It was supposed to be the night Barack Obama took Hillary Clinton down.

But, when all was said and done, Obama was a bystander.

The opening question in Tuesday's Democratic presidential debate was a softball pitch from NBC's Brian Williams to the senator from Illinois. Noting Obama's interview in the Sunday New York Times, in which the senator from Illinois promised to get tough with Clinton for acting like a Republican, Williams asked him detail the votes and statements from Clinton to which he objected.

Obama should have been ready to knock that one out of the park. Instead, he swung and missed.

"Some of this stuff gets over-hyped," said Obama, who then tried to tell a boxing joke before rambling on about his support for "big meaningful change."

Finally, the Illinoisan suggested that Clinton had flip-flopped on trade, torture and Iraq -- moving in each case from bad positions to better ones -- while admitting that her evolutions might have been "politically savvy."

Asked for a rebuttal, the frontrunner seized the opening, noted the many attacks on her by GOP presidential candidates and then delivered a classic debate one-liner: "I don't think the Republicans got the message that I'm voting and sounding like them."

Touche!

Were it left to Obama, Clinton would not only have escaped the night unscathed, she might actually have come out ahead.

But this is a multi-candidate race. Where Obama was unfocused and ineffectual, John Edwards landed plenty of blows. The former senator from North Carolina began by suggesting that "it's fair" to talk about essential differences between the candidates. Then he highlighted a big one. "(Clinton) says she'll stand up to George Bush," argued Edwards. "In fact, she voted to give George W. Bush the first step to war on Iran..."

Ouch! That reference to Clinton's vote in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman resolution declaring Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, which read an awfully lot like a signal to Bush that he has congressional support for an attack on attack Iraq, opened up a highly engaged discussion that saw several of the candidates, led by Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd -- saying in reference to Clinton's vote of five years ago to authorize Bush to attack Iraq: "What you didn't learn by 2002, you should have learned by now" -- aggressively question Clinton's judgement. It was a smart, at times intense dialogue. Kucinich even got in a call for impeaching Bush and Cheney in order to restore the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches on questions of war-making.

But Edwards owned the moment. Accusing Clinton of voting for an Iran resolution that read like it was "written literally by the neo-cons," the 2004 vice presidential nominee declared, "We need to stand up to this president. We need to make it absolutely clear that we will not let Bush, Cheney and this administration invade Iran."

Edwards was identifying himself "as the clear, sharp alternative," observed NBC commentator Domenico Montanaro. "This is wedging going on. (Edwards) might be elbowing Obama out of the way on this issue. (Obama's), albeit reasonable, but tepid answer on this, just wasn't grabbing the spotlight."

"In the competition to see who would be the sharpest Clinton attacker, Edwards won by far," said Newsweek's Howard Fineman, referring to the North Carolinian's reference to Clinton and the neo-cons.

It wasn't just a fight about Iran, however. Edwards hit hard, and effectively, on every front. After detailing the front-runner's contributions from defense contractors and other corporate interests, he said. "If people want the status quo, Senator Clinton's your candidate."

That's tough talk. Blunt talk. The sort of talk that Barack Obama seemed to suggest that he was going to deliver Tuesday night.

But it came from John Edwards, who ended the night as the candidate who had done the best job of defining himself as the alternative to Hillary Clinton.

Comments (40)

1. Edwards was in rare form, Dodd was pretty lucid, Barack was OK, and Kucinich was seeing aliens (not the ones from Mexico)

   Posted by leftofcenter at 10/30/2007 @ 11:17pm

2. "I don't think the Republicans got the message that I'm voting and sounding like them."

   wow, using your common enemy to poke fun at the guy who stood with you and voted for the war, before he decided he was against it.

   It would have been interesting to see the outcome of a match up between Hillary and the chimp back in 2004.

   Posted by Will C. at 10/30/2007 @ 11:44pm

3. obama was in there punching, nichols...

   sorry that barry o is such a nice guy and really does want to run a positive campaign, but he landed a few good shots nonetheless.

   and good for johnny e. he's my second choice of the electable ones anyway. besides, beating up on 50 foot queenie is beating up on 50 foot queenie regardless of the beater...

   i think bill richardson won the "i wanna be 50 foot's running mate" contest for the night...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/30/2007 @ 11:47pm

4. "It would have been interesting to see the outcome of a match up between Hillary and the chimp back in 2004.

   Posted by WILL C. 10/30/2007 @ 11:44pm

   Yes it would have been interesting Will, but, she still would have gotten her ass handed to her just like Kerry.

   Posted by ACook at 10/31/2007 @ 01:57am

5. Jon, you are the type of cynical, left-wing liberal that won't be happy with any candidate. Obama is doing a great job of sticking to the issues and standing up for a new type of progressive politics without lowering himself to personal attacks.

   Posted by martincaver at 10/31/2007 @ 01:59am

6. You want somebody with the gnocchis to win in November? We saw him tonight. If Edwards can K-O Ms. Briefing Binder, he can body slam any of the nitwits the Redumbicans can trot out.

   ELECTABILITY, people! Let's win this thing with someone who won't owe the world a favor after the election.

   Posted by sjduskin at 10/31/2007 @ 02:02am

7. Oh, and anyone who thinks you can win an election in this country without the bare knuckles has apparently just moved here from Never Never Land...

   Posted by sjduskin at 10/31/2007 @ 02:03am

8. Hillary clearly won the debate. She was attacked by everyone except the classy Kucinich and Richardson, who stuck to policy not personality, and she managed to remain unscathed. Edwards was shrill and personal in his attacks against the Senator which is nothing new. Obama was muddled as usual and in trying to step it up against Senator Clinton he seemed to confuse himself more than usual. Of course that is the Democratic Party and politics: Devour your own so they have little chance in the general election. However, it is appalling and troublesome that Tim Russert continues to be harder on Senator Clinton than on the rest of the field, and one could say clearly against her. How many soft ball opportunities did Williams and Russert give to Obama and Edwards to attack Senator Clinton? Not one opportunity was afforded to Senator Clinton to make any attacks on other candidates. But, she has stuck to a positive campaign, and people seem to understand that she is the best choice.

   Posted by DrA at 10/31/2007 @ 02:10am

9. Edwards is desperate...has been for awhile...Hillary remained completely unscathed...as I have said on other sites, Rick Lazio, a Repub Congressman in Long Island who ran against Hillary for Senate lost because he ganged up on her as are these MALE candidates, who also included a non-objective Tim Russert. Women got turned off by Lazio's attack and provided the margin for victory in her race...watch out, guys, keep up the BS and you can be rest assured Hillary will win.

   Posted by MCE337 at 10/31/2007 @ 02:45am

10. Hillary was far from unscathed. If you've heard it all before, some people haven't, and the charges that were made are legitimately damaging. Hillary has not provided anything like a real response to them, and those questions aren't going away.

    I'm a big Obama supporter, and my instinct is to defend his scholarly style and approach because it's what I want to see in the White House in 2009. But I do wish he'd been more comfortable, and effective, in calling Hillary to account on her multiple issues. Edwards made charges that stuck, and they might have blended more smoothly with Obama's mantra about Old Politics than they seemed to on Tuesday.

    The attack posture is not Barack Obama's style, and that can be frustrating to someone like me, who doesn't mind mixing it up. It doesn't mean Obama's not a good fighter, though. We've still got a few rounds to go. Hillary's cut man is in her corner.

    Posted by Donald Weed at 10/31/2007 @ 05:47am

11. The best and most illuminating discussion by far was the one on Kyle-Lieberman. Everyone else on stage sounded much more reasonable than Hillary. While Edwards was the obvious leader in the debate (even more so than the moderators) choosing the issues discussed and the direction it would take, he did a great job of exposing HRC for the 'Bush-light' that she is while at the same time giving himself time to push his own vision.

    Hillary didn't sound smart. She sounded like she didn't study enough especially when you contrast her statements with the likes of Dodd and Biden. They clearly have more command over the issues.

    I like Richardson no longer. This wasn't the time to cozy up to the front runner while attacking those with the cajones to say what needed to be said.

    Posted by nameme at 10/31/2007 @ 07:03am

12. I'd just ask all us "old-timers" to note all the "newbies" who have shown up, and their total support for one candidate or another.

    Will we see these folks again? Or is it possibly a spam-fest by the campaigns, after a major debate???

    Posted by Mask at 10/31/2007 @ 09:20am

13. I disagree. Once Obama got in gear, he nailed her--his approach, however is understated.

    I do question the political sincerity of progressives who seek every opportunity to stroke Queen Hillary in her buffonish, I'm-in-charge tones, even when she is flat on her face.

    Posted by Lil at 10/31/2007 @ 09:23am

14. I have nothing to add except that when Kucinich continues to call for impeachment, his audience is the same as John Nichols's audience. He's addressing the usual clear-thinking minority, of course, but beyond this, he's addressing future generations, who, as they read about our time in their history books, will look upon journalists like Nichols and elected officials like Kucinich as voices in the wilderness, as men who were obviously in the right, but who inexplicably had no power in their time.

    These future generations will agonize over trying to explain WHY the clear and rational call to impeach our nation's most impeachable President, no matter how often it was repeated, was in our oppressive time considered to emanate from outside the political mainstream, rather than from the heart of our Constitutional tradition.

    Someday, people will wonder about this just as they now wonder about the retrenchment of racist segregation and the establishment of Jim Crow laws in the South following the Civil War. They will wonder about this just as they now wonder why Susan B. Anthony struggled for more than half a century for womens' suffrage and did not live to see women obtain the right to vote. It all seems so clear to us, with hindsight, what ought to have been done then, and we agonize over why it was not done, why injustice persisted for so long in a nation that prides itself in being free and fair.

    So it shall one day seem in regard to the question of the neglected impeachment of Cheney and Bush.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 10/31/2007 @ 09:40am

15. Anyone catch Hill's face during Edward's attacks...clever shot producers, I tip my hat to you...nothing was as entertaining though as Kucinich and his persistance that the UFO's impeach Bush, that's what he said right?

    Posted by steyert at 10/31/2007 @ 09:49am

16. Oh and yes Edwards had balls last night, and clearly Hillary's are retreating...but no one's cojones were as big as Kucinich's when he attacked the media for leading America into the war, and then once again called for an impeachment.

    Posted by steyert at 10/31/2007 @ 09:55am

17. Tim Russert was unbelievable. One would have assumed he was part of the Obama or Edwards campaigns by the tone and content of his questions. He was the one who came out slugging against Clinton. I think she sounded authoritative, knowledgeable, and credible until the question about illegal immigrants and drivers licenses. She blew that question sky high and will have to explain her evasiveness. She really opened herself up to legitimate criticism on that one. But I thought it was the only question she muffed. For the rest of the 2-hour debate she held her own against a hostile panel of opponents as well as questioners.

    Posted by ineaston at 10/31/2007 @ 10:08am

18. "These future generations will agonize over trying to explain WHY the clear and rational call to impeach our nation's most impeachable President, no matter how often it was repeated, was in our oppressive time considered to emanate from outside the political mainstream, rather than from the heart of our Constitutional tradition."

    No they won't. They'll wonder about Brittnay, Lindsey, Paris and Brad and Angelina Jolie.

    "Someday, people will wonder about this just as they now wonder about the retrenchment of racist segregation and the establishment of Jim Crow laws in the South following the Civil War. They will wonder about this just as they now wonder why Susan B. Anthony struggled for more than half a century for womens' suffrage and did not live to see women obtain the right to vote. It all seems so clear to us, with hindsight, what ought to have been done then, and we agonize over why it was not done, why injustice persisted for so long in a nation that prides itself in being free and fair."

    Again, no they won't. If it's not the latest slash video or downloaded vids or music on their iPods, the "next" generation could care less.

    "So it shall one day seem in regard to the question of the neglected impeachment of Cheney and Bush."

    Neglected?! How about it was put off the table by your liberal heros Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Conyers et al.?

    Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 10/31/2007 @ 09:40am

    Posted by ACook at 10/31/2007 @ 10:49am

19. Posted by ACOOK 10/31/2007 @ 01:57am |

    yeah - back then people were still skeered stupid and thought the neocons were something other than slick fascists.

    now the powers behind the fascists have decided its time for a dem in power who will pretend to throw schmuk nation (of which you too are a member) a few bones, like mitt romney's tax dollars to the insurance industry health plan...

    wonder what they will pull if they allow hilly to be elected and she goes too far, throws too many bones to schmuk nation? maybe they can resurrect the whitewater investigation?

    we shall see....if she gets the nomination and election!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/31/2007 @ 12:09pm

20. kucinich is the one who should bust out and get f*cking pissed. in fact, i wanna seem him just shove the podium over and cause a light bulb to shatter, and then run off stage screaming!

    Posted by darladoon at 10/31/2007 @ 12:25pm

21. Posted by DARLADOON 10/31/2007 @ 12:25pm

    ?!?!??! You want to see Kucinich act like a raving lunatic?!?!?

    Wasn't admitting to seeing a UFO with Shirley MacLaine good enough to kill his candidacy, for you?

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 10/31/2007 @ 12:28pm

22. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 10/31/2007 @ 12:09pm

    Actually if Hillary wins the Presidency, the fun part will be watching RESE start posting 3000 words from portland.indymedia.org on....

    the Vince Foster "murder"!

    LOL!

    Posted by Mask at 10/31/2007 @ 12:29pm

23. Had to give Joe Biden the best one-liner award though....

    Posted by leftofcenter at 10/31/2007 @ 1:06pm

24. Posted by DARLADOON 10/31/2007 @ 12:25pm

    i understand the sentiment. sounds like an upcoming snl skit...

    Posted by MASK 10/31/2007 @ 12:29pm

    yup...who knows what bill WANTED to do before the witch hunt put his presiency on permanent triangulating defensive? my guess is that the great right wing conspiracy is trying to hsu her right now with shady campaign donations and such...and then there's that former chippendales dancer guy who is her personal masseuse...lol...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/31/2007 @ 1:17pm

25. Posted by MARTINCAVER 10/31/2007 @ 01:59am

    What new type of politics does Obama stands for again? In what ways is he taking positions significantly different from Hillary's - eventually ending the Iraq war, rebuilding standing in the world, seniors, children, healthcare, schools, etc.?

    They don't look that much different to me. Perhaps I missed something?

    Posted by SJDUSKIN 10/31/2007 @ 02:02am

    Electability? I'm sorry, but every time I think of Edwards, I think of the Vice Presidential debate where Cheney talked about 1980's El Salvador as a success story about how to fight an insurgency.

    Edwards stood there blinking like a deer in the headlights instead of mentioning the $6 billion spent there to train death squads or challenging the so-called democratic elections that occurred in 1984.

    He didn't because he wasn't prepared - and he should of been prepared to talk about Cheney and El Salvador and Nicaragua.

    Posted by MASK 10/31/2007 @ 09:20am

    Perhaps people are just interested in the presidential race?

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/31/2007 @ 1:36pm

26. Chris Matthews and the rest of the interviewers at last nights debate have again lowered the quality of the discussion (even though that's hardly possible). They were less interested in discussing the issues than in playing gotcha with the candidates. This is not the general election. We do not need the MSM to whittle down the candidates for us to what they see as the electable few. They treat Hillary like the winner because the republicans want to run against her. She's the only one that can make the election appear to be a horse race. Most of the others would win in a landslide and reporters fear that would lower their ratings.

    And, Oh-My-God... Chris's UFO question to Kucinich was clearly designed to axe him from the race. Since all the candidates believe in god in one form or another I'm sure a candidacy-killing "what weird things do you believe" question could've been leveled at any of them. He served that up, left no where for Kucinich to turn, then harped on it like a giddy teenage girl, even trying to catch Richardson up in it during the "post-game" analysis, because he refused to repute the beliefs of another candidate. I don't believe in aliens, gods or any such nonsense, but Americans do. And to ridicule one candidates beliefs while giving the others a pass was shameful. It was a humiliating display.

    I'm done with Matthews, Wolf and Russert. Where was Olbermann and the agents of truth-to-power journalism?

    Posted by artboyz at 10/31/2007 @ 1:51pm

27. Perhaps people are just interested in the presidential race?

    Posted by SRJENKINS 10/31/2007 @ 1:36pm

    Perhaps...but suspicious how these "one-timers" show up, post "Hillary is great" or "Obama kicked ass"...then vanish. Never sticking around to get on another thread about global warming or the postal rate thing or even Chris Dodd on the Constitution.

    Posted by Mask at 10/31/2007 @ 2:11pm

28. Posted by ARTBOYZ 10/31/2007 @ 1:51pm

    ART, are you saying that you think in terms of the general public or electability that "belief in God" and "belief in alien spaceships hovering over Shirley Maclaine's house" are "equivalent"?

    (BTW, speaking as an agnostic on both "The Big Juju" and "Greys")

    Posted by Mask at 10/31/2007 @ 2:14pm

29. I am done with Matthews. The others, like Wolf and Russert, are still useful to monitor. I've never seen a UFO, and don't ever expect to, but the way Matthews guffawed over Kucinich put me over the top. See ya, Chris! (Not!)

    As for Edwards, I, too, can't forget the 2004 Vice Presidential Debate with Darth, or his 2002 vote, however much he apologizes. But I'm posting again because I shrieked when I read this one:

    Remember 2004's overuse of the word, "gravitas"? Anybody who's been dubbed the, "Breck Girl" is someone with a fatal lack of said "gravitas".

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 10/31/2007 @ 1:04pm

    So all we have to do now to destroy a candidate is to call them a silly name over and over again. Inspiring!

    Posted by Donald Weed at 10/31/2007 @ 2:18pm

30. Cooler heads will prevail and all of you calling for impeachment will realize that a difference of opinion isn't an impeachable lie.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 10/31/2007 @ 2:07pm

    Still slugging down the neo-con koolaid just as fast as they can pour it, eh?

    The truth will out, and bush will die in shame. I only hope his father and mother live long enough to see their son's shame, and know what a piece of shit they foisted on the nation.

    Depose the Bush Family Evil Empire!

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 10/31/2007 @ 2:28pm

31. Kucinich may have won the debates so far, but last night Joe Biden was the one who handed Clinton her head, with Edwards more in the "me too" category. Biden may not be able to fire three shots outside the debates without hitting himself in the foot at least once, but last night, for the half hour we watched, he was winning. We tuned out before the Kucinich/UFO thing, but even before that he was a little off his game. Hey, even if he won *every single debate* it wouldn't matter, not in this country...

    Posted by mabel33 at 10/31/2007 @ 2:34pm

32. I was at last night's debate, and came away with the following observations:

    1-Whomever decided that Tim Russert should be the guy hosting "Meet the Press" should have his or her head examined. To say that he embodied the phrase "talking head" is an understatement. Some of the questions he asked made me want to run up to the stage and bitch slap him on behalf of all of the reporters who would have asked better questions.

    Some of my favorites: "Will you pledge that Iran won't get nuclear weapons during your term?" "Congressman Kucinich, is it true that you've seen a UFO?" "Senator Obama, what are you going out as for Halloween?" What a fucking goofball!

    2-Brian Williams isn't much better. There were times that he reminded me more of Ted Baxter from the old "Mary Tyler Moore Show" than he did an actual news anchor.

    3-Bill Richardson needs to decide whether he wants to be president or Hillary Clinton's running mate. The way that he pandered to her last night made me want scream. Since I had gotten my ticket from a Richardson supporter, I felt especially bad for the folks I was sitting with. They had given time and money to this guy. They wanted to know what the deal was, too.

    4-When you have seven candidates on stage, talk all seven. Don't leave two of the seven hanging for the first 20 minutes of the debate.

    5-If Joe Biden didn't have foot-in-mouth disease, he'd be the front runner.

    6-I know that the though of Barack Obama becoming the Democratic nominee over Hillary Clinton absolutely galls the national political press corps (and I'm including you in this, Mr. Nichols), but if you're going to try and coronate Madame Clinton, at least be creative enough to use something other than the same tired old phrases you've used to disparage other candidates who have dared run against your golden child.

    7-Hillary showed me once again why I have no intention of voting for her. She was having trouble keeping her shit straight. She voted for the War in Iraq. She voted for the Patriot Act. She voted for that resolution that comes close to giving Bush the power to invade Iran. But we're supposed to believe that she's stood up against Bush? I was born at night, but it wasn't last night. That whole exchange sent my bullshit meter off the chart.

    and...

    8-I figured out why the American people don't vote and why they don't really have any love for the press right now.

    People don't vote because no one is talking about the issues they care about. You know that the debate is focused on all of the wrong stuff when educational policy doesn't come up until there's only 25 minutes left in the debate, and then only as a so-called "lightening round" question.

    People have no love for the press because the current press corps would rather focus on these issues that no one cares about instead of getting down to brass tacks. That Brian Williams is hosting "Saturday Night Live" this week is no accident. He's a lightweight, as are most of the folks currently doing TV news. Edward R. Murrow is probably turning over in his grave.

    Posted by edwriter at 10/31/2007 @ 3:41pm

33. Remember 2004's overuse of the word, "gravitas"? Anybody who's been dubbed the, "Breck Girl" is someone with a fatal lack of said "gravitas".

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 10/31/2007 @ 1:04pm

    Dubbed that only by hard rightwing scum, who are listened to only by people who still support W and wouldn't vote Democratic no matter who runs....

    the key demographic, independent voters, don't give a shit what Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh say.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 10/31/2007 @ 3:52pm

34. Edwriter - great post! I agree completely. It's as if the moderators were selected for their lack of insight, inability to address any pertinent issues, and appeal to the lowest common denominator.

    Oh.

    Right.

    Silly me.

    Posted by LeeAnnG at 10/31/2007 @ 4:03pm

35. I'd just ask all us "old-timers" to note all the "newbies" who have shown up, and their total support for one candidate or another.

    Will we see these folks again? Or is it possibly a spam-fest by the campaigns, after a major debate???

    Posted by MASK 10/31/2007 @ 09:20am

    Good observation Mask. It's interesting to see these "political spammers" come out of the woodwork after the debates and then never join another discussion.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/31/2007 @ 4:31pm

36. What the Democratic debates continue to establish is the fact that none of the Democratic candidates can be trusted with the security of our nation. HRC actually and surprisingly comes closer to a realistic view of foreign policy, but even she is too beholden to the anti-American segment of the left to be trusted (Frankgrits will obviously swoon over her performance last night like a one-handed clap).

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/31/2007 @ 4:35pm

37. Nichols, as a career liberal, misses the big picture. Here, let Bob Somerby of the Daily Howler (www.dailyhowler.com) explain what's going on. Hint: just like campaign 2000 where Bradley and the mainstream press (The Nation included) were responsible for putting Bush in the White House and our troops in Iraq.

    LET'S PLAY TEE-BALL! Welch's Lost Boys went after the witch, tee-ing it up for their brothers:

    WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 31, 2007

    LET'S PLAY TEE-BALL: Maureen Dowd's columns--like this groaner today--actually serve one useful purpose. In all honesty, if such work weren't publicly offered, we would have no earthly idea that people this stupid existed. Her new piece is brainless from the start. But before long, Dowd types this perfect inanity; she refers to Caitlin Flanagan's latest outing in the sad, broken Atlantic:

    DOWD (10/31/07): Hillary surely hopes there is a harbinger in Argentina, where voters just rewarded their former president for his economic prosperity by electing his wife to succeed him.

    ''And why not?,'' former first lady Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner said about Hillary yesterday. ''Another woman wouldn't be bad.''

    Ms. Flanagan is not so sure. She was particularly bothered by Hillary's callousness in dumping Socks, the beloved White House cat and best-selling author, on Bill's former secretary Betty Currie.

    But maybe the qualities that many find off-putting in Hillary--her opportunism, her triangulation, her ethical corner-cutting, her shifting convictions from pro-war to anti-war, her secrecy, her ruthlessness--are the same ones that make people willing to vote for a woman.

    Dowd just couldn't help herself; she had to cite Flanagan's complaint about Socks, a complaint whose cosmic brainlessness has been widely cited in the past week. And then, of course, she seamlessly moved to complaints about Clinton's "ruthlessness"--using a word which was endlessly used in the trashing of Candidate Gore. (People like Josh Marshall don't want to go into it, but the same stories are told about all Major Dems--and the Dowds are going to tell these stories until we force them to stop. Josh just won't go there.) At any rate, let us repeat: If work like this didn't appear in the Times, we would never have understood that human beings could be this stupid. But presumably, it always will be like this--as long as have a multimillionaire press corps. As in Versailles, so now at the Times. Dowd's silly languor is a public embarrassment. But in the world of high Antoinettes, the inanity has always been thus.

    That said, Dowd does provide one more service today. She explains what Jack Welch's famous "Lost Boys" were doing on that debate stage last night. Tim Russert and Brian Williams turned in an astounding performance, the like of which we've never seen in any debate on any level. As she ends this morning's piece, Dowd--a culture-mate of the pair--describes their strategy, even as she continues her insults of Clinton, the same ones she aimed at Vile Gore:

    DOWD: Few are concerned that Hillary is strong enough for the job. She is cold-eyed about wanting power and raising money and turning everything about her life into a commodity. Yet, the characteristics that are somewhat troubling are the same ones that convincingly show she will do what it takes to beat Obama and Rudy. She will not be soft or vulnerable. She will not melt in a crisis.

    And, unlike Obama, she doesn't need to talk herself into manning up. Obama whiffed in the debate last night when Brian Williams and Tim Russert teed up the first question for him to take on Hillary--something the debate dominatrix never would have done.

    The script we find in that first paragraph comes straight out of Campaign 2000. Al Gore--sorry, cold-eyed Clinton--is willing to do and say anything! But then, these scripts will be aimed at Dem front-runners as long as liberals and Dems permit it. For years, we've refused to fight back.

    And we've refused to discuss the conduct which Dowd correctly describes in that passage. If you watched the debate, you saw what occurred: In fact, Russert and Williams "teed it up" for Obama and Edwards all night long. (Presumably, Dowd had an early deadline.) We thought their performance was simply stunning; there has never been a debate like it. That said, we thought Garance Franke-Ruta, live-blogging the session, had the eyes and the guts to see and say what was happening half-way through. She posted this at 9:57 Eastern, when the gang-bang staged by these weak-minded boys had reached a remarkable level:

    FRANKE-RUTA: OK, this is now everybody--and I do mean everybody--against Clinton. It makes her look brave for just standing there, this small determined woman being attacked by three men on either side of her, two male moderators, and the entire male Republican field. Each of the critics on his own would be more effective, but taken as whole, the optics of this are uncomfortable.

    In retrospect, we'll go beyond that; in fact, the optics were pitiful. It was sad to see that Obama and Edwards would take part in such a Salem witch-dunk; of all the boys who stood on the stage, only Richardson had the decency to announce that he wouldn't be part of it. (God bless the occasional man who stands up and says he won't do this.) Of course, our nominee doesn't have to be a woman to provoke this kind of ugly reaction; in Campaign 2000, the Dem nominee was a man, so Dowd just imagined that he was a woman, announcing that Gore was "so feminized [that] he's practically lactating." (As has been quite plain for years, this person is deeply unwell.) But when the Democratic front-runner is a real woman, the press corps' multimillionaire culture warriors don't have to imagine they're slaying a lady. They can savage her right in the flesh! What a shame that Big Dems played along.

    In the next few days, with transcripts (presumably) available, we'll take a look at the remarkable questions posed last night by Welch's Lost Boys. (We'll compare them to the lazy softballs their island-mate served at the last GOP debate.) They were hired to serve this purpose, and they've served this purpose quite well; they trashed your nominee during Campaign 2000, and sent the world's dumbest man to the White House. But if you tend to doubt the fact that their souls are driven by a gender madness, we'll close today with a report from last night's NBC Nightly News. The headline comes to us straight from Nexis. This really is the way someone at NBC News viewed last evening's event. Look for men to go after Clinton, some poor broken loser cried out:

    NBC NIGHTLY NEWS (10/30/07):

    Look for men to go after Senator Hillary Clinton in tonight's Democratic debate

    BRIAN WILLIAMS: And on that very stage, my partner in the questioning for tonight's debate will be our Washington bureau chief, the moderator of Meet the Press, Tim Russert. And, Tim, as rare as it is to telegraph your strategy, here's Barack Obama, this weekend, New York Times, saying, "Yes, I'm going to be tougher against Senator Clinton." What can he do now? That raises the stakes.

    TIM RUSSERT: He has to fulfill his promise, his pledge. Now, I think it will not be like two caged animals. But, Brian, he has to be very pointed in separating himself from Hillary Clinton on specific issues. He also has to provide a rationale for his candidacy. More than politics of hope, more than turn the page, he has to say, "On Iraq, Iran, Social Security, no matter what the issue is, we differ. You're a wonderful woman, you have a great husband, but we differ on these issues, and I can win a general election." It's a very high hurdle for Obama to succeed.

    WILLIAMS: And we're talking about two of the people on stage tonight. There are a lot of others that like very much to get their message heard above the din.

    RUSSERT: They're going to say to you, "Let me in, coach." John Edwards, watch him closely, Brian. He is absolutely going on a no-holds-barred, take no prisoners. I believe he will be more candid, more blunt, more acerbic in his language than Barack Obama. Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Rill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, this is it for them. They know they have to make a mark in tonight's debate, two months to go.

    WILLIAMS: All right, partner, I'll see you on stage. Tim Russert, thanks!

    Clinton? To these sad, hand-picked corporate partners, she is "a wonderful woman" who has "a great husband." And yes--at NBC News, some poor soul actually did put that headline on this report. "Look for men to go after Clinton!" As with Dowd, so with this: You wouldn't know that such people exist...

    At any rate, the "men" did go after Clinton last night--holding hands like blubbering babies, looking like frightened, wet-legged boys. Brian and Tim and Barack and John learned an inspiring lesson last night--if the four hold hands and help each other, they can work up their courage to dunk the vile witch. Yes, they did the same thing to Candidate Gore, simply pretending that he was a woman. But this will be done to Democratic front-runners as long as we Dems and libs permit it. And uh-oh! If the work of our brilliant web leaders provides clues, this will go on for a very long time. So will Republican control of the White House.

    So will Republican warring, of course. Could you believe the questions those idiots asked about their hopes for war with Iran? We'll look at their questions tomorrow--and we'll see what it's like to play tee-ball.

    TOMORROW: If Tim and Bri do another debate, will water-boarding be allowed?

    OTHER EYES: Different eyes see different things. During the period when Garance piped up, here's what Josh Marshall saw:

    9:45 PM ... Whatever you think of Clinton's answer to this experience question, I still get a chuckle out of Giuliani's idea that he was somehow commander-in-chief of New York City. Responsible for the safety of millions of people? The Mayor?

    9:52 PM ... Again with this doofus Giuliani 'experience' question. Made a payroll? Rudy? Opening and rainmaking consultancy to cash in on your public service. That doesn't count. Face it. Giuliani was a government lawyer his entire life until he served two terms as mayor. Nothing wrong with that. Very honorable. But don't pretend you're some sort of business man.

    10:01 PM ... Okay, I may have to endorse Biden after this tear against Rudy. Right, the least qualified man running for president since George Bush. Actually, this whole answer is pretty great. Not really being in the race is sorta liberating.

    10:03 PM ... Why do we indulge Tim Russert's delusion that he's an expert on social insurance programs?

    10:04 PM ... Here's the thing with Hillary. Not always inspiring answers. But, man, she never flubs an answer. Simply unflappable. Like a machine. And I mean that as a compliment.

    Of course, Josh will always cut and run. To read what he saw in real time, just click here. But uh-oh! In this morning's post, he's getting in line with what PayPal donors have said.

    If you agree with either one of these outlooks, won't you please submit a donation? By the way, just a hint: People who retract their own vision this way will not describe your recent history. It's great to see our liberal "leaders" adjusting to what Josh calls "the spin." At least Chris Matthews waited two days to flip on Bush-Gore Debate I.

    Posted by FredMullen at 10/31/2007 @ 6:08pm

38. Will we see these folks again? Or is it possibly a spam-fest by the campaigns, after a major debate???

    Posted by MASK 10/31/2007 @ 09:20am

    SURE SOUNDS LIKE PIMP MACHINES IN ACTION, DOESN'T IT?...

    I often get the feeling that campaigns as well as just politicians' offices (including the White House press office) do this kind of thing. (Happens a lot more on HuffPost, for example....) Pimp, pimp, pimp, spam, spam, spam....

    Posted by w_m_bear at 10/31/2007 @ 6:57pm

39. Wasn't admitting to seeing a UFO with Shirley MacLaine good enough to kill his candidacy, for you?

    heheh

    Posted by MASK 10/31/2007 @ 12:28pm

    IT PRETTY MUCH WAS FOR ME...

    For my primary vote, it was a toss-up between Kucinich and Edwards. This made up my mind.

    Look (I wanted to say to Dennis), it's fine if you actually saw a UFO -- whatever people say, this is actually a fairly common experience and doesn't detract in any real way from a person's mental fitness, IMHO. But it obviously ISN'T the kind of thing a politician wants to give an honest answer about since the questioner is likely not LOOKING for an honest answer but simply for a way to label someone a "crazy." Use some common sense with questions like this! Sure the mainstream media are stupid to take this tack but that's part of the problem with the politics of the lowest common denominator, a.k.a., American politics....

    Posted by w_m_bear at 10/31/2007 @ 7:02pm

40. Yes it would have been interesting Will, but, she still would have gotten her ass handed to her just like Kerry.

    Posted by ACOOK 10/31/2007 @ 01:57am

    I might actually be able to take that seriously if just about every other speculative adventure that hamsterland has taken into events that have not happened hasn't turned out very differently, after actually happening, from what you hamsters laid out for us

    Posted by Will C. at 11/02/2007 @ 10:51pm