Democratic Debate Proves You Can Hit a Girl

The U.S. presidential debates have been largely a bust, unless you go in for stilted round-robin interviews that reward memorization and neatness over substance.

All those "raise-your-hand-if-you-agree questions'' reduce the candidates to schoolchildren begging the teacher for a hall pass.

Given the setting, Hillary Clinton won every encounter, even though she has sounded like an operator droning that, due to an unusually high call volume, she will be unable to answer your question at the present time.

Thanks primarily to former Senator John Edwards, Tuesday night's Democratic debate was different. He was out to prove it's OK to hit a girl. He hit Clinton so many times that as the night wore on, she began to seem punch drunk, unsure of what was on or off the table and which tough issues needed yet another study by a fuzzy bipartisan commission tied up with a blue ribbon.

To continue reading, click here.

Comments

[Poised]

Calling Hillary a victim of the boys is really counterproductive for her supporters. What if she became president and got pummeled by Putin, Chavez, and Amaneedajihad? Would feminist journalists call those nasty boys unfair? Rise to her defense on the grounds that she's a woman? How disgusting would that be?

In the '70s when the women's movement began in earnest, some wise woman said, "Given the same opportunities, women will make exactly the same mistakes as men." Clearly Hillary makes them -- and gets defended because she's a girl. What idiocy.

[amberglow]

"Given the setting, Hillary Clinton won every encounter, even though she has sounded like an operator droning that, due to an unusually high call volume, she will be unable to answer your question at the present time."

Not answering questions is not winning, and we primary voters know it. It's evading. We don't need another scheming, secretive liar in the White House.

[INQUIRER]

So you're saying that Barack won because Edwards was too mean to Hillary even though she deserved it, right Margaret?

I think several people won.

I think Dodd won, because he showed that he knows that the overriding issue is the Constitution.

I think Edwards won, because his point that Hillary is too influenced by the corporate power-brokers hit the bullseye.

I think Kucinich won, because Russert's contempt for him showed that he does, in fact, deserve to be treated respectfully.

Russert, Matthews, and Williams lost. They proved that they are not serious journalists, and that they are not competent to conduct another one of these events.

Hillary proved that she's tough, well-prepared, and poised, but her lack of forthrightness is certainly not an advantage to her, though she clearly thinks otherwise.

Obama shows me nothing. I wish it weren't so, because if he really were what many of his supporters think he is, it would be a fine thing. But he's not.

Biden is likeable, funny, and sophisticated, but not nearly as smart as some people think he is.

Richardson who?

[BUSHsurvivor]

I actually find it appalling that these dems have decided to attack each other rather than tell us why they should be our nominee.

If they are so gun ho about being specific about what they would do on all of the issues, then why don't they just say where they stand. Isn't that what they are expecting of Clinton? Yet, it seems that when they did it, it wasn't enough...now comes the attacks.

What scares me is that these dems are just making it easy for the rethug nominee to be able to attack whomever the dem nominee will be come general election time.

[Hubert]

"Thin skinned...clever-by-half...master of doublespeak....secretive as Cheney"

Just the kind of person we want as President!

[xrayman]

Yah, if you like a debate where the moderators and the participants defame one participant then it was really great. I don't think it was unfair, but I think that only Hillary could have withstood it. If that same situation was directed at any other candidate they would have wilted.
AND. . . Hillary did not seem punch drunk. She seemed perfectly clear to me. If you look at the faces of each candidate, you will see that Hillary remained lucid while Edwards, Obama, and the remainder, except for Biden seemed angry and flushed.

[ryanjones2006]

The acts of Obama and Edwards were dispicable. They acted like depesperate for votes bullies. I hope this reflects badly on THEIR character.

[MrLion]

I wish the media would spend less time talking about gender politics and more time pointing out how Hillary Rodham Clinton has made a fine art of saying two contradictory things about the same issue (Iran, for instance) in order to try to please two different audiences.

[Plowboy]

OK, call me a bad guy, too. I'm about to hit a girl. But your Hillary deserves a good skanking: she says one thing and does another too often. (I like my girls honest.) SHe says that she opposes Bush's wars, but votes for them every chancce she gets. She excused this by saying that she was tricked. (Well I like my girls smarter.) If she were clever enough to be president she wouldn't be so easily tricked. She also said that she had believed the administration's presentation before the Iraq invasion. But that is too stupid for belief. If I knew it was all lies, (and all the present sales pitch for more war is, too!), then she should have known. Can anyone claim that I have access to information she doesn't? OK, maybe my scientific understanding is better than hers, but surely she has access to trustworthy scientific advisors who could have told her, for example, that the tubes Powell spoke of, couldn't have been used as claimed. Or does she only get advice from the same war pushers that are running things with Bush?
And then I wonder why she loves insurance companies so much more than she does the people of America.

[RadicalRepublican]

Margaret,

After reading your post, I was unable to tell how you feel about the events at the debate. Do you approve or disapprove of Mr. Edwards actions?

Respectfully,
mike