Tonight, the debate's all about Hillary Clinton, Democratic front-runner, on stage for two hours with six Democratic rivals. AP photo by Frank Franklin
by Mark Silva, and updated with debate
It may not take a heat-seeking missile to raise a debate with the front-running Democratic candidate for president, but six of Sen. Hillary Clinton's rivals are on call tonight.
The televised debate, a two-hour face-off coming live from Philadelphia on MSNBC and starting at 9 pm EDT, arrives after many previous debates in which Democrats have failed to shake the apparent claim that Clinton holds on her party's nomination for president in 2008.
It comes just a little more than two months from the premier Iowa caucuses, in which Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina hope to start putting Clinton's nomination in some other perspective than that of a foregone conclusion.
With Obama on stage at Drexel University and pledging to take the fight to Clinton, and with Edwards, who found that playing the nice guy was no formula for success in 2004, also ready to raise the stakes, Clinton's own skills will be on high display tonight.
The stage will be a little lighter tonight, with NBC having finally set a cutoff for candidates who have no visible means of support, meaning former Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska. Yet this will help provide some of the other single-digit scrappers in this contest a somewhat higher profile.
"Some of this stuff gets over-hyped,'' Obama said at the start of the debate. "This is the most -hyped fight since Rocky Apollo Creed,'' he said, somewhat nervously speaking a scripted line. "I’m Rocky in this situation.''
That said about the fight film for which Philadelphia is well-known, he and Edwards have engaged Clinton from the start and carried their criticism through to the end.
"If people want the status quo, then Sen. Clinton is your candidate,'' Edwards said.
And of course, the Spin Room is open for comments, here in the Swamp.
"I’m running for president, because I think the way to offer that change is to draw some contrasts with the other party,'' Obam said. "It does not mean changing positions whenver it is convenient. Sen. Clinton, in her campaign, she has been for NAFTA previously, and now she's agains it. She has taken one position on torture several months ago and then most recently has taken a different position. She voted for a war, to authorize sending troops into Iraq, and then later said this was a war for diplomacy. ''
Clinton, dismissing any idea that she is attempting to sound Republican on national security, as Obam has charged, said: "I don’t think the Republicans got the message that I’m voting and sounding like them… I have stood against George Bush and his failed policies. "
"They want to continue the war in Iraq; I want to end it,'' she said. "The Republicans are waving their sabers and talking about going after Iran. I want to prevent a rush to war. On every issue from health care for children to an energy policy that puts us on the right track to deal with climate change and make us more secure, I have been standing against the Republicans, George Bush and Dick Cheney, and I will continue to do so. And I think Democrats know that.''
Edwards, asked about his previous comment that people deserve truth, not double talk, said: "Let me talk a little bit about.. the choice that voters have… President Bush has destroyed the trust relationship between the American people and the president…'' In
In Iowa, he said, caucus-goers will decide “who can they trust… Sen. Clinton has said she can be the candidate for change, but she defends a system that is broken and corrupt in Washington DC… She said she’ll stand up to George Bush on Iran, and in fact she has voted to give George Bush the first step…
"I think the American people, given this historic moment in our country’s history, deserve a president who will tell them the truth.. and not say something at one time and something different at another time.,'' Edwards said.
“I have a long record of standing up and fighting,'' Clinton countered. "I take on the special interests. I’ve been taking them on for many years…''
Asked about casting a vote for a resolution about Iran that some have called a precursor to war, Clintn said: "I am against a rush to war… I was the first person on this stage… to say George Bush had no authority to take any military action in Iran… I am not in favor of this war, but I also am not in favor of doing nothing… I prefer vigorous diplomacy and I happen to think that sanctions are part of vigorous diplomacy…
"We can argue about what is a nonbinding sense of the Senate,'' she said. "I think we are missing the point. We’ve got to do everything we can to prevent George Bush and the Republicans from doing something on their own to take action on Iran.’’
"We have emboldened Bush at a minimum,'' said Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) "His talk of World War III, totally irresponsible talk. We've emboldened him... to be able to move if he chooses to move. They're terrorists. The fact that they're terrorists on one side of the border or the other, we've just declared them terrorists. That gives him the color of right to move against them.''
Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio complained that "we have a number of enablers… Democrats... who have said all options are on the table... I want to know when this Democratic Congress is going to stand up and hold this president accountable… We need to challenge him on this war. We need to challenge him at his core.’’
But none of the frontrunners was willing to pledge that on his, or her watch, Iran will not gain possession of a nuclear weapon.
"I intend to do everything I can to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb,'' Clinton, pressed to address a pledge to prevent it. "I am pledging to do everything I can.’’
Edwards said: "What I would do is take all of the responsible steps that can be taken.’’
Obama said: "I think there is a larger point at stake.. We have been governed by fear for the last six years. This president has used the fear of terrorism to launch a war that never should have been authorized. We are seeing the same thing now… It is very important for us to draw a line and say we will not be governed by fear…’’
"I would make the pledge,'' said Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico. "The key has to be diplomacy... I've done it, all my life as a diplomat, as a U.N. ambassador, as an envoy, as a hostage negotiator... I believe it's important that we have a leader not just that can bring people together, but can resolve some of the thorniest problems we have.''
There was another promise tonight that Clinton could not make: Releasing the official records of her communications with her husband when Bill Clinton was president. The former president has asked the National Archives to hold off on releasing those records until 2012.
Questioner Tim Russert pressed Clinton about whether she would release those records. She refused to make that commitment, and Obama took her to task for it.
"Actually, Tim, the Archives is moving as rapidly as the Archives moves,'' Clinton said. "There's about 20 million pieces of paper there and they are moving, and they are releasing as they do their process. And I am fully in favor of that.''
"But there was a letter written by President Clinton specifically asking that any communication between you and the president not be made available to the public until 2012,'' Russert said. "Would you lift that ban? ''
"Well, that's not my decision to make,'' she said. "And I don't believe that any president or first lady has. But certainly we'll move as quickly as our circumstances and the processes of the National Archives permits.''
"Well look,'' Obama said. "I'm glad that Hillary took the phrase "turn the page." (She had spoken of turning the page on the Bush administration, or better, "throwing out the book") It's a good one,'' Obama said. "But this is an example of not turning the page. We have just gone through one of the most secretive administrations in our history, and not releasing, I think, these records at the same time, Hillary, as you're making the claim that this is the basis for your experience, I think, is a problem.
"Part of what we have to do is invite the American people back to participate in their government again. Part of what we need to do is rebuild trust in our government again.''
Richardson, maintaining that he has plenty of differences with Clinton, warned his party against taking a “holier-than-thou’’ position with the front-runner -- talking about an inability to trust Clinton or accusing her of playing to special interests. With Clinton nodding to his side, Richardson said: “I think it’s important that we save the ammunition for the Republicans… I trust Sen. Clinton, but I don’t agree with her on the majority of the issues.''
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
They need to take an immediate poll of all 30 persons who will be watching to determine how they really feel about Hillary. Does anyone think Obama will really take off the gloves and talk about Hildy's past, the secret FBI files, the Whitewater land fraud, her lying to a Grand Jury, etc. Nah, he won't do it. No guts, no glory.
Posted by: Catalina | October 30, 2007 8:22 PM
And in further news, the republicrites refuse to debate on FOCKS news.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/30/gop-scheduling-conflicts_n_70396.html
Posted by: rncbs | October 30, 2007 8:53 PM
Catalina, what ABOUT Senator Clinton's past? WHAT secret FBI files? If they are secret, how do you know about them? What Grand Jury did she lie to and about what?
It sounds as though you are just another irrational Clinton hater who throws out charges that you can't provide any basis for.
Posted by: Judy Kilgore | October 30, 2007 9:17 PM
Hildy's past, the secret FBI files, the Whitewater land fraud, her lying to a Grand Jury, etc. Nah, he won't do it. No guts, no glory.
Posted by: Catalina | October 30, 2007 8:22 PM
Kittycat,
Hillary will talk about that crap as soon as Rudy Gigoloiani fesses up to his past transgressions:
http://therealrudy.org/blog/11777-the-real-rudy-mistakes-in-30-seconds
Posted by: John E | October 30, 2007 9:27 PM
Hillary is too corporate for me, and she is unpopular. We need a likable democratic president like her husband.
Obama and Edwards are likable and can lead the country.
Edwards has the best chance to get elected because he will not be subjected to racial and gender prejudice and discrimination.
Obama would make a good vice-president, who could be president in eight years when he is 54.
Posted by: Oscar | October 30, 2007 9:48 PM
Anybody discern an anti-terrorism policy in anything the Democrats said?
Other than "talk" (Clinton); "vigorous diplomacy" (i.e., talk) (Clinton); "negotiate" (i.e., more talk) (Richardson); "pledging to do everything I can" (Clinton again); "responsible steps" (Edwards); "diplomacy" (i.e., still more talk) (Richardson).
If you think talkie-talk can stop Muslim terrorists, without using force to back up the talk ....
Posted by: Bruce | October 30, 2007 10:22 PM
If you think talkie-talk can stop Muslim terrorists, without using force to back up the talk ....
Posted by: Bruce | October 30, 2007 10:22 PM
Mr. Roboto,
The Democrats don't believe in going around chanting 9/11 over and over again to try and get votes like your Wingnut heroes from the rightwing lunitic fringe do.
Posted by: John E | October 30, 2007 10:37 PM
"If people want the status quo, then Sen. Clinton is your candidate."
Too bad Edwards isn't complaining here about how Sudan offered up Osama Bin Laden and data on terrorist networks--but Clinton and Co. weren't interested... (See Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize, Mansoor Ijaz, LA Times, 12/05/01).
Is the status quo Tony Blair explaining that, "Weapons inspectors in Iraq must be given the time and space they need to do their job," adding that they were only half through in their search for WMDs (coming right before our invasion of Iraq).
No..., he couldn't be referring to how, "...for years the United States and its allies blocked international campaigns designed to condemn Saddam for his use of mustard and neuro-toxic gases," Saddam Hussein, A Biased Trial, B. Lando.
Likely he's thinking about how Ted Koppel of ABC reported that, "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that build Iraq into an aggressive power. Reagan/Bush administartions permitted--and frequently encouraged--the flow of money, dual-use technology, chemicals and weapons to Iraq."
Yeah, what to do about the Clintons...
She's certainly on board with the Patriot Act; guilt by association--he was all about using the OK Bombing as impetus for passing his own dreadful Counter-Terrorism Bill; a US government report states: "... it must be concluded that the damage at the Murrah Building is not the result of the truck bomb itself, but rather due to other factors such as locally placed charges within the building itself ..." (See Case Study Relating Blast Effects to the Events of April 19, 1995, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma)
If this is the status quo--WHAT'S GOING ON???!!!
Posted by: Michael L. Wagner | October 30, 2007 10:56 PM
Ignorant, Impotent John E., love your little Rudy link from a whacked out Kooky Left site.
Judy Kilgore, you see Hillary and Bill had nearly 1,000 FBI files in the White House on Republicans, a definite illegality. The Queen B also has perjured herself and committed crimes acccording to reporting from Carl Bernstein (Watergate fame) and two former NY Times reporters.
Then there is the Queen B's hand in the firing and attempts to destroy those who worked in the White House Travel Office, a crime that the special investigators chose to not pursue. Then there her comments that she knew nothing of her brother's involvement in the whole pardon scandal at the end of Bill's term, and her "just passing" files between her bro and husband regarding said pardons.
Posted by: John D | October 30, 2007 11:34 PM
What to do about Hillary/Bill? Send her back to the Senate.
Posted by: GW | October 30, 2007 11:38 PM
"Then there is the Queen B's hand in the firing and attempts to destroy those who worked in the White House Travel Office, a crime that the special investigators chose to not pursue."
John D-
Please explain why firing travel agents who serve at at the pleasure of the President is a crime, but firing US attorneys who serve at the pleasure of the President is not.
Posted by: AJF | October 31, 2007 9:40 AM
To those who may believe that John D is not lying through his teeth, it is important to note that Kenn Starr spent 60 million dollars of the taxpayer's money to investigate the Clintons. Read his report. It completely exonerated Bill and Hillary from every accusatory lie the republicans hurled at them. Including the FBI files incident and the Travel Office incident. They were cleared of Whitewater and the death of Vince Foster, too. All Starr got on them was Bill lied about sex. (no one died)
Posted by: Bruce Y | October 31, 2007 10:10 AM
Bruce Y, as usual you have no clue what you are talking about. The final report was not done by Ken Starr, Starr did not issue the final report.
The final report, which was done by Robert Ray. Ray never "exonerated" the Clintons as his report said this: "This office determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either President or Mrs. Clinton knowingly participated in any criminal conduct."[17] Ray nonetheless criticized the White House in a statement regarding the release of the report, saying delays in the production of evidence and "unmeritorious litigation" by the president's lawyers severely impeded the investigation's progress.
And this, from a NY Times article: In his final report about the firing of seven longtime employees of the White House travel office released today, Robert W. Ray, the independent counsel, asserted that Hillary Rodham Clinton had given ''factually false'' sworn testimony when she minimized her role in the incident.
The disclosure of the 243-page report added several details about Mrs. Clinton's role, but its terse conclusions were announced last June when Mr. Ray said there was insufficient evidence to seek criminal charges against Mrs. Clinton.
For the first time, Mr. Ray disclosed parts of Mrs. Clinton's 1995 deposition he now says are demonstrably false. The report also discloses some of the grand jury testimony of others who spoke to Mrs. Clinton about the travel office.
Mr. Ray said, as he had in June, that Mrs. Clinton had played a far greater role in the dismissals than she had admitted. The report cited evidence that she had repeatedly expressed concerns about the travel office to White House officials who eventually fired the employees as a result of what they had perceived to be pressure from her to do so.
Doesn't look to me like the Clintons were totally exonerated, now does it?
And here is a list of folks indicted and jailed and found guilty, stemming from the Whitewater investigation:
Ultimately the Clintons were never charged, but 14 other persons were convicted of more than 40 crimes, including a sitting Governor who was forced to resign. *.[33]
Jim Guy Tucker: Governor of Arkansas at the time, forced to resign (fraud, 3 counts)
John Haley: attorney for Jim Guy Tucker (tax fraud)
William J. Marks Sr.: Jim Guy Tucker business partner (conspiracy)
Stephen Smith (Whitewater): former Governor Clinton aide (conspiracy to misapply funds). Bill Clinton pardoned.
Webster Hubbell: Clinton political supporter; Rose Law Firm partner (embezzlement, fraud)
Jim McDougal: banker, Clinton political supporter: (18 felonies, varied)
Susan McDougal: Clinton political supporter (multiple fraud, , contempt of court)
David Hale: banker, self proclaimed Clinton political supporter: (conspiracy, fraud)
Neal Ainley: Perry County Bank president (embezzled bank funds for Clinton campaign)
Chris Wade: Whitewater real estate broker (multiple loan fraud) Bill Clinton pardoned.
Larry Kuca: Madison real estate agent (multiple loan fraud)
Robert W. Palmer: Madison appraiser (conspiracy). Bill Clinton pardoned.
John Latham: Madison Bank CEO (bank fraud)
Eugene Fitzhugh: Whitewater defendant (multiple bribery)
Charles Matthews (Whitewater): Whitewater defendant (bribery)
You Loony Left Kooks make this waaaaaayyy to easy!!
Posted by: John D | October 31, 2007 11:15 AM
"This office determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either President or Mrs. Clinton knowingly participated in any criminal conduct."
-
Sounds good to me. Live with it, Johnny.
Posted by: Bruce Y | October 31, 2007 11:43 AM
I thought she held her ground wonderfully. They did gain up on her, but it's all fair in a debate, so she knows she has to be ready from now on. I do agree it was her worst, but I still think she'll be ok, and prepare for the future debates. I liked Edwards, because he is consistent, but boring and that's what kills him. I liked Obama for the first time too, because he finally seemed prepared for the debate. Before he was all over the place, and didn't answer too many of the questions. He took a republican move there, just dodge with a bunch of words about something related I know about.
Posted by: capricorn7nc | October 31, 2007 12:48 PM
It is amusing to see regular citizens like us try to practice mud slinging. It takes me back to my youth at Catholic School.
Posted by: Rob S | October 31, 2007 1:09 PM
How can there be a debate when everyone's answer to every question is: "Things are awful, Blame Bush!"?
The increasingly dull Mrs. Clinton made a lot of gaffes during the debate, but Obama and Edwards didn't capitalize. The two proved themselves to be attack poodles instead of junkyard dogs.
Posted by: Bruce | October 31, 2007 2:40 PM
Are our standards really this low? Sure she's a smart lady, she's good at covering her tracks and she knows how to lie well. But seriously think for a moment...is this really our standard for President of the United States of America? So sad.
Posted by: Fernando | October 31, 2007 3:02 PM
Posted by: John D | October 31, 2007 11:15 AM
As usual, "the Joseph Stalin of Streamwood" forgets to include a LINK to his SOURCE, so Swamp posters can determine the bias of the source, and whether or not it is completely factual or just partially.
Posted by: BC | November 1, 2007 12:24 PM