« The world of LARPing
Canaries or Wolf-Criers? »



Showdown At Las Vegas Debate For Hillary Clinton

November 15th, 2007
By JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief

Print Print

The conventional wisdom has spoken: New York Senator Hillary Clinton is now a grazed candidate….not quite wounded…not reeling on the ropes.

But, in the last debate, the armor of her perfectly-run campaign was pierced by the razor-edged issue of illegal aliens getting driver’s licenses. And when that opening emerged, the swords dug deeper with several stories saying the Clinton campaign planted questions at open forums.

This included the inevitable overkill by Clinton critics and Hillary-hating talk show hosts — as well as the excuse making “well everybody does it” talk from Ms. Clinton’s defenders. Both of those heated arguments boil down to THIS in terms of balance and perspective.

In reality, Clinton stubbed her toe and when her husband defended her it seemed at times as if he was intent on grabbing her toe and stubbing it more for her.

But now, tonight, Ms. Clinton — not bloodied, not wounded, but no longer the inevitable nominee with awesome polls in upcoming primaries or early general election match-up scenarios — faces a real showdown in Las Vegas. Another debate. Likely another “pile on.” Like more tough — and even trick — questions from the media which above all goes after politicos who seem evasive and tries to nail them down.

Who will survive? Will she emerge stronger, or wounded by Senator Barack Obama (suddenly is on the descent) or former Senator John Edwards (so far the candidate who doesn’t quite catch on - -the perpetual Great Potential Candidate)? The New York Times sets the scene:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton heads into tonight’s Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas with an opportunity: to try to erase the unflattering image that her chief rivals, and her own mistakes, have helped create.

Yesterday, in an attempt to neutralize one possible threat at the debate, her campaign announced that Mrs. Clinton would not support driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants as president. It is the latest formulation of her position, which has shifted since it became a tripping point in the last televised debate on Oct. 30.

Her advisers say they hope the matter will now be off the table, but Mrs. Clinton’s top rivals made clear that they would continue to press the argument they have been making in recent weeks, that she is inconsistent and overly political.

“When it takes two weeks and six different positions to answer one question on immigration, it’s easier to understand why the Clinton campaign would rather plant their questions than answer them,” said Bill Burton, a spokesman for Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, a rival in the race for the nomination.

“Wow, this is dizzying,” added Eric Schultz, a spokesman for former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, another rival.

Mr. Edwards has also given somewhat conflicting statements on the driver’s license issue. “The differences on this are clear: Senator Clinton is opposed to giving driver’s licenses to undocumented people, Senator Obama is for it, and no one knows where Edwards is,” said Jay Carson, a Clinton spokesman.


The bottom line: at one point several weeks ago it seemed as Clinton had it all sewn up and that she was a shoo-in not just for the nomination, but as a highly-formidable candidate in the general election.

But, now, after dropping the immigration driver’s license ball and due to her staff’s image-destroying decision to set up questions and act in as sleazy a manner as FEMA officials stating fake press conferences, she is no longer (a) an automatic shoo-in for the nomination (she can be wounded more) or (b) a fearsome-appearing candidate to many Republicans (she doesn’t have a huge lead now in match-up polls and has shown that she can be tossed off balance and seemingly go into a downward spiral).

So who will win the showdown tonight?

Clinton?

Obama?

Or Giuliani?

ALSO BE SURE TO READ:

–Marc Ambinder, who looks at the whole issue of planting questions as a widespread problem.

–Riehl World View, which believes the media wants to pull Ms. Clinton down to create a more interesting horse races story so it’s focusing on this new controversy.

–The Huffington Posts’ debate primer.

–Spacetropic, which has these thoughts on the Las Vegas “pregame rumble”.



This entry was posted on Thursday, November 15th, 2007 at 12:13 pm and is filed under Hillary Clinton, Debates, Democrats, 2008 Elections, Politics, As Yet Unassigned. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

 
close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

« The world of LARPing
Canaries or Wolf-Criers? »


By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.