Las Vegas, Nevada -- If I had told you going into Tuesday night's Democratic debate in Nevada that Iraq would come roaring back to the forefront of the campaign, with decisive positioning on the war being done by one of the candidates, how many of you would've guessed that that candidate would be Hillary Clinton? But that's exactly what happened.
The debate got off to a soporific start, with the candidates joining hands and singing Kumbaya when tossed softball questions about the race-tinged rancor that has dominated the campaign in recent days. Obama and the moderators even let Hillary get away with the stunning claim that she was accepting Robert Johnson's ludicrous "Drugs? I wasn't talking about drugs!" routine.
The next 30 minutes were dominated by phony camaraderie and mockable moments: John Edwards saying his greatest weakness was that he is too compassionate and feels the suffering of others too deeply; Hillary fessing up to being impatient when it comes to doing good things for people.
But everything changed when the candidates were allowed to ask each other questions. Clinton seized the opportunity to turn her Achilles heel into a strength by asking Obama to join her in cosponsoring a bill "to rein in President Bush," and force him to come before Congress with any plans that would prolong the U.S. commitment in Iraq. It was a brilliant tactical move, a sweeping gesture intended to blur the huge advantage Obama has as the only one of the three to have opposed the war from the beginning.
By focusing on Bush, Clinton was acting like she was already moving on to the type of argument she would be making in the general election. And she reinforced this when she pivoted away from her Democratic opponents and pointed out how all the Republican presidential contenders had aligned themselves with the president on Iraq, with John McCain ready to commit our troops for another 100 years. You could all but see the fall leaves turning.
Clinton remained on her game for most of the night -- the glaring exception was when she said that she had voted for the 2001 bankruptcy bill but "was happy that it never became law"! One of her most effective moments was her criticism of Obama's support of the 2005 energy bill, which she labeled "the Dick Cheney, lobbyist energy bill." Pounding home her green bona fides while kicking Obama under the table, she managed to slip in that moving "toward clean, renewable, green energy" was "not going to happen by hoping for it." "Hoping." Get it?
And she did not let the "Can't we all just get along?" pretense stop her from refusing to answer in the affirmative when Tim Russert asked whether Obama and Edwards were prepared to be president. And when Brian Williams asked her if she was playing the fear card when she mentioned the terrorist attacks that occurred right after Gordon Brown took office, she got out the hair splitters and tried to make the case that there was a difference between Republican fearmongering and her "recognition, in a very calm and deliberative way, that, yes, we have real enemies and we'd better be prepared and we'd better be ready to meet them on Day One."
In the spin room after the debate, Robert Gibbs, Obama's communications director, and David Axelrod, his chief strategist, pointed out that the terrorist threat she was referring to has gotten much worse because we took our eye off the ball by focusing on Iraq, which she voted to authorize President Bush to do.
Obama's best moments were when he successfully raised the question of judgment -- the inference being that when it came to the biggest issue of our time, Iraq, he'd shown better judgment than Clinton. But by addressing Iraq head on, Hillary was able to defuse Obama's most potent weapon against her.
After the debate, I asked Mark Penn, Clinton's pollster and chief advisor, if he thought national security was going to be the central issue in the fall campaign. "No," he said, "the economy will be the dominant issue." Judging by her performance tonight, Hillary Clinton would do well to ignore Penn's advice and keep the spotlight on Iraq and the disastrous impact it continues to have on our national security.
Because, in the end, even the people of Nevada, which has the highest home foreclosure rate in the country, will vote for the candidate they trust to keep them alive over the candidate they think will lower their mortgage.
(Photo by Lynn Sweet)
Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff
That's a wrong, wrong, wrong read of the mindset here. Fact: here in NV, people vote with their wallet. Iraq comes a distant fourth - after any order of jobs, economy in general, and health care.
Each candidate presented their platforms during assembly. I was a nervous wreck. I'd stayed up half the night writing and revising, practicing, and committing it all to memory. I received a standing ovation. As my friends congratulated me, I asked my best buddy, Walter, what he thought, and if what I'd said was on target. He said, "I don't really know. The "mike" didn't work, and NO ONE HEARD A WORD YOU SAID. "Huh? But they were all clapping, whistling, and hooraying. Why, if they didn't hear anything I said." Walter looked at me and gently said, "Honestly, a lot of people like you, and you look great and you've got great legs. All of the guys said so. You never wear dresses so seeing your legs was a big deal." "Hey, don't take it so hard. Everyone likes you" I couldn't help feeling like an idiot.
When I first saw the debates, I wanted to know about how the candidates would ensure that Israel actually follow through with the measures they consistently promise to take to end the humiliation and suffering of the Palestinians. What concrete dates and actions will be taken to repair the damage done to Iraq's infrastructure? How, when and where is this concept of unification going to become a reality? In the U.S. we still base our beliefs about each other on stereotyping with a mixture of disdain and fear. We don't really have a clue about other cultures and beliefs within our own nation. And our perception and treatment of non-Americans is even more appalling and embarassing. We disregard the ugly truth that peppers American history. Our message is that we are the defenders of the downtrodden, the voice of reason and altruism, the protector of freedom. We are good and righteous, and those that voice dissent are cowards, coerced, or evil. The media supports and promotes this hypocrisy. Until we face our failings, as well as, our successes fearlessly, what are we to unify?
How about tying it all together by pointing out the economic impact of sinking 9 billion dollars a month in the Iraq war.
Obama's praise of Ronald Reagan for his charisma and leadership was very revealing for me. Reagan was a villain in my book
Both Obama and Hillary have their WARTS. If you think ANY candidate is wartless -- you likely have a messianic complex.
Hillary's warts -- she's NOT charismatic. I worry she has too much special interest connections.
Obama's warts -- I see too little substance and emphasis on his "charisma" to carry the rest of the country together. That's hooey. And I do not think Reagan was a great President because he DID have great charisma.
That's why I will be voting for Hillary.
I wish I could see some in depth reporting on ALL the warts of the candidates here. I am saddened to see great bias here.
How can Hillary vote to reauthorize the use of military force in Iraq...
... When she claims she never voted to authorize the use of military force in Iraq?
.
Her record CLEARLY indicates a pattern of supporting all Middle eastern conflits. She supported Iraq, She is trying, along with Joe Lieberman (who any real democrat should despise) to start a war with Iran. She has gone so far as to suggest, while speaking to her ultra right wing supporters at AIPAC, that even NUCLEAR war with Iran should not be off the table.
She supported the Israeli war against Lebanon, which like Iraq, was a totally avoidable disaster for both the US and Israel.
she has suggested that she will, (as opposed to the other candidates, who are going to work hard for middle eastern change) work to maintain the status quo in the Israeli Palestinian conflict, thereby giving support to the settlements and settlement growth, which has inspired more terrorism agaisnt Israeli and the US (including 9/11) than any other single situation in the middle east.
Hillary states the obvious well. That's about the best I can say for her. She's talking about "questioning" the war. Not stopping it. Politicians love this war. All politicians love this war Arianna.
If your running it you can tout it relentlessly and feed the huge black maw of the Millitary/Industrial complex all on the taxpayers dime. It's just as good a scam as organized religion. Even better really because the receipts are guaranteed.
If your a Democrat you can spout a bunch of empty rhetoric just exactly like Hillary is doing. We all know it's all lies. Hillary would probably re-instate the draft and start a few more wars she's such a freaking hawk. Puhleeze. I get her and Condi confused all the time and they look nothing alike.
This year we are going to start paying for the sins we have commited. The economy is getting ready to implode. On Fox News this morning the stock touts are blissfully extolling the virtues of sending all your customer service and technical jobs to India so as to squeeze the maximum amount of profit out of your cell phone or internet customer. Meanwhile the Market is off 20% since October. That's bad.
They want you to think the sub-prime lending losses are all some kind of bad luck or economic "perfect storm". That's a huge bald-faced lie. Our leaders chose not to regulate these thieves and now WE have to pick up their tab, again.
I was trying to drum up some support for a march on Washington this spring to protest on some other threads and I got ZERO response Arianna. Why do you think that is? I know. It's the same reason our leaders get away with their crimes. We all know instinctively we couldn't change things if we tried. So why bother? Democrat or Republican. It makes no difference at all.
Washington operates totally independent of us now. They mock us with their wealth and power. They could care less what we think or what is right for America.
I don't trust Hillary Clinton on Iraq, but neither do I buy Barack Obama's position that he didn't vote for the war. How could he? He wasn't elected until 2004. To my knowledge, he has not been faced with a real political test of courage.
Mr. Obama is and I do not like him, but he is a serious gentleman among the others!
Why cannot work together Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama for the future of America?
Mr. Obama is and I do not like him, but he is a serious man among them! That is very hard to live every day without to be touched by so many insults and dirty commentary from the so many enemies. But he looks like he is untouchable. That can you find only by peoples with especial good education
"...force him to come before Congress with any plans that would prolong the U.S. commitment in Iraq." What exactly does that mean? The current plan is to stay indefinitely. How, exactly, would Bush go about formulating plans that would prolong what is already of indeterminate length?
Face it. All three of these turkeys have promised to keep troops in Iraq till 2013, yet anti-war Democrats still refuse to consider voting for Kucinich or Gravel, and heaven forbid anyone should ever mention Paul.
A nation of sheep, all right!!
At that moment, if I can at all read minds, I felt like Barack must've been thinking: well, Hillary, I want to oppose Bush, but I don't want YOU to get any credit for it. Obama's campaign couldn't have anticipated this particular question, and it showed. No doubt, she simply outmanuevered him here.