Barack Obama: “I can’t tell who I’m running against sometimes.”

The gloves are off.

If Obama must defend his campaign on two fronts, then it is only fair to make the former first couple understand he will not take it lying down. If you listen to the crowd reaction, I think there are many who agree with his position.

Also,Bryan at Hot Air has posted other videos of this debate. Check out this one in which the discussion turns to Bill Clinton being the first Black President.

I wholeheartedly agree with him when he writes this about that portion of the debate:

It’s sad that Bill Clinton was given the designation of being the country’s first black president. He’s not black. It’s weird that I have to point that out, but it’s true. When this country finally does elect a black president, he or she will have been robbed of some of their achievement by this nonsense about Clinton. Clinton didn’t deserve the distinction and he did everything to disgrace the office, which hopefully no one who follows him will emulate. So as I said, it’s sad that Toni Morrison gave Clinton that particular designation because, among other things, Barack Obama had to answer tonight’s inane question about it. He can’t just answer straight up “No” without running the risk of coming off as churlish or divisive. So he does the best he can with what is basically an insulting question.

Let me just add that the Mrs. Clinton’s answer at the end of the clip of “I think that can be arranged,” may have come off cute to some, but if I were African American I would take that as a slap. That answer indicates that she somehow believes her former Oval Office co- occupant indeed deserves this distinction.

The finger wagged, the eyes narrowed, the angry tone bounced off the walls as he spoke. “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,— Ms. Lewinsky.”

Remember how you felt as a sitting President attempted to convince us that this was a fabrication being fueled by the Republicans and the press?

I did not write the above to rehash old issues or open old wounds. Frankly, other than the fact that he chose to use the Oval Office for his pleasure, I couldn’t care less about the escapades of the former President.

I mentioned it so that if you choose to view this video of Mr. Clinton, it may serve as a reminder of how he reacts when confronted with an uncomfortable situation.

Some things never change. Point the finger..squint those eyes..blame the messenger…Hillary didn’t know…Russert was “breathtakingly misleading”..watch the press eat this up, I’m Bill Clinton.

I am one who believes that while there has to be an ego attached to running for an office such as the presidency, there should also be a humility attached to the honor of winning. A simple, “We believe Mr. Russert was incorrect in his assertion and will work to release these records as quickly as possible,” would have sufficed. Instead it’s the same old game.

Who is the candidate running for President? Can Mrs. Clinton not defend her positions and herself? Why are they both not out waving a copy of this letter (which Tim Russert used in his questioning) in the face of the press and public?

At least for the moment the network is standing behind Russert:

In response, Barbara L. Levin, spokeswoman for NBC, said: “Tim’s question was entirely on the mark.”

Given the spin and rhetoric his question has prompted, I would have to say Ms. Levin is right however, my hopes for any real tough questions being posed to the former First Lady in further debates has waned.

The RNC has also issued a rebuttal statement to the former President’s remarks:

Paul Lindsey of the Republican National Committee responded to Clinton’s comments this afternoon:

“The only thing that’s breathtakingly misleading is Bill and Hillary Clinton’s continued distortion of the facts,” Lindsey wrote in an e-mail. “All this takes is for the Clintons to release the documents related to their time in the White House instead of regaling the American people with more flimsy delaying tactics and excuses.”

Very few have proven in the past to wish to take on the Clinton’s and I give Mr. Russert credit for doing so on more than one occasion in the recent forum, but I will not expect to see more of the same any time soon.

I hope I am wrong, as we need this type of question posed to all serious candidates so we may make informed decisions.

It seems there were more feathers flying during a damage control conference call with the Clinton people than from the NBC peacock Wednesday.

You see, Sen. Clinton didn’t give a good performance at Tuesday’s debate. She had six male candidates and two moderators who ganged up on her and that’s not faaaaaiiiiirrrrrr!

Now the campaign with the most money (legally or illegally, it doesn’t matter now, does it?) is asking for more money to combat these six meanie old male candidates.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) top advisers, doing damage control after the candidate’s debate performance Tuesday, told supporters on a conference call Wednesday that the campaign needed more money to fight back.

Mark Penn, Clinton’s senior strategist and pollster, and Jonathan Mantz, the campaign’s finance director, told the supporters on the call, which The Hill listened to in its entirety, that they expect attacks from Clinton’s rivals to continue, and she will need the financial resources to deflect their attacks.

Clinton came under withering assault in the Philadelphia debate, and some supporters on the call agreed with analysts that she stumbled.

“I wouldn’t say she lost her cool,” one caller said. “But I would say she lost her footing.”

The caller addded that Clinton’s response to questions about records from her time in the White House that have been sealed by the National Archives “made me roll my eyes.”

The criticisms followed Penn’s assertion that Clinton was “unflappable.” He also said criticisms from Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) would backfire and that he was already “detecting some backlash,” particularly among female voters.

Criticism abounded for poor Tim Russert because he didn’t ask her if she’d seen a UFO.

One woman on the call even said Russert should be shot:

He, Mantz and several supporters hinted repeatedly on the call that Clinton was unfairly targeted by Tim Russert, debate moderator and host of NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“Russert made it appear that President Clinton had done something new or unusual,” Penn said, before adding that it “is, in fact, an extremely confusing situation … I think there will be further clarification.”

“I hope so,” a female caller responded. “To me, it was the most uncomfortable part of the debate.”

Penn turned again to Russert. “The other candidates were asked questions like, ‘Is there life in outer space?’ ”

The object of the call, and a follow-up breakfast Thursday morning with campaign chairman and former chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) Terry McAuliffe, was apparently to stop whatever bleeding the senator might have sustained during a debate in which Clinton wore a bull’s-eye on her back throughout the evening.

Penn and Mantz said “a new phase” in the campaign had begun with about 65 days to go before the Iowa caucuses. They expect Obama and Edwards to go “negative on TV, and we’re going to need the resources to fight that front.”

While one supporter voiced his concern that the Clinton campaign is not devoting enough money and staff to Iowa, lagging behind Obama, most supporters who commented on the call expressed their displeasure with what they saw as the moderators’ focus on Clinton.

One caller from Oklahoma City said that “the questions … were designed to incite a brawl,” and that Russert’s and Brian Williams’s moderating was “an abdication of journalistic responsibility.”

Another said Russert “should be shot,” before quickly adding that she shouldn’t say that on a conference call.

She has more money than Carter has liver pills and they want more to combat this negative campaigning?

Personally, instead of the Q&A for soundbites at every “debate” I’d like to see a real brawl. Not the physical kind, mind you, but one in which the candidates do all the question asking and the moderators are there simply to keep time.

As for all the negative campaign ads expected and the lack of money to counter them (if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you in the Arizona desert), it’s not negative if it’s the truth.

The story broke a couple of months ago about former First Lady Hillary Clinton’s records not being released from the National Archives until, at the very earliest, after the 2008 election.

At this evenings Democratic Debate in Philadelphia, Tim Russert questioned Mrs. Clinton about these records and her answer was less than forthcoming so he approached the question again. Watch as the Senator attempts to answer and the rebuttal to her answer from Senator Obama.

Mrs. Clinton seems uncomfortable with the question and appeared not prepared to answer with her usual ease. If there is nothing to hide in these records, release them. There has been ample time especially given the case that she is running for the most powerful office in the world.

HT: ian schwartz

Update:

Another one of those “have it both ways” moments for Mrs. Clinton. This time it is Chris Dodd who calls her on her inconsistency.

Perhaps the questions were more difficult at this debate than those in the past, but it does appear that the Senator struggled to define her answers to these questions clearly. Very interesting.

Towards the end of the Democratic debate Tim Russert quoted a person who had been a guest on Meet the Press.

The statement by the unknown speaker was this:

“Imagine the following scenario: We get lucky, we get the number 3 guy in Al Qaeda. We know there is a big bomb going off in America in 3 days and we know this guy knows where it is. Don’t we have the right and responsibility to beat it out of him?

We could set up a law where the president could make a finding or guarantee a pardon.”

Obama, Biden and Clinton were asked if they would do that and all said we should not use torture.

After Hillary Clinton gave her disapproval of the idea Russert said, “The guest who laid out that scenario for me with that proposed solution was William Jefferson Clinton, last year.”

Hillary looked a bit off-message until Russert told her Bill disagreed with her and she responded, “Well, he’s not standing here right now.”

A priceless moment. Most of the rest of the debate was centered around running against President Bush who is not on the ticket next year.

Update: It seems Hillary also said the same thing:

When Russert revealed ex-President Bill Clinton advocated such a policy on a recent NBC “Meet the Press” appearance, Hillary Clinton won huge applause from the Dartmouth College audience with a deadpan comeback:

“Well, I’ll talk to him later.”

She may have to give herself that talk, too.

Last October, Clinton told the Daily News: “If we’re going to be preparing for the kind of improbable but possible eventuality, then it has to be done within the rule of law.”

She said then the “ticking time bomb” scenario represents a narrow exception to her opposition to torture as morally wrong, ineffective and dangerous to American soldiers.

“In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the President, and the President must be held accountable,” she said.

Clinton’s campaign did not immediately respond to numerous requests for comment on the eye-popping contradiction.

It seems the American people are all on vacation doing fun things or simply uninterested in all the so-called “debates” that are popping up every other week on TV.

AFL-CIO Forum Ratings: Lowest Yet
The AFL-CIO Democratic forum last night on MSNBC, was the lowest rated-yet of the eight primary debates/forums held this election season. Based on live +same day data, Nielsen found the debate had 960,000 total viewers and 340,000 viewers in the 25-54 demo.

Or maybe it was just because Keith Olberman hosted it. (That one’s for Guss)

By now everyone knows Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are still arguing over an answer given in the YouTube debate on Monday night.

The question was: “Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?”

Charles Krauthammer, conservative columnist says this plays to Senator Clinton’s strength in her answer, showing she has a better understanding of world affairs than Sen. Obama.

“I would,” responded Obama.

His explanation dug him even deeper: “The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.”

From the Nation’s David Corn to super-blogger Mickey Kaus, a near-audible gasp. For Hillary Clinton, next in line at the debate, an unmissable opportunity. She pounced: “I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year.” And she proceeded to give the reasons any graduate student could tick off: You don’t want to be used for their propaganda. You need to know their intentions. Such meetings can make the situation worse.

Just to make sure no one missed how the grizzled veteran showed up the clueless rookie, the next day Clinton told the Quad-City Times of Davenport, Iowa, that Obama’s comment “was irresponsible and frankly naive.”

Obama enthusiasts might want to write this off as a solitary slip. Except that this was the second time. The first occurred in another unscripted moment. During the April 26 South Carolina debate, Brian Williams asked what kind of change in the U.S. military posture abroad Obama would order in response to a hypothetical al-Qaeda strike on two American cities.

Obama’s answer: “Well, the first thing we’d have to do is make sure that we’ve got an effective emergency response — something that this administration failed to do when we had a hurricane in New Orleans.”

Asked to be commander in chief, Obama could only play first-responder in chief. Caught off guard, and without his advisers, he simply slipped into two automatic talking points: emergency response and its corollary — the obligatory Katrina Bush-bash.

When the same question came to Clinton, she again pounced: “I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate.” Retaliatory attack did not come up in Obama’s 200-word meander into multilateralism and intelligence gathering.

He gives the win to Sen. Clinton

E.J. Dionne, Jr. writes about the same exchange and comes to a different conclusion. (more…)

Speaks for itself.

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards may not want to participate in debates sponsored by FOX News, but they like taking cash from officials of the company considered an arm of the conservative movement by many liberal Democrats.

In April, Edwards led the charge in refusing to participate in a Fox-sponsored debate. His deputy campaign manager, Jonathan Prince, told AP: “We believe there’s just no reason for Democrats to give Fox a platform to advance the right-wing agenda while pretending they’re objective.”

Within days, Clinton followed suit. Unlike Edwards, Clinton did not directly attack Fox in announcing her decision.

“We’re going to participate in the D.N.C. [Democratic National Committee]-sanctioned debates only. We’ve previously committed to participating in the South Carolina and Tavis Smiley debates,” Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said. The Fox debate was not DNC-approved.

Obama joined in with Clinton. Bill Burton, Obama’s spokesman, said a CNN-sponsored debate would be a more “appropriate venue.”

But in her most recent filing at the FEC, Hillary Clinton reported two large donations from the very top of the Fox corporate structure.

On June 5, Rupert Murdoch, chairman of the News Corporation, gave her presidential bid $2,300. A few weeks later, his son, James R. Murdoch, chief executive of British Sky Broadcasting in London, gave $3,400. Altogether, NewsCorp/Fox executives gave at least $40,000 to the Clinton campaign.

Story

Acts like an ex-wife.

From the Wall Street Journal’s Washington Wire:

The subject of hedge funds came up tonight and two top contenders — John Edwards and Hillary Clinton — had only good words for the investment pools that others in their party have come to see as symbols of unchecked financial excess, of the rich and for the rich.

The question came at the first Democratic presidential debate at historically black South Carolina State University, in rural and lower-income Orangeburg, from moderator and NBC News anchor Brian Williams: Do hedge funds make America better in any way?

Mr. Edwards, who’s been tweaked by critics of late for a perceived disconnect between his populist “Two Americas” rhetoric and his own lifestyle of hedge funds, huge homes and $400 haircuts, envisioned at least the potential for good: “The financial markets are an important component of trying to figure out what it is we need to do about the fact that we have 47 million people without health care, 37 million people who wake up in poverty every day.”

“They play an enormous role in how money moves in this country,” the former North Carolina senator continued.

Mrs. Clinton actually sounded the more populist note, suggesting the potential for some regulation of hedge funds: “America is a great place because we have an entrepreneurial economy. We have people who are willing to make stakes and new enterprises and invest their money. And, obviously, one of the other reasons we’re a great country is because we’ve learned over the years how to regulate that, so nobody gets an unfair advantage.

The former first lady of Arkansas also drew a question on that state’s Wal-Mart, another favorite target of fellow Democrats: Is the now-global retailing giant “a good thing or a bad thing” for the nation?

“Well, it’s a mixed blessing,” she replied. It started, she recalled, as a homegrown provider of affordable goods to rural areas of Arkansas (“where,” she added, “I was happy to live for 18 years”). But as the company grew, she said, it “raised serious questions” about corporate responsibility for providing employee health care, safe working conditions and not discriminating based on race and sex.

Go read the rest so you can see it all in context.

Also, stroll over to this WSJ article for a summary of the actual debate. (Subscription may be required)