PHILADELPHIA — It was the boys against the girl at Tuesday night’s Democratic presidential debate. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s major rivals, clearly mindful that her front-runner status could be setting into stone, struggled mightily to knock her off stride. But the relentless focus on Clinton only served to reinforce the New York senator’s position as the one to beat for the party nomination.
John Edwards was truly passioniate about taking on Clinton, targeting her centrist views as “doubletalk” and accusing her of falling in line with hawkish “neo-conservatives” on Iran. Indeed, it was the former North Carolina senator’s most forceful debate performance so far.
Barack Obama, who had vowed earlier this week to get tougher against Clinton, initially stepped back from the fight despite early prodding by moderators Brian Williams and Tim Russert of NBC News. The Illinois senator only turned up the heat after watching Edwards land hit after hit against Clinton.
Interestingly, second-tier hopefuls such as New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut rose to Clinton’s defense. Richardson complained that Edwards and Obama were veering close to “personal attacks” that could hurt the party. Not a bad choice for someone considered to be a top running-mate contender if Clinton wins the nomination.
Delaware Sen. Joe Biden also refused to join the fray. “I am not running against Hillary Clinton,” he said. “I am running to be the leader of the free world.”
For her part, Clinton seemed energized by getting so much attention, countering the charges leveled at her with specifics or deftly changing the subject when lacking a detailed retort. No matter what, she never seemed rattled. And that is often the danger for challengers who feel the need to go on the attack. Without a knockout, it only makes the front-runner stronger.
![[RSS]](http://67.192.49.194/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
Comments
'Clinton reaffirms her lead'
You're kidding, right??
I'm afraid the only Clinton 'lead' is within the media.
Posted by: Mair, Baltimore, MD | October 31, 2007 7:50 AM
Um, that and in the polls...
Posted by: Boston, MA | October 31, 2007 8:06 AM
And who conducts and reports on the polls?
Posted by: Mair, Baltimore, MD | October 31, 2007 8:09 AM
Excellent comments Mr. Crawford! I, however, believe that Senator Clinton did not suffer from any of the "hits" on her. Will she show an Achilles heel when she goes up against an in-your-face,got-all-the-facts and spontaneous and charismatic challenger from the Republicans such as Rudy? If she shows that she can come off-script, be more spontaneous and charismatic, and still have credible facts and a rational agenda, Senator Clinton may well have the votes of a lot more people than felt they could vote for her previous to the debates and public appearances. Perhaps, she will be the First Woman President then.
Posted by: Clementina Filosa-Morton | October 31, 2007 8:32 AM
The most important criteria is depth. . .Edwards and Obama like to make it sound so simple. . .the war in particular. Even though it may cost her in some base circles, Hillary will not stoop to the simplifications of the issues Bush has laid at the nation's feet. Catchy one liners that make a nice poster at a rally won't get us out of the mess we're in.
Posted by: christine | October 31, 2007 9:31 AM
Are you kidding? Hillary will stoop to anything to get a vote. She has no depth and doesn't make a decision with out consulting her handlers and taking a poll. She is NO LEADER.
Posted by: Nancianne | October 31, 2007 10:42 AM
I have mixed feelings about this debate, I got extremely tired of Mr. Edwards atttack. Hillary and senator Biden still come across as teh grown ups in the Democratic field. I was chagrined nevertheless, byt the moderators continiously injecteng themself intheh debate, by either edging Edwards and Obama against Mrs. clinton, or as in the case of Tim Russell, one "got you" question after another. There was always something hidden behind every question he asked. That was a disservice to the audience, the candidates and the debate format itself. I like Mr. Russell very much, but I believe he is unfit to host another presidential debate, until he come to terms with the fact thet the job of a moderator is to "moderate", not to to embarass or to get the candidates in difficult possitions. You cannot ask a loaded question, that require a lot of nuance and analysis to answer, and expect the candidate to answer in 30 seconds.
Posted by: talos_29 | October 31, 2007 11:24 AM
I suspect that you are tired of John Edwards' attack because he is telling us we are on the verge of losing our democracy through a corporate take-over in which Hillary will be an eager pawn. She is conducting her campaign just as George the lesser did, grabbing all the money she can from all the vested interests and corporate bosses.
Posted by: Robert Stevenson | October 31, 2007 2:05 PM
I really liked John Edwards in 2004, b ut I feel he is attacking Hillary too much. He and Obama should be showing a "nicer side" of themselves. Their behavior has had the effect on me of deciding "I lkke Hillary" the most. I expected this behavoir from the Replicans not the Democrats.
Posted by: Sandra Feingold | October 31, 2007 2:09 PM
re: Robert Stevenson
We're on the verge of losing our democracy through corporate takeover?? Are you kidding me? W and his corrupt cronies accomplished that in 2000, with no help at all from Sen. Clinton.
Posted by: jimi_07 | October 31, 2007 2:19 PM
I thought Senator Clinton handled the situation last night very well. He answers were to the point and I applaud her for not going after Edwards and Obama. John Edwards is a mean, little man. I voted for him '04 but I will not make that mistake twice. Senator Obama is over rated and too inexperienced. Tim Russert was simply awful. He obviously dislikes Senator Clinton and it was apparent last evening. I have decided to vote for Senator Clinton. Joe Biden was terrific.
Posted by: Judith | October 31, 2007 2:41 PM
Edwards was right on last night. He wasn't being mean, he's being honest about the sad state of our govt. and the influence of lobbyists in DC on politicians. He was by far the best last night. Edwards is really saying all the things I've been waiting to hear. He sounded like a leader and wasn't afraid to step on any toes. The Dems have been too timid for years, I like how Edwards is not playing it safe. All the Dems need to follow his lead.
Posted by: Ms. Populist | October 31, 2007 4:39 PM
I agree in general with Mr. Crawford that Senator Clinton came out bloodied but unbowed from the debate. And I usually love Tim Russert and Brian Williams. Last night, however, they were obviously spoiling for a slugfest between Senator Clinton and everyone else, and seemed positively gleeful when the other candidates (particularly Obama) took her on. I believe in open and honest discourse between all the candidates, but Williams and Russert should let that discourse take place, not try and stage bunfights by unfair and biased questioning and adjudicating. Come on, guys! You're better than that!
Posted by: pcbc | October 31, 2007 4:45 PM
Post A Comment