Hilarity Clinton stumbled badly tonight

[PurityOfEssence]

She's been very good in most of the "debates" up to now, being very controlled, focused and relaxed, but she failed in many ways tonight, and they'll come back to plague her.

It's the curse of the front-runner: one is effectively fighting a defensive game in what is truly an offensive arena. Since she's so good at fending off blows, this is her strong suit, but she really got pummeled tonight and much of it was her own doing.

First off, that laughing schtick is going to seriously hurt. You can almost hear the echoing in her ear of some handler telling her to be "breezy" and laugh things off blithely so she won't come across as so stern. It doesn't work. Whereas before she's been a bit serious, she's seemed level-headed and truthful; here, the laughs make it seem like she's not just chuckling at the whimsy of the questions, but dismissing them as the silliness of fools. In attempting to be easygoing and pleasant, she comes off as haughty. The laughs themselves are consistently unmotivated and ring hollow to the point that it makes me cringe. Perhaps I'm just more focused on this after Jon Stewart's devastating montage last night of her endless guffaws from the three hundred and two talk shows she was on on Sunday, finishing with a voice-over of a countdown to "initiate humorous response" over a stern-faced Hillary's long pause before a bout of mirth.

Secondly, her avoidance of an answer to "what she'd put on the table" rang shockingly true: she said she wouldn't put anything on it, but wait until others did and choose from there. This is precisely the kind of reactive dancing that's typified her legislative career up to this point: playing defense and cautiously avoiding sticking her neck out.

Thirdly through Whateverly, she's on every side of every topic. She'd still fight counterinsurgency, but somehow it wouldn't be combat. She was the person most against Yucca Mountain of any person on earth, yet we should still consider nuclear power. She's even on both sides of a baseball question when pressed, even though she gave a conclusive answer at first.

As for the debate, it was most interesting:

Gravel destroyed himself by gleefully saying he's happy he fucked his creditors out of thousands of dollars; that'll really go over well. Okay, they're eeeevil credit card companies, but even a bomb-throwing anarchist is probably a bit queasy at this sort of larceny. He needs to go away.

Richardson spluttered and blathered about as usual; no wonder the world's in such a mess if he's been as big a mover and shaker in foreign affairs for all these years as he says.

Kucinich literally flouted the concept of law with his statement about immigration, and although he had good moments, continued to show himself as impractical and smug. (Hell, he deserves to be smug, he HAS been right on so many of the important issues; I like the guy--a lot--but he's coming across as more and more shrill, and I wince for him. Great "tall" line.)

Biden comes across as level-headed, but did some clumsy self-promotion and still has that just-under-the-surface smoldering temper to wrestle with.

Dodd started off rather well, but then sort of devolved into a bit of ranting. Good showing overall, though.

Obama did okay, and I think that's just fine for him: he seemed poised, more or less on subject (which was something the rest of them might try some time...)

I'm an Edwards partisan, and I think he did quite well, but he pretty much avoided a couple of questions, which doesn't sit well with lots of people, including me. The mill worker bit was clunky, but his defiant response to Russert's deliberate sandbagging was great, especially by telling how he did what he could to make good on the foreclosure issue.

Russert's a solid-gold asshole, and ended the buffoonery in classic style for a bottom-feeding, muckraking, lowest-common-denominator sneerball by asking two bullshit questions about my least favorite topics: religion and sports. Please pass the dramamine.

Great show, alright; too bad the world hangs in the balance...

[DURHAM D]

1. Your subject line is not supported by your text ????? n/t

[saracat]

3. I think it is .The OP describes how Hillary did badly.She then describes the pluses

and minuses of the other candidates as well. What is the problem?

[liberalnurse]

6. You are anti-Hillary so your

objectivity/opinion is strain.

[saracat]

12. I do not support Hillary but your post does not make sense!

[Ignis]

41. Sure it makes "sense"--in a Kool-Aid kinda way.

1. You dare to question HRH HRC's glorious victory last night.
2. You dare to imply that facts somehow have a place in this discussion.
3. You dare to imply that HRH HRC's debate answers should be analyzed for content.
4. Ergo, you obviously cannot be trusted to form an opinion on HRH HRC!

Kiss the ring and keep the line moving! NEXT!

:banghead:

[Forkboy]

19. And you are pro-Hillary so your's is as well.

Why do people act like they have a lock on objectivity? :shrug:

[Forrest Greene]

39. I Know! I Know!

Because it fools some of the people some of the time?

[superkia]

46. Its only the people that Clinton has brainwashed that feel that way.

Its that whole, the corporations and media own me so I am the winner shit. Her supporters feel she is the winner and no one else matters. Its too bad they didn't realize that they don't matter to Clinton, unless they own a corporation that is.

[papau]

20. I agree - the details in the OP are true - but the headline does not follow IMO

the not put on the table also rings true - as the GOP takes the concessions as a given at that point and then wants more.

Indeed Hillary's was the only correct Soc Sec comment - the SS system most likely needs no fix at all - Edwards and Obama were just wrong per the 3rd projection in the Actuaries report to the Trustees of the SS system.

[PurityOfEssence]

31. I'll use small words

She "laughs" to seem warm, but it's so forced that she seems snotty; hence "hilarity".

She ducked and weaved and got caught doing it. Shots hit her about her judgement, leadership and changing positions and she bungled her responses.

She claimed to be a leader, yet said it was other people's job to come up with the ideas.

It was terrible.

[Tom Joad]

2. bottom line... she voted for war with iran. big bucks coming her way... hardly anyone watches those

debates.

[saracat]

4. Excellent Debate summary!

[snowbear]

47. I have to agree - Hillary was LOUSY last night..

... even one of her largest supporters, Big Ed Schultz, sounded like he was ready to jump on the Edwards bus on his program today; as did a great deal of his listeners. None of the callers thought that Hillary did well last night.

If HRC supporters thought she did herself any favors, I'm at a loss...

[sandnsea]

5. Good overview

I agree with most of it, although I think Biden is genuinely angry and consequently it doesn't bother me when it comes through. I'm fine with anger as long as a person can continue to articulate clear thoughts without lashing out personally. I thought he did fine.

I also was okay with Gravel's comments. I don't exactly know what he meant with the whole credit card thing, but the guy sitting in the White House bankrupted a couple of companies and probably invented Enron style accounting fraud. It's okay when businesses bankrupt though.

And I agree completely with Hillary's cackling. I think those same handlers just got fired.

[fightindonkey]

8. Yes, and She Has The Nomination, So You're Going To Have To Make Due

Next.

[eShirl]

9. Really? I didn't know the convention already took place. n/t

[Ignis]

42. Pshaw! What do you want--a say in who our nominee will be?!

Why can't you just accept that there is no need for a primary when HRH HRC is running?

:sarcasm:

[PurityOfEssence]

33. I take serious issue with Gravel; it'll also hurt him and he should withdraw

He said that he's proud that he stuck credit card companies with $90K in debt. That's deeply, deeply dishonest and reckless. People in this country will HATE that comment, and they should; it shows a flagrant disregard for one's obligation to pull one's own weight and be responsible for one's actions.

This was breathtaking; it was literally the most amazing moment in such forums I've personally heard since Ford's imbecility about the Warsaw Pact not being dominated by the Soviets.

There is no excuse for this. It shows that his word means nothing and he holds himself above the law. He's "good", so he can just cheat and fuck anyone else and welch on his debts as he damn well sees fit. It's disgusting. Kucinich also strayed way into this territory of disregarding the law on the immigration question, and that was very disturbing as well.

Here's reality: we agree to uphold the law when we are members of society; we don't get to pick and choose. If we decide to do as we please, we should submit to the judgment of society for doing so. There are ways for civilized people to affect change, and we can't have people who consider themselves so morally superior that they're above the law, especially not as high elected officials.

That more people aren't screeching about this is poor testimony to ethics at large.

[jmp]

7. "that laughing schtick is going to seriously hurt."

She doesn't understand moderation, does she? You can't go to the cackle every time. After a while it comes across as phony ... and in some cases unnerving.

[Apollo11]

15. Jon Stewart called her on that

I hope Hillary's campaign team have the guts to show her that Daily Show segment, highlighting her excessive laughter on Sunday morning. Maybe one of her staffers was goofing around behind the camera? :eyes:

I see that genuine laughter can be effective against very dumb questions.

But using it every time looks like a ploy. People can see through that.

[DemBones DemBones]

10. I didn't watch, so tell me, what was

Kucinich's "tall" line?

When he was on Letterman a month or so ago, Dave showed a photo of Dennis and Elizabeth, her towering over him as usual, and Dennis asked "Can you tell I'm wearing my lifts?"

:applause:

[gateley]

11. K&R nt

[Think82]

13. Clumsy self-promotion? Biden did less of that than all the other candidates

combined.

Biden clearly won and made the most intelligent criticism of a Hillary nomination.

[oasis]

14. "He's not standing here right now". Hillary knocked it out of the park when

she was informed of her disagreement with Bill on the subject of torture.
:bounce:

[Perry Logan]

16. Actually, this makes Hillary unbeatable.

Doing badly in the debates causes her to "energize the Republican base" less. I know how this prospect terrifies everyone here.

So a "poor" performance in debates and interviews actually makes Hillary a stronger candidate--probably invincible.

[earthlover]

18. It is the Democratic base she has to worry about!

The republican base is not going to vote in the primaries.

I know, I am speaking blasphemy and heresy for even suggesting the brash idea that not all criticism of Hillary can be shrugged off as the Republican base.

I guess I get a few more years in purgatory.

[Perry Logan]

22. It's the anti-Hillarites who keep harping on the "Republican base." I was making fun of them.

[thereismore]

26. Everything would make her more unbeatable, using your logic. Not buying. nt

[PurityOfEssence]

34. That's gotta be the worst spinning since Rapunzel. Sit down before you hurt yourself.

Boy, I hope that makes you feel better. I guess if she falls down on the floor and starts jabbering about villages and Jesus she can be elected Queen of the Universe.

Am I missing the sarcasm here? This is beyond ludicrous.

[Tellurian]

35. Yes, are you going to Obama Camp for 40 days and 40 nights in NC?

Let us know what Jesus had to say when you return from your North Carolina sojourn.

[PurityOfEssence]

38. Don't worry, Hillary will find a way to out-Jesus him

But she'll try to make sure that only the religious know about it.

I wonder what one has at a Sojurners' breakfast...

[Tellurian]

40. No you're mistaken on that..She's said more than once, Religion is a personal preference..

I like that answer. I don't want any government telling me how, where, when and if, I should pray or not pray.

I heard the Obama 40 day enCAMPment will be serving "Hillary-cakes" with loads of maple syrup in the HOPE of sweetening up disgruntled BO supporters.

yum!

[PurityOfEssence]

48. “I think you can sense how we are attempting to try to inject faith into policy.”

She plays this game with very careful vigor.

Have fun with this article.

http://www.forward.com/articles/11644/

If that's not enough, try this:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html

[Ignis]

43. So, by your (twisted) logic, a good showing means what?

I'm guessing the equation you're using here is "X = HRH HRC wins," where X = ANY-frickin-THING.

Torture? Check. Endless War? Check. Insurance Company Profits? Check.

Can HRH HRC do no wrong in your eyes? If that's the case, just say so.

[earthlover]

58. We have to get used to the logic of Hillaryites....

If it is a poor showing, that means it is really good. If, of course, it is a good showing, that means it is really good.

Notice the blurring of differences between good and poor. This blurring for the Great Triangulator. Fitting.

Hillary can do no wrong. Her shit stinketh not....

[xchrom]

17. i have no dog in the primary fight -- BUT -- i'm tired of hypotheticals

for these candidates.

there are plenty of historical examples to give candidates to chew over and talk about.

when it comes to social security or war -- candidates are not going to be able to answer ahead of time -- and make anybody happy.

the reality of two subjects that large is going to change once one is sitting in the oval office.
and then no one is going to be happy.

lastly -- our politicians are not free -- they are tied to big monied interests and or to powerful lobbies.

every candidate is going to be very, very different once settled into office -- even kucinich would be somewhat transformed.

i liked this debate -- as i have the others -- our candidates remain head and shoulders above the others -- and i still had to give HRC some real respect.
she was still thoughtful, forceful -- and funny.

edwards came out like a tiger - really held his own in a very personable way.

lastly -- except for kucinich -- i am very, very unhappy with everyone's healthcare platform.

[Apollo11]

24. In this case it was Bill Clinton who came up with the hypothetical

I think it would have been a big slip-up on Russert's part if he had not put this question to the Democratic candidates (notice how he asked this question to everyone - not just Hillary).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14907031/

[xchrom]

25. there was more than one hypothetical.

and it's tim's job to ask all of them.

his analysis of his own moderating job was -- troublesome -- to say the least.

[THUNDER HANDS]

21. so she's the anti-Bush

she wouldn't stick her neck out and take a wrong-headed position until she see's all the options. She'd be careful and look at the facts and not rush into anything.

And that's wrong because?

[PurityOfEssence]

37. Because she wouldn't offer anything

If she's just going to be some pawnbroker looking over a table full of stuff that other people bring to her, what good is she? The only thing that would make her the best person for the job in that instance is if her judgment was really good. It's not even close.

Leaders are supposed to lead. What she said was that she'd wait until others came up with ideas and she'd fiddle around with them and pick the best one or ones. That's the veritable definition of a lack of creativity. That's PRECISELY the mindset we don't want in a president. Sure, it's important and necessary to pull together a coalition and get everyone working together, but the president has to be a leader and a person of ingenuity and creativity, not just some dilettante on the sidelines.

The president needs to be an artist, not a critic. Is that clear enough? It's not just a bad answer, it's A REALLY BAD ANSWER. This is legislator-thinking, not executive-thinking.

Her whole career has been one of avoiding taking chances. That's antithetical to leadership. It's a grotesque mockery of the very concept and it's deeply shocking that people would even consider this kind of mealy-mouthed, non-committal, shilly-shallying bullshit when a potential leader is being asked direct questions.

One more annoying analogy here: if she was a tennis player, her strategy would be to always return the ball. The theory would be that if you can always return the ball, you won't lose. The problem is that this may just prolong the game forever with no winner. Passivity and reaction and being a critic are NOT leadership, they're an attempt to curry favor and be liked, and people who spend all their time trying to be liked are of no real use to the rest of us and are decidedly useless in moments of true import.

That's why it's wrong.

[Faux pas]

57. Bravo! Best Hillary analysis I've heard yet.

:applause:

[Sparkly]

23. I don't agree. I think they all did okay.

I do agree that having been called out for laughing (although I can't fault her for laughing in Chris Wallace's face considering his "questions"), she had to try to avoid that. So when laughably silly questions were asked concerning serious topics, I said aloud to the TV a couple of times, "Don't laugh!"

I thought her answers about negotiations were good, and she held the line. First we determine the foundations of the discussion and then we proceed. I was glad she didn't wimp on her first answer when Timmy pushed.

I don't see her as "on every side," either. The answers just can't be black/white all the time! Most didn't answer the questions phrased as yes/no questions with simple yes or no. I thought a few times I heard the audience reacting as each began their answers, as if they thought the candidates were avoiding the questions but they weren't. None of them did. The correct answers to absurdly simplistic questions is often, "It depends," "Under certain conditions," or in some way providing a larger context for the answer. I thought they all pretty much avoided the yes/no black/white traps Timmy set.

And boy did he have his RNC oppo research ready!!

I think Gravel was already destroyed, and he's like the group scold at each debate. He's the only one I wish weren't there.

Richardson seemed to start out stronger than usual and then it seemed his batteries died down again, or something. He tired and became less clear. I don't think he's up to it this time, sadly.

I wish Kucinich were given more time. His answers really do provide a different perspective -- one that challenges the others -- and I'd like to hear their responses to him more often.

I thought Biden did fine, but the real "second look" in my mind goes to Dodd. All other things being equal, I don't know why he isn't doing better. (Well, all other things are not equal, I guess!)

I definitely did not see the post-debate spin perspective on MSNBC, slamming Clinton, calling Obama weak, and glorifying Edwards. I just didn't see it that way at ALL. I think they all held on to their positions just fine. If anything, I thought Edwards made some mistakes -- for example, going after Clinton about "combat troops." I could imagine a campaign against him for saying that no matter what happened in Iraq, he's vowed not to have any combat troops there for any reason. Absolute statements like that are really risky. I think if he became the nominee he'd have to qualify that.

But all in all, I thought they all held their ground, and hope Dodd picks up a bit from it.

[Cameron27]

32. That's pretty much how I saw it,

except I'd put Biden ahead of Dodd in the second look department. One thing that I noticed was that Russert seemed to set Clinton up as a target, and then let the others throw darts. It happened a few times, but I don't know if anyone else saw it that way.

I was hoping Obama would do better, but he did well & Edwards did better in this debate than the others, but I don't think he won it. Clinton has to lose the laugh, Edwards has to lose the "son of a millworker" and Gravel was so over the top I was wishing he'd just lose himself. I didn't think this was Kucinich's best debate either.

[thereismore]

27. Hillary's laughter is getting old really quick. She can recover by stopping

doing it, because most people just don't pay that much attention. I'd suggest that she stops doing that really soon.

[backscatter712]

44. That damned cackle annoys me.

It's really rude. I approved of Hillary doing it during her interview with Faux Noise, since I approve of rudeness towards any of Rupert Murdoch's propaganda outlets, especially when they're asking the questions Chris Wallace was asking, but when she did it to Mike Gravel, she crossed the line.

She laughs like a hyena, and it'll get old really, really fast.

[iconocrastic]

28. Nice post, thanks.

Appreciate your honesty.

[ellacott]

29. She needs to give up with that laugh

Whoever told her to start doing that is wrong and I'm disappointed that she didn't know this.

[Lord Helmet]

30. she was pretty rude interrupting Russert

[Tellurian]

36. He's lucky. I would have hit hm over the head with my purse for his presumptuousness

at acting like a prosecutor rather than a moderator!

[Think82]

45. LINK: Matthews on Hillary -- int. with Biden

http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-US&brand=msnbc&vid=cecbba4f-fc95-4a88-a5b9-1d32f7f23f08

[snowbear]

49. No way I could watch Tweety again.. once was definitely ENOUGH !!

Hillary could've staggered on stage snockered and passed out cold before the first question and Tweety and Pat Buchannan would have still announced her the winner.

[calteacherguy]

50. Yawn...

I suppose you expect her poll numbers to drop, LOL.

[snowbear]

51. Oh no. Don't tell me you've turned into another HRC poll fanatic?

Hell, I didn't think you were rooting for her?

That shrillness. That cackle. Those pathetic responses last night.

Dayum Teach. I pegged you all wrong!

[calteacherguy]

52. I wonder how many people actually watched the debate.

I got so bored half way through I turned it off.

[snowbear]

53. Oh ThankGod, so you mean you're not totally onboard with her Teach?

You're way too cool to be selecting your candidate this soon..

[Jillian]

54. Hillary's laugh is going to become the Dean scream.

[snowbear]

55. At least Dean's scream was tolerable to listen to!

I'm sorry, but that loud cackling sound.. I can't bring myself to listen to it!!

[Steve_in_California]

56. Well written and painfully accurate.

I'd buy your books. So, start typing!