]

How will Obama enforce his mandated Healthcare for Kids?? Fines, garnished pay?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:17 Danielle

9:17

I'm going to plead total ignorance here--how can any of us really know which plan would makes health care more affordable? Is there any way to really know that?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:17

9:17

[Comment From AngelaAngela: ]

Apparently we're relying on the oft-cited "experts" on that one.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:17 Angela

9:18

Okay, this is by far the WONKIEST debate to date. Williams started out searching for fireworks. He got 16 minutes of health care policy instead.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:18

9:18

(Which, by the way, is a good thing.)

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:18

9:18

[Comment From RachelRachel: ]

There is no way to know. But at least one of them is saying, hey, we're going to give it our best shot to at least try and achieve Universal Health Care. If Japan, England, and other developed countries can do that, why aren't we capable of this?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:18 Rachel

9:19

[Comment From TylerTyler: ]

I think they're just going to base it on the total number of 'experts' that support whichever idea they propose. Clinton going for the younger crowd with that dig is interesting though.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:19 Tyler

9:19

[Comment From LiamLiam: ]

Is she seriously hitting him on that SNL skit?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:19 Liam

9:19

[Comment From AngelaAngela: ]

Is it true Clinton was against NAFTA from the very beginning, as she says?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:19 Angela

9:20

WHOA. Clinton just got fired up. Apparently, she's a little miffed that she keeps getting the first question in all of these debates. Is this really evidence of media bias, as Clinton suggests by citing this weekend's SNL sketch? "Maybe Sen. Obama would like a pillow."

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:20

9:20

[Comment From MarilynMarilyn: ]

Did you hear the boos?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:20 Marilyn

9:20

[Comment From JamiJami: ]

She needs to stop crying about SNL! She is trying every tactic she can to get votes.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:20 Jami

9:21

[Comment From R. GardnerR. Gardner: ]

I think the SNL skit reference was a little catty. She undid a lot of the forceful asserting that she had done in the health care portion by letting that comment slip. I'm glad Obama isn't going to touch it.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:21 R. Gardner

9:21

[Comment From LiamLiam: ]

Even if she was against it (and I'm not sure if she was or not), it's hard to take credit for Pres. Clinton's accomplishments without answering for whatever his perceived failures as well.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:21 Liam

9:21

Personally, I'm not a fan of candidates complaining about their treatment by the media. Not that Clinton doesn't have a valid point; it just doesn't strike me as good politics. While the true believers might get fired up, it surely strikes undecideds as more than a little whiny. Huckabee used to do this all the time--remember the Reagan library debate?--and I think it was as unseemly then as it is now.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:21

9:21

[Comment From WalterWalter: ]

Maybe she has the first questions because she is being given an opportunity to say what's on her mind.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:21 Walter

9:22

Excellent point, Liam. Clinton is in a difficult position on NAFTA because she's made such a point of taking credit for the good times we had in the 1990s. In all fairness, though, she was reportedly one of the most skeptical voices in the White House at the time.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:22

9:24

[Comment From john Allenjohn Allen: ]

I think her reaction to the getting the questions first will hurt her perceptually.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:24 john Allen

9:24

I wonder if Obama's hard-line against NAFTA represents mere political manuevering or an actual retreat from economic consensus. Would he govern as a protectionist, or is he just trying to win over working class voters in Ohio?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:24

9:25

[Comment From MarilynMarilyn: ]

Good, some factual statements by the moderator. She admits her initial support and now opposes it.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:25 Marilyn

9:25

[Comment From R. GardnerR. Gardner: ]

Russert is such an hold hand at this- he keeps her on topic a lot better than Williams does. Props to him.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:25 R. Gardner

9:26

[Comment From RachelRachel: ]

But Walter, doesn't it also give OBama the opportunity to have the last word if she gets all the questions first?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:26 Rachel

9:26

[Comment From Nick ANick A: ]

I'm curious how all of the NAFTA bashing will play out in Texas where people generally like it

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:26 Nick A

9:26

Russert attacks, trotting out the usual quotes that show Clinton's complex support for NAFTA--and keeping Clinton from attacking Obama. Love it. Russert's like, don't worry, Hillary. I'll get to him in a second.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:26

9:27

[Comment From AngelaAngela: ]

Clinton admits her initial support of NAFTA, but less than ten minutes ago she said she'd been against it from the very beginning?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:27 Angela

9:28

[Comment From TylerTyler: ]

Once again, we have the exact same potential nominee on this question.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:28 Tyler

9:28

[Comment From GuestGuest: ]

Texas does not like NAFTA. Just ask the truckers

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:28 Guest

9:29

There's Obama playing rope-a-dope, agreeing with Clinton that the president should use the threat of pulling out of NAFTA as leverage to force renegotiation. This is exactly what Obama did the entire debate last Thursday--keep Clinton close so she can't land body blows. To be honest, the candidates aren't far apart on NAFTA at all, despite the rhetoric. They'd do the exact same thing as president. Frankly, I think voters are tired of these who said what when arguments. They want to know what these people will do next.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:29

9:31

[Comment From JanJan: ]

Why does Tim go "after" Hillary but give Obama a pass.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:31 Jan

9:31

[Comment From annalynannalyn: ]

I wonder if Obama's overly agreeable stance will come across as soft on details, though... Basically seconding everything HRC could backfire, yes?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:31 annalyn

9:31

Half in hour in, I think the tone of this debate is doing Obama a lot of favors. One of the most persistent criticisms of his campaign is that it's all style, no substance--so an in-depth, substantive discussion like this gives voters a chance to see the wonky side of him that just isn't on display at those 20,000-person stadium rallies.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:31

9:32

[Comment From john Allenjohn Allen: ]

I don't think it is ropadope at all. questions are often more complex and deserve comlete answers. Our culture of wanting things intellectually black or white makes us vulnerable to a kind of simpleism. We have to think our way through. We need complete answers.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:32 john Allen

9:32

[Comment From AlexAlex: ]

Doesn't a debate usually have two different points of view? So far I haven't heard much about how they differ, other than whether universal health care is mandatory.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:32 Alex

9:32

Hey annalyn--he's not seconding everything. But he is making sure to note where they agree. If voters can't decide based on policy differences, they're going to decide based on personality. And so far, that's worked in Obama's favor.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:32

9:33

Whether you agree that they should decide that way or not.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:33

9:33

[Comment From TakakoTakako: ]

"I failed because the other party got elected, it's all their fault" is a pretty weak answer. What's she going to say if the republicans win back Congress? We can't make more jobs because you didn't elect enough democrats?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:33 Takako

9:33

[Comment From R. GardnerR. Gardner: ]

I think the call for more substances in these debates is a bit misplaced. These canidates are basically the same- their difference *is* their style of management and their approaches of implementing their changes. That what we should be focusing on.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:33 R. Gardner

9:33

I actually agree, R. Gardner.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:33

9:34

[Comment From barbbarb: ]

Wish we could have separate debates for each of the important issues-like health care, foreign policy, etc.-where each candidate could specifically explain their positions and plans. All we hear is

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:34 barb

9:35

Readers always tell me to stick to the issues. But at this point, we largely know where the candidates stand--and trust me, both are very specific and substantive when it comes to policy. Position papers from six months ago simply aren't news, and that's why the media so often focuses on the horserace.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:35

9:35

That said, not everyone is a political junkie, so not everyone knows the specifics. I think this debate has been an excellent introduction to where each candidate stands, and that will be helpful to most of the voters in Ohio and Texas.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:35

9:37

[Comment From john Allenjohn Allen: ]

I would agree. Both are attemping to give their bona fides. This is foundational for the rest of the debate tonight.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:37 john Allen

9:37

Obama again accuses McCain of wanting to fight a 100 year war. I think this is going to be the "I voted for it before I voted against" of this election--the emblematic quote that you hear again and again. In 2004, the quote supported the stereotype of Kerry as a flip-flopper. This time, the Dems will turn the tables and try to pain McCain as a bloodthirsty warmonger. Will it work?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:37

9:37

*paint*

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:37

9:38

[Comment From MarilynMarilyn: ]

Hillary eloquently points out the differences in experience between her and Obama. Wish she would have said this before.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:38 Marilyn

9:39

[Comment From LiamLiam: ]

Her response to the "prepared to be C-in-C" seems odd to me. Voting to go into Iraq at the beginning is different from voting to fund the troops once they are already in.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:39 Liam

9:39

Good to see Clinton question the "courage" of Obama 2002 Iraq speech. He didn't have to cast a vote at the time, like she did--so it's sort of an apples to oranges comparison. Then again, she probably hasn't brought this up as much as she would have because it calls attention to one of her greatest weaknesses--the war vote.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:39

9:40

[Comment From LeeLee: ]

She likes to claim alot of experience but refuses to focus on alot of her mistakes made while gaining said experience.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:40 Lee

9:40

[Comment From WalterWalter: ]

looks like the response is measured and love the bus in the ditch....

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:40 Walter

9:40

Now that the issue has cooled down a little, she probably feels like it's a litter safer to go there. Not to mention the fact that it's "anything goes" time...

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:40

9:40

[Comment From YolandaYolanda: ]

Good analogy..."driving the bus into the ditch"

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:40 Yolanda

9:40

Absolutely. That Obama has a way with words, doesn't he?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:40

9:41

[Comment From RachelRachel: ]

But Lee, Obama has had such a limited amount of time to make mistakes. It seems like apples to oranges again.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:41 Rachel

9:42

Obama never said he would bomb Pakistan--and Clinton was wrong to say that he would. What he did say, as he pointed out, was that he would go after terrorists there if he had actionable intelligence. Which seems reasonable. Although McCain is already hammering him on it. Might be the one issue where Obama out-hawks Mac.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:42

9:42

[Comment From AngelaAngela: ]

Clinton did manage to turn the Iraq war vote into a plus on the experience front, though... was she hoping to draw attention away from the actual vote to the fact that she was there to cast it?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:42 Angela

9:42

[Comment From KateKate: ]

Why has no one mentioned Bill's Clinton's lack of foreign policy experience when elected President an question Obama?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:42 Kate

9:43

Politico blogger Ben Smith makes a great point:

I sometimes find the Clinton campaign's complaints about the media hard to take, but that was a bit of an SNL re-enactment.

Russert just grilled Clinton, hard, on Nafta, and on her unfilled pledge to bring jobs to Upstate New York.

Williams' question to Obama on experience: "How were her comments about you unfair?"

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:43

9:44

Didn't Russert say he was going to go after Obama next? What happened?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:44

9:45

[Comment From ChazChaz: ]

I like Russert's agressive questioning. Candidates are having to get serious about the issues.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:45 Chaz

9:45

[Comment From RachelRachel: ]

I see another SNL skit in the future. This is rediculous. Once again, the moderators are acting like schoolgirls over a rock star.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:45 Rachel

9:45

[Comment From R. GardnerR. Gardner: ]

Obama didn't say anything really objectionable, simply that Hilary was right(ish) and underscored how important the issue was. He should have made him be more specific, but since he was praising Hilary at that point, he let it go.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:45 R. Gardner

9:45

Excellent question from Russert--if Iraq descends into chaos, do you reserve the right to go back in and establish order. My sense is that both candidates, despite their withdrawal rhetoric, are essentially realists on the mess in Mesopotamia. They know that we can afford to let the region descend into disorder, and I imagine they'd do what's necessary to prevent that once in the White House.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:45

9:46

[Comment From JaminJamin: ]

I know alot of people that have been deployed to Iraq and my brother-in-law is there now. I wonder if Hillary feels her vote was a bad decision or would she change it if she could do it over?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:46 Jamin

9:46

Also, did Clinton say that we'd need a security force to stay there for "50 or 100 years, like Bush and McCain say"? Or is the liveblog hamster wheel making me dizzy?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:46

9:47

[Comment From amy aamy a: ]

there was that one unfair question from Williams, yes, but save that, they are both being asked the same questions.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:47 amy a

9:47

[Comment From TakakoTakako: ]

You're dizzy. She didn't say anything like that, but they both dodged the question about going back to Iraq if necessary

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:47 Takako

9:47

[Comment From AngelaAngela: ]

Jamin, I don't believe Clinton has yet said that her war vote was a mistake.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:47 Angela

9:47

[Comment From MarilynMarilyn: ]

I think they both need to get realistic. One can't just go and pull out the troops instantly, the country will crumble similar to the game of Jenga.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:47 Marilyn

9:48

[Comment From john Allenjohn Allen: ]

On Jamins comment, I think this is a weakness of Hillarys. the inability to admit when she is wrong. She will never admit that as she still has not about her war vote.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:48 john Allen

9:48

[Comment From JoshuaJoshua: ]

The tone of this debate does favor Obama, no zingers, no applause, just straight up wonkitude, and she's not really outclassing him to the degree that she should be considering her "solutions over speech" narrative

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:48 Joshua

9:48

Obama says he's willing to reingage in Iraq if it descends into chaos: "I always reserve the right that we are looking out for American interests. If al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, we'd have to act in a way that secures America at home and abroad." Clinton avoided making the same admission. Meaning that he looks a little more honest and a little less political on this issue.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:48

9:49

Damn, Brian Williams--got a little touchy with Clinton there before the commercial.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:49

9:49

Thanks Takako for setting me straight. I thought I heard wrong.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:49

9:50

[Comment From MatthewMatthew: ]

John McCain will hammer them on that very question they were both just asked. That is a question they wont be able to dodge in the general, because McCains whole argument is that if we leave Iraq, it will descend into chaos, Dissapointed both dodged teh question

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:50 Matthew

9:50

[Comment From R. GardnerR. Gardner: ]

At more risk to himself- you might see McCain bring that line of discussion up more than once come the general election.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:50 R. Gardner

9:51

Joshua is absolutely right. If Clinton wants to claim that she offers solutions, not just speeches, then she's setting the bar pretty high for herself--she needs to show that she can outwonk Obama every chance she gets. I don't get the sense that that's happening tonight, so it's hard to see how he doesn't neutralize her advantage on the "specifics" front.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:51

9:52

Matthew and R. Gardner--spot on. That's exactly why I thought it was such a great question. It forces them to acknowledge reality, despite the political inconvenience. Do you guys agree that Obama came off as (slightly) more straightforward?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:52

9:52

[Comment From Nick ANick A: ]

Obama has really found his inner Wonk! He is going toe-to-toe with Clinton on her very strength

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:52 Nick A

9:52

Although to be fair to Clinton, it seems like she wanted to get in on the discussion before Williams cut her off.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:52

9:52

[Comment From AliciaAlicia: ]

Yes, Hillary seems strained.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:52 Alicia

9:52

[Comment From T. TehanT. Tehan: ]

It seems to me the whole concept of specifics in a primary campaign before one actually has to make the hard decisions is a red herring.......after all, how many of the "specifics" of even successful candidates actually get acted upon in an unfettered way once they take office?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:52 T. Tehan

9:53

[Comment From MattMatt: ]

I think that Clinton is coming across as domineering rather than tough, I doubt that is what she is trying for

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:53 Matt

9:53

Not many.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:53

9:53

Obama gets my first LOL of the night, responding to Clinton's riff on Obama's messianism with two simple words: "Sounds good."

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:53

9:54

[Comment From MatthewMatthew: ]

It was a much better answer then Hillary delivered, however, Obama still skirted around the issue. Im telling you in the General, you are going to hear that question non-stop and unless either can bring together a coherent, SPECIFIC plan about withdraw, they could both be in danger

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:54 Matthew

9:56

[Comment From AliciaAlicia: ]

Hillary is tired and still fighting. Obama has the lead, but as she is always right, so Obama CANNOT be elected. LOL

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:56 Alicia

9:56

[Comment From ClaudineClaudine: ]

Obama just seems is coming off more cool headed and calm. Clinton seems more uptight and cross and looking for a fight

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:56 Claudine

9:57

[Comment From JasonJason: ]

Is it just me or does Obama seem to have he "I feel you pain" thing down pat. Ironic.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:57 Jason

9:57

[Comment From AngelaAngela: ]

"I'm not interested in talk. I'm not interested in speeches." Obama seems to be trying to disarm Clinton's solutions vs. speeches argument against him. How well is it going to work?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:57 Angela

9:57

Also credits her for here "humor" on the subject. This is going to sound crazy, but I think one of Obama's major selling points is his social intelligence. A profile of George Clooney I read recently said that he's successful because he's always aware of what other people think of him, and reacts accordingly. He calibrates himself to the situation at hand. An answer like this is a perfect example of that skill--he knows that it's the most gracious response, and recognizes the grain of truth in what Clinton was saying. Clinton sometimes unaware of how she's coming across. Is this fair? Or too reductive?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:57

9:58

*her*

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:58

9:59

"I'm not interested in talk. I'm not interested in speeches." Good line, yes--but Obama's also famous for saying that "words matter." It's one of the central arguments of his campaign--that he'll be able to establish a coaltion across party lines because of how he addresses problems. So this seems like a slight contradiction.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:59

9:59

By addresses, I mean "frames with language"--and uses words to inspire

Tuesday February 26, 2008 9:59

10:00

[Comment From T. HeywardT. Heyward: ]

Fair. Case in point- at the start of the debate, it seemed that everyone in the room wanted to move past the health care question. She refused to let it go.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:00 T. Heyward

10:00

[Comment From LiamLiam: ]

I think he's more at ease with it, althought I think Clinton does something of a bad rap. Coming up through ranks as a democrat in Arkansas in the 70s and 80s forced her and Bill to become a bit more "survivalist" for lack of a better term in her outlook, so she's become more instinctively defensive.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:00 Liam

10:00

[Comment From Nick ANick A: ]

I think HRC is aware of how shes coming across but has gotten in a habit of not caring from her days as the inevitable nominee.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:00 Nick A

10:01

[Comment From MarilynMarilyn: ]

I think Obama has done a good job at disarming Clinton's speeches versus solutions. Just look at the way Obama's tone and language resonates with people. It's just something he's good at and Clinton is not.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:01 Marilyn

10:02

[Comment From RachelRachel: ]

Or maybe she is just tired of defending herself from attacks, while Obama sails through to the nomination without anyone attacking him except his opponent.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:02 Rachel

10:02

[Comment From TonyaTonya: ]

A classic way to defeat her "speeches vs solutions." You have to actually get people to buy into your solutions.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:02 Tonya

10:03

I agree, Marilyn. I always thought it was a false distinction. The far more important issue is how they will lead. Would Clinton's White House years help her pull the levers of power in Washington and actually get things done? Or would Obama better be able to rally people around his ideas?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:03

10:04

[Comment From MarkMark: ]

I think HRC ties in Washington would be a detriment to the country . . . too many political promises. ..

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:04 Mark

10:04

[Comment From IliasIlias: ]

Obama has gotten away with so much so far. To date he always tries to get away from being specific. case in point the public financing issue.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:04 Ilias

10:05

Another good question from Russert for Obama. Obama has definitely been sketchy on the public financing issue, seeking a way to wiggle out of his promise that he'd take public money in the general election if he were to face McCain. Obama dances around a little bit, then Russert asks for a straight answer--and he still won't commit. It's too bad, because we need to get private money out of politics (IMHO)

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:05

10:05

[Comment From JudithJudith: ]

I voted for Bill Clinton twice and worked for him in Maryland. But - - I am just tired of the Clintons. I am 55 years old and want someone young and fresh. All I can see from Hillary is the constant fighting we saw in the 90s.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:05 Judith

10:06

[Comment From john Allenjohn Allen: ]

Tim Russert just asked a direct and powerful question. She does not have a good answer for him.This is what people call "Clintonesque".

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:06 john Allen

10:06

I understand that hundreds of thousands of people are contributing to campaigns--especially with small donors on the internet. But the sooner that money doesn't matter, the better. Do you guys agree? Obama could really take leadership on this issue, but it's clear that he doesn't want to give up his massive fundraising advantage. It's a disappointment.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:06

10:07

[Comment From LeeLee: ]

What he actually said was that he would aggresively pursue public financing with the republican candidate if he became his party's candidate. He never actually promised to take it. Hair splitting, but perhaps an important distinction?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:07 Lee

10:07

[Comment From RachelRachel: ]

Why would Obama commit to public financing when he is so succesful with private money?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:07 Rachel

10:07

[Comment From SarahSarah: ]

HRC: "I've been as open as I can be" - wouldn't that entail releasing her tax returns?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:07 Sarah

10:07

[Comment From JasonJason: ]

I disagree on the public financing question. Why would we want a person who would be baited into making a promise (which he has not) when the other side is not committed as well. It may sound like a tap dance, but it is a smart move.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:07 Jason

10:07

[Comment From BozBoz: ]

The public financing issue WAS covered if FULLY vetted, said from the START, would make THE determination and negotiate the best option, SAID would negptiate details with the GOP nominee. Hillary claims 20 years of records avaialble...BUT NOT ALL RECORDS AVAIL..and was allowed to fly on with assertion !!!

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:07 Boz

10:07

[Comment From LeeLee: ]

It's especially strange since all the money he would otherwise raise would just go to the DNC instead, and it would still benefit him wouldn't it?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:07 Lee

10:08

[Comment From TylerTyler: ]

Pulling money from the campaigns would only encourage politicians to find money elsewhere. I don't really know if I'd support it.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:08 Tyler

10:09

It is a smart move. Absolutely. Not arguing with that. I guess I just hope that there's a way to level the playing field so that money won't matter as much. Maybe that's pie in the sky. No more advocacy from me!

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:09

10:09

[Comment From smithsmith: ]

Love the aggressive style from Russert on Farrakhan. We need agressive press like this again.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:09 smith

10:11

[Comment From MattMatt: ]

Why can't Obama denounce Farrakhan's endorsement other than he chooses not to?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:11 Matt

10:11

[Comment From ClaudineClaudine: ]

Seriously I wish people would get over this whole Islamic thing with Obama. It is dirty politics and needs to go away at this point.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:11 Claudine

10:11

[Comment From john Allenjohn Allen: ]

I think that it is important for Russert to be aggressive on the Farrakhan issue. This debate is ultimately for us, America, and we need to know where our candidates are and how they respond to critical and probing questions.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:11 john Allen

10:13

Russert is taking it to Obama on Farrakhan. This isn't something we hear a lot about in all the horserace coverage. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on Israel policy, but it's clear that Obama is in a difficult political position--caught between a controversial endorser that he doesn't want to completely renounce. "I have been very clear in my denunciation of minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments," he said. It is "not support that I sought. We're not doing anything formal or informally with minister Farrakhan."

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:13

10:13

meant: "caught between a controversial endorser that he doesn't want to completely renounce and some Jewish voters that would be outraged with anything less."

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:13

10:14

[Comment From JaniceJanice: ]

He's denounced and rejected now. Is this enough for you?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:14 Janice

10:14

[Comment From TonyaTonya: ]

Is Farrakahn still relevant? I don't think most black people find him very relevant any more. (Although I am not an authority on the politics of black people, but I am black and find him highly irrelevant.)

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:14 Tonya

10:15

Do you guys think this is an issue? Did Obama deal with it effectively?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:15

10:16

[Comment From JasonJason: ]

Obama handled the Farrakhan issue as well as he could, but Clinton may have inadvertently helped him out of a hole at the end. I doubt that is what she intended. Once again points to Obama's growth as a candidate and the fact he has been able to deflect much of Clinton's fire.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:16 Jason

10:16

[Comment From LiamLiam: ]

I think he could've done it better. The "soundbite" effect in the coverage tomorrow will interesting.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:16 Liam

10:16

[Comment From BonnieBonnie: ]

no he did not,he looked uncomfortable

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:16 Bonnie

10:17

[Comment From ChrisChris: ]

During the break can I say that I find both of these people incredibly impressive and inspirational. I'm very proud of both of them. I hope they run together.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:17 Chris

10:18

[Comment From LeeLee: ]

Hillary may find that she is burning bridges if she takes this primary process too much farther.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:18 Lee

10:18

[Comment From MatthewMatthew: ]

I think you have to depend on the audiance who is listening. Do lower middle class voters, who are the ones really in play to swing in Ohio, really know enough about the issue to care? Not everyone has the time to keep up to date with such relativly small developments

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:18 Matthew

10:18

Absolutely, Liam. I'm interested to see how this plays. I don't pretend to be an expert here, but it's certainly new ground for a debate--something I didn't expect to see this far. I expect that the "newness" of this angle will mean considerable coverage--especially as it touches on so many of the hot-button issues of the campaign (race, the false rumors that obama is muslim, the middle east, etc.)

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:18

10:18

[Comment From Nick ANick A: ]

That was the first time Obama actually looked off his game. I don't think he was expecting the Farrakhan issue to be so important.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:18 Nick A

10:18

[Comment From TylerTyler: ]

Prior to the end, I could say Obama handled it poorly. By taking Clinton's pushing to renounce/denounce/reject, though, he scored exactly what he should have.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:18 Tyler

10:18

[Comment From RZMRZM: ]

Also, with respect to denounce vs. reject, what Obama earlier said that he renounced was Farrakhan's rhetoric about the Jewish community. Therefore his clarification of the term actually means that he rejects Farrakhan's rhetoric vs. Farrakhan's support.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:18 RZM

10:19

[Comment From louisiananativelouisiananative: ]

This is a good debate because the format, Russert forces the candidates to go beyond the easy statements and clarify. I like that Hillaary made Obama clarify his feeling re Farrakan. Very good debate. Yeah Russert.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:19 louisiananative

10:19

Matthew is right--this might not make much different electorally. But it may play a big part in the the post-debate coverage. Pundits and Ohioans are two very different audiences.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:19

10:21

[Comment From TylerTyler: ]

Are politicians still afraid to be called Liberal? It just strikes me as tired.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:21 Tyler

10:22

Is it just me, or has Obama been getting the vast majority of screen time during the second half of the debate? And does this mean that the media is biased against him now? Or that the media refuses to give Clinton her equal airtime? Either way, she needs as many minutes in the spotlight as possible if she's going to define the differences between her an Obama and influence the dynamic going forward.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:22

10:22

[Comment From LeeLee: ]

Can you accept someone's support while not accepting someone's rhetoric though? Especially when they are so politically volatile?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:22 Lee

10:22

Lee: I think that's exactly what the pundits will be debating after the... um, debate.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:22

10:23

[Comment From Nick ANick A: ]

I was surprised by Obama's answer to the voting record question. He's still running in the Democratic primary. Wouldn't a liberal record be a possitive?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:23 Nick A

10:23

[Comment From RayMARayMA: ]

It does seem to me that Obama is getting much more screen time - I think they are coming down hard on Clinton

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:23 RayMA

10:23

[Comment From LiamLiam: ]

Clinton's answer about Putin's successor seems pretty accurate, but she hasn't mentioned his name. I wonder if Obama knows it . . .and there's Russert right on top of it

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:23 Liam

10:23

Afraid of the word "liberal"? Absolutely. Listen to a Republican debate, then imagine Dems saying "liberal" every time they say "conservative." Absolutely impossible.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:23

10:24

[Comment From FerretFerret: ]

Medve...whatever.... that seems a bit flippant... I would think she would know it and not necessarily just disrespect the guy, because she will most likely have to deal with him later.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:24 Ferret

10:25

Loved Clinton's pronounciation of Putin's successor's name. Not that I'd be able to do any better, so it's hard to imagine anyone holding it against her.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:25

10:25

[Comment From AlexAlex: ]

That sound bite will be interesting to hear tomorrow; "What's his name?"

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:25 Alex

10:26

[Comment From REBREB: ]

But wasn't that a great "bushism" - his attempted pronunciation of foreign leaders names?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:26 REB

10:26

[Comment From JoshuaJoshua: ]

Eh, I think Hillary's flubbing of the name might be seen as a gaffe. She prides herself on being the know-it-all with the foreign policy expertise and the 35 years of experience. If she's even a little off on something like that, it looks bad for her.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:26 Joshua

10:26

[Comment From DonnaDonna: ]

Russert just gave Hillary an out on the Iraq war.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:26 Donna

10:26

[Comment From RayMARayMA: ]

My goodness what a loaded question from Russert! Who wouldn't have regrets in public life?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:26 RayMA

10:27

REB is right--sort of. Bush, if I remember correctly, didn't know the names of foreign leaders. Do you think voters should hold this against Hillary? I'm not so sure.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:27

10:27

I'd say no, actually.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:27

10:28

[Comment From TylerTyler: ]

She knew Putin's name, and when his successor comes in office, I'm sure she'll still know Putin's name.. since he's what is going to matter in Russia anyhow.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:28 Tyler

10:28

[Comment From DonnaDonna: ]

Hillary handled that beautifully.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:28 Donna

10:28

[Comment From BralexBralex: ]

Bush was ridicuked for not knowing. for all her talk about experience, she shoul dhave known that...visiting 80 countries, etc...

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:28 Bralex

10:28

[Comment From amy aamy a: ]

No, I'm sure Obama would have pronounced it the same way. But -- how often has she said she would take back that vote?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:28 amy a

10:28

[Comment From LiamLiam: ]

I think Joshua has a point though. If she's campaigning on her experience, not knowing the name of the next leader of Russia could be seen as undercutting that

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:28 Liam

10:29

Clinton, predictably, wants to take back her vote to authorize the war in Iraq. Obama's answer is about Terri Schiavo--and he's absolutely right to say that he shouldn't have stood by and watched that mess happen.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:29

10:30

[Comment From TonyaTonya: ]

The regret question underscores both of their biggest weaknesses. Hilary's quest to appear "tough", hence her vote on Iraq. His standing on the sideline analyzing instead of acting affirmatively.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:30 Tonya

10:30

[Comment From TylerTyler: ]

Anyone else picking up on the reverse of the last debate with regards to the 'closing' statements that Obama just aimed for?

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:30 Tyler

10:30

Absolutely, Tonya. That's exactly right.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:30

10:31

Obama just went for a repeat of Hillary's "Hallmark Moment" from the last debate. Rough, truncated quote: "There is a vanity and ambition aspect to politics, but people's expectations are so modest. They just want a little bit a hand up. It is absolutely critical that we change how business is done in Washington and remind ourselves of what government is supposed to be. Democratic standard-bearer will do that." Wasn't as moving, though.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:31

10:31

[Comment From MarilynMarilyn: ]

I think they both appeared big on admitting the mistakes they've made. After all, they're humans and quite capable of making errors; albeit big ones.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:31 Marilyn

10:32

[Comment From john Allenjohn Allen: ]

Tyler is right. He tried, but it may not work out to be the sound bite that he was hoping for.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:32 john Allen

10:34

[Comment From AlexAlex: ]

She's got to stop saying "It has been an honor." She should switch that to be, "It is an honor.." She should too much like she knows she's going to loose.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:34 Alex

10:34

[Comment From MatthewMatthew: ]

Interesting, even as seemingly dire as her campaign seems to be at, i dont understand how she does not go for broke and try to deliver something that could change the dynamics of the race, she doesnt have much to gain from a tie in a debate

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:34 Matthew

10:35

Obama doesn't really say anything new in his final answer, stressing his "unique ability" to achieve openness or somesuch. Doesn't really draw any contrasts with Clinton, choosing instead (understandably) to toot his own horn. Clinton's answer is just a repeat of her stump speech--"I want to help the people of this country get the chances they deserve to have." There's a slight distinction--she calls herself a fighter--but it's certainly not the hard-hitting kitchen sink approach that some people anticipated.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:35

10:35

[Comment From john Allenjohn Allen: ]

She cannot go after him because she at this point she is not only up against how she wins the debate but also how she goes out if she indeed loses.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:35 john Allen

10:35

[Comment From YolandaYolanda: ]

Putting my final thoughts in now. Obama was definitely more wonky but McCain is going to kill him if he doesn't get stronger on foreign affairs. Hillary came across stronger on foreign issues but I don't think she changed any minds tonight.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:35 Yolanda

10:35

[Comment From DonnaDonna: ]

She cannot attack Obama head on, even Republicans are already talking about how they cannot attack him head on because it wil be micostrued.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:35 Donna

10:35

[Comment From LiamLiam: ]

Clinton's closing statements seem to keep trumping Obama's, although to be fair, she's gone second in both of the last two debates

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:35 Liam

10:36

Certainly no ninth-inning home run for Clinton tonight, though...

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:36

10:38

Thanks everyone for participating! According to the calendar, this is my final scheduled liveblog--but the way this thing's been going, number 21 certainly isn't an impossibility. I'm going to take a few minutes to collect my thoughts, and then I'll be back with a short and sweet wrap up.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 10:38

11:12

Plain and simple, they saved the best for last. After all kinds of ridiculousness (remember the UFO question, anyone?) the last two Democrats standing sat down tonight for a substantive--dare we say wonktastic?--discussion of serious issues ranging from health care (16 minutes!) and NAFTA to Israel and Iraq. It's a cliche to say this, but I think the voters of Ohio and Texas were the "winners" tonight; while pundits and political junkies know much of this material already, I suspect that people in Cleveland and San Antonio and elsewhere actually learned something about where the candidates stand on the issues.

Did Clinton change the dynamic of the race--which, after 11 straight losses, isn't exactly working in her favor? No. But I didn't expect her to, and I'm not sure she could have. Yes, the New York senator made some mistakes. Early on, she complained about getting the first question time and time again, implying that the media is treating her unfairly. Whether or not that's true, it looked whiny, especially when she cited an SNL skit to belittle Obama. And I can imagine some people carping about her inability to get the name of Putin's successor--Dmitri Medvedev--out of her mouth intact. But by and large, she was as strong and substantive as ever. It was good to hear Clinton admit that she wants a do-over on her Iraq vote, and I think she was smart to emphasize the fact that she's a "fighter" as early and often as possible. It's probably her best remaining option--as well as reminding women voters of what her candidacy represents. She was sure to do both tonight.

That said, it would be hard not to acknowledge that Obama was equally effective. As I wrote earlier, the policy focus actually benefitted Obama. One of the most persistent criticisms of his campaign is that it's all style, no substance--so an in-depth, substantive discussion like tonight's gives voters a chance to see the wonky side of him that just isn't on display at those 20,000-person stadium rallies. He acquitted himself well. By claiming that she offers solutions, not just speeches, Clinton has set the bar pretty high for herself--she needs to show that she can outwonk Obama every chance she gets. I didn't get the sense that that happened tonight, so it's hard to see how he didn't neutralize her advantage on the "specifics" front. Plus his cool, deflective style--see: Farrakhan, the "turban photo" flap, Pakistan, negative campaigning, et al--worked at every turn. Obama is far more comfortable as the frontrunner than he ever was as an underdog.

So who won, and who lost (other than the voters)? In my humble opinion, nobody and nobody (although I have to give a shout-out to Tim Russert, who wins my award for best moderator of the season). That's bad news for Clinton, of course, and good news for Obama. But as reader Chris wrote near the end of the evening, "Can I say that I find both of these people incredibly impressive and inspirational? I'm very proud of both of them." As divisive as this primary election has been, after tonight I'd imagine that many other Democrats would agree.

Tuesday February 26, 2008 11:12

11:13

Thanks again for joining in, everyone. When you have a sec, click over to my Stumper blog--I'd love to have you guys as regular readers. Goodnight and good luck...

Tuesday February 26, 2008 11:13

11:14

This Live Blog has now ended.

CoveritLive is a 2008 CNET Webware.com Finalist!
Vote for CoveritLive