Clinton, Obama Come to Blows; Edwards Wins

In the edgiest debate of the Democratic presidential race, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton repeatedly engaged on Monday night in bitter and at times personal exchanges with one another.

And John Edwards effectively pointed to the heated squabbling between the two frontrunners in anticipation of Saturday's South Carolina Democratic primary as a deviation from the issues that matter.

Clinton accused Obama of doing legal work for a Chicago slumlord and charged that her opponent "did the bidding of the insurance companies" when health care was debated in the Illinois legislature.

Obama told Clinton he was fighting to help workers in Chicago when "you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Wal-Mart."

Clinton accused Obama of playing fast and loose with his positions. "Senator Obama, it is very difficult having a straight-up debate with you because you never take responsibility for any votes. That is a pattern," she charged, drawing jeers from the crowd, which generally awarded cheers to the applause lines of the candidates.

Obama complained about "a set of assertions made by Senator Clinton as well as her husband that are not factually accurate" and suggested that the Clintons were generalizing about legislative votes on complex issues to paint a negative picture of him. (Later in the debate, he ruminated about whether he agreed with author Toni Morrison that Bill Clinton was "the first black president." He got a laugh when he said he'd check out the former president's dance steps to see whether he was a "brother." Clinton got her laugh when she replied, "I'm sure that can be arranged.")

Obama returned more than once to his objections regarding Bill Clinton's role in the campaign.

Unfortunately, Obama lodged his complaints about the mischaracterization of his record on the same night when he was doing much the same thing.

Noting that Obama had attacked both his foes for votes they had taken, Edwards said, "What you're criticizing her for, by the way, you've done to us."

Obama struggled to explain himself by explaining voting procedures in the Illinois Senate. But it was a tough sell, although perhaps not so tough a sell as Clinton's attempt to dodge a question from Edwards about whether she would bring the troops home from Iraq within a year.

In short order, Edwards had gotten the best of both his opponents. That was the order of the night. Again and again, Edwards took the side of one of the frontrunners against the other, effectively serving as an arbiter between the two.

It was an ideal position for Edwards, the outsider candidate who is struggling to distinguish himself from two opponents with more money and better poll positions.

But the former senator from North Carolina had to fight for it. More than half an hour into the debate in South Carolina, where voters will participate in a high-stakes Democratic primary on Saturday, CNN moderator Wolf Blitzer had presided over what was essential a showcase for Clinton and Obama.

"Are there three people in this debate, not two?" interjected Edwards. The 2004 Democratic nominee then delivered what may have been the most effective soliloquy of the night. Referencing the bitter back-and-forth between his two opponents, Edwards asked, "This kind of squabbling -- how many children is this going to get health care? How many people are going to get education because of this? How many kids are going to get to go to college because of this?"

"I respect both of my fellow candidates," he continued, "but we have got to understand this is not about us personally. It's about what we are trying to do for this country,'

Of course, Blitzer interrupted. But Edwards held his ground. "Let me finish here," he said. "Lord knows, you let them go on forever."

The crowd cheered as loudly as it had for anything said by Obama or Clinton.

And even CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider noticed, saying, "This could be a debate where John Edwards gets back in the game. He's effectively making his points, while Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are in silly squabbles. Voters have too many concerns to care about Obama and Clinton's political potshots."

Radio commentator Carl Jeffers agreed, explaining that, "There are a lot of Americans who are turned off by this personal animosity between Clinton and Obama and that benefitted John Edwards."

That was certainly Edwards' hope.

"The reality of the race is that I am running against two celebrity candidates who have raised over $100 million each. I'm an underdog, but I'm a serious underdog," the candidate said after the debate, noting that he has won delegates despite a lack of media attention. "I think that people who watched this debate with an open mind were probably impressed."

What is not known, at a point when everyone seems to be taking sides in an increasingly intense fight between Clinton and Obama, is how many people watched this debate with an open mind. There skirmishing between the Clinton and Obama camps may simply solidify support for he leaders. But in this fluid race, did Edwards connect with enough undecided and wavering voters to secure a credible finish in South Carolina's primary? The answer to that question will determine whether John Edwards, who had a good night Monday, will have a good enough night on Saturday in South Carolina to remain the serious player he deserves to be in a race that goes national in two weeks with the February 5 "tsunami Tuesday" primaries and caucuses.

Comments (56)

1. Well and good for Edwards! BUT.....

   When over half of Primary voters are expected to be women, and almost half in SC are expected to be blacks, Edwards's chances to end up higher than 3rd is lower than Frosty getting adopted!

   Posted by Happy at 01/21/2008 @ 10:58pm

2. "The question, at a point when everyone seems to be taking sides in an increasingly intense fight between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, is how many people watched this debate with an open mind."

   no, the question is how many people watched the debate.

   period.

   pretty hard to trump "prison break" and the "sarah something or other chronicles".

   Posted by frosty zoom at 01/21/2008 @ 11:00pm

3. and look how cnn says "race, woman, race, woman, race, woman, race, woman, race, woman, race, woman, race, woman, race, woman, race, woman, race, woman, race, woman, race, woman, race, woman".

   look who's playing the race card.

   icky.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 01/21/2008 @ 11:02pm

4. No question Edwards needed it. But he needed it a month ago. Obama and Clinton sniping at each other (in fairness Clinton was as close to lying as you can get on some of that shit without actually saying something that the dullards at CNN would catch you at) was part of why he did well. He was also more forceful and more focused on poverty and income inequality and how they affect other policy issues. He could have done better in previous debates by being a bit more like that.

   Posted by dentedpat at 01/21/2008 @ 11:06pm

5. mr. nichols...this squabbling may turn YOU off, buts its exactly what "oh no you didn't" nation eats all up.

   you and your fellow nationers are not a good sample of schmuk nation...and thats NOT a slur...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/21/2008 @ 11:08pm

6. Edwards benefited by Hillary's distortion of Obama's record, which required Obama to respond rather than stay on topic.

   Wolf Blitzer did a TERRIBLE job of moderating the debate, allowing candidates to interrupt each other and stray off topic.

   I don't think any of this helps Hillary in South Carolina, and it will not turn off black voters to Obama.

   Edwards may place better than he would have in SC, but he still doesn't get the win he needs to be a viable candidate. But with Hillary's constant distortions of Obama's record, she may come in third behind Obama and Edwards.

   Posted by Metteyya at 01/21/2008 @ 11:18pm

7. Hopefully this is the event that gets the media to drop the "angry" tag from Edwards' candidacy. Now that Obama has fallen back down to earth.

   Posted by hitomi at 01/21/2008 @ 11:28pm

8. What exactly is wrong with Edwards being angry? I forgot where this quote came from but it is a good one, 'If you are not angry, you are not paying attention.'

   Edwards' anger over issues of corporate dominance in politics, and the effects that has on the poor and middle class and the force with which he advanced these issues is exactly what drew me to his campaign after Feingold said he wouldn't run. Maybe it gets in the way of his being elected, I don't know, but it seems to me the proper attitude to take towards what is and has been happening in this country is focused anger.

   Posted by dentedpat at 01/22/2008 @ 12:30am

9. As a Professor of Woman's Studies, I urge all women and feminists to vote for "our man" / Any woman who votes for a man is a traitor to our cause. There are so many women who think with their "brains" which have been polluted by college/male/dominance/contra-feminiey that the they have fogotten their hearts. Vote with your hearts. Vote for Hillary. Any vote for any man is a stupidity.

   Posted by hamiltongrad at 01/22/2008 @ 01:09am

10. There are so many women who think with their "brains" which have been polluted by college/male/dominance/contra-feminiey that the they have fogotten their hearts. Vote with your hearts.

    Well, at least you didn't say VOTE WITH YOUR VAGINA!

    That would have been reverse-sexism, right? Also, I think the "female" transsexuals would have taken issue with that statement as I hear they like their penises!

    If all Hillary has to offer is a vagina and breasts, that is not saying much for the feminist cause. I guess being surrounded by all of those VERY bright women in college and grad school was just a ruse, right? According to you, being a brainiac is some sort of male thing, and one couldn't possibly be "feminine" and a certified genius at the same time, huh?

    Sorry, HAMILTONGRAD, but I'll take a "feminized" compassionate man over a "I'm as tough as a guy" woman, any time, any where.

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/22/2008 @ 01:25am

11. It is typical/stereo-tumoral/dominated male thinking that has produced the bizarre system of nomination that is virtually always men only club. For once, a female has made it to the last hurdle. Of course she has brains, that does not mean that we have to match brain deductions or use ours other than to practice the mantra of "women first"- not last., Isn't it time that we take time for ourselves ???? please consider: ( from my DVD set of lectures on "FEMALE POWER" )

    "We must, to define our beings, be as one with our our hearts." Kathernine S. McClayston, founder SMWS.

    FEMALE POWER is not brain power, simply because the US brains of women have been contaminated by male dominated thinking/television/ even so called Progressives- which are in actual. a front for NAZI eventration of ideas.

    I am offended by the references to female anatomy .

    Posted by hamiltongrad at 01/22/2008 @ 02:21am

12. Edwards is still in there running because he hopes that as the only "white man" the Dems will finally realize that the Repubs have all white men running & that to run a woman or black against them will automatically mean a loss for the Dems.

    Blacks only make up 12% of the total population of the US and when you get to the voting population you are looking at probably less than 5% of the population. Obama has no chance in a national election of being elected president.

    Clinton has a better opportunity with a population of females outnumbering males. However, with all the negative press and antagonistism attached to both she and her husband her chance of being elected is also less than ideal.

    I believe that this is the reason Edwards is still hanging in there. Even though he has neither the political experience or the appeal to the progressives that is needed to be elected I fear the Dems are going to end up helping to elect whichever Repub finally gets the nod.

    Personally, I would love to see a woman finally elected to the presidency. It is shameful that the world's greatest democracy has failed to elect no one but white males to govern the nation. It would be nice to see this changed in 2008, but I'm not holding my breath.

    Posted by sara48909 at 01/22/2008 @ 02:42am

13. HAMILTONGRAD smells like a provocateur, out to smear & undermine those supporting women. Ignore him.

    Speaking of ignoring ... today's NYTimes almost succeeds in ignoring Edwards as a participant in last night's SC Dem debate. Coincidence, of course.

    Posted by sloper at 01/22/2008 @ 03:22am

14. As a Professor of Woman's Studies, I urge all women and feminists to vote for "our man" / Any woman who votes for a man is a traitor to our cause. There are so many women who think with their "brains" which have been polluted by college/male/dominance/contra-feminiey that the they have fogotten their hearts. Vote with your hearts. Vote for Hillary. Any vote for any man is a stupidity.

    Posted by HAMILTONGRAD 01/22/2008 @ 01:09am

    LOL...good to see that Universities these days have high hiring standards (not.) Somehow a good welding school seems a lot less polluted.

    Posted by Sliver at 01/22/2008 @ 08:13am

15. "We must, to define our beings, be as one with our our hearts." Kathernine S. McClayston, founder SMWS.

    Posted by HAMILTONGRAD 01/22/2008 @ 02:21am

    good to see a woman who likes her whiskey! [smws.com]

    or a little baseball, perhaps?

    in a league of her own! [smws.us]

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/22/2008 @ 08:36am

16. The Economy is about to tank, and I still haven't heard anything intelligent from any of the top three on how they are going to fix it. I voted for Kucinich because of his economic positions and, of course, Iraq. They Are still "Free Traders", and that economic theory is crashing and burning.

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 01/22/2008 @ 09:07am

17. Well, John Edwards has two strikes against him.

    1. He MUST place 2nd or even win in South Carolina...or else he's toast. He cannot keep placing behind Obama AND Hillary and claim any realistic shot at the nomination. South Carolina or Bust for "Johnny" Edwards.

    And 2. The fact that John Nichols of "The Nation" keeps saying he has a shot at it....heheh

    Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 09:14am

18. They Are still "Free Traders", and that economic theory is crashing and burning.

    Posted by P. J. CASEY 01/22/2008 @ 09:07am

    for us.

    not them.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/22/2008 @ 09:22am

19. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/22/2008 @ 09:14am

    Do you think maybe as "bad" as the Democrats are, that people are fed up with the failures and incompetence of the Bush Administration...and not likely to vote for any of the GOP nominees who are all (but Paul) promising "more of the same"?!?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 09:27am

20. FROM 'HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT WEBSITE' - PRESS RELEASE 12/12/07

    "...She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We're confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks..."

    http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674

    GO OBAMA!

    YES WE CAN

    Anne

    Posted by annevilla at 01/22/2008 @ 10:00am

21. Those KKKlinton's need to stop it with the race baiting! I guess Fullbright taught Bill well.

    Posted by woodyee at 01/22/2008 @ 10:43am

22. Hillary could generate enough opposition to lose, but I think Obama wins in a cake walk.----Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/22/2008 @ 09:57am

    Agreed.

    Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 10:46am

23. I watched the video of Clinton and Obama having at it...and I don't want to vote for either of them now, they both sound like children. "Well he said... no she said!!... I know you are, but what am I?"

    Posted by jro555 at 01/22/2008 @ 10:48am

24. Posted by JRO555 01/22/2008 @ 10:48am

    Well, unless Edwards gets a 2nd place or better in his birth-state...

    you may have no choice.

    Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 10:52am

25. Blacks only make up 12% of the total population of the US and when you get to the voting population you are looking at probably less than 5% of the population. Obama has no chance in a national election of being elected president.

    SARAH48909,

    Did you just recently tune in to the primary season?

    Let me catch you up on a few facts:

    1) Obama WON in Iowa, which has a 95% WHITE population!;

    2) Obama placed a CLOSE SECOND in New Hampshire, which has a 96% White population; and,

    3) Obama WON the delegate count in Nevada because he had GREATER appeal than Hillary OR Edwards in the rural and WHITEST parts of the state.

    Hillary has done her best to try to reduce Obama to the "black candidate" like Jesse and Sharpton, but has failed miserably. She has also failed to convince the black voter that they should prefer her over him.

    The ONLY thing Hillary has going for her right now is the female vote, and that just won't get it done for either the nomination or the general election. And, like in Iowa, she will LOSE the female vote in a number of states to Obama, as women learn that she is WORSE than many men in her approach to politics and her war-centric emulation of the Republicans.

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/22/2008 @ 10:55am

26. Hillary could generate enough opposition to lose, but I think Obama wins in a cake walk.----Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/22/2008 @ 09:57am

    Agreed.

    Posted by MASK 01/22/2008 @ 10:46am

    True. But Hillary will win the nomination, alienating African Americans but will quickly tell them that "those Republicans will (insert your own evil wrong doing) to YOU(people)". Classic!

    Posted by woodyee at 01/22/2008 @ 10:56am

27. Posted by METTEYYA 01/21/2008 @ 11:18pm

    I predicted an Edwards/Obama ticket as the Dem "dream team" a year ago. Seems I might have gotten the names reversed.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 01/22/2008 @ 10:57am

28. Hillary's biggest asset isn't her gender, it's her husband. Call me sexist, but that's the truth. He's the most gifted campaigner in a century.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/22/2008 @ 11:18am

    yeah...but bill can backfire. she should look to putting him back in his cage.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------

    I am offended by the references to female anatomy .

    Posted by HAMILTONGRAD 01/22/2008 @ 02:21am

    titties

    -----------------------------------------------------------------

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/22/2008 @ 11:33am

29. It is an abstract to say "Edwards wins" when the other candidates brawl. Edwards' comment that "While (those two) fight, no child will get health care" was nothing but an easy, show-biz applause line without merit. We are to believe that only while Edwards is speaking do the power brokers of the world's insurance companies shiver, quiver and change policy. The next president will be sworn in January 2009. This is all about who is capable and can be elected and we all know it. I can't stand Edwards' cheap grandstanding and I think other voters sense the same. Right policies...wrong vehicle.

    Posted by hrayovac at 01/22/2008 @ 11:39am

30. If I recall he said 'Who does this help?' or something like that. And it is true that what Clinton and Obama were doing(Clinton started it though, and was just being dishonest) does not advance the causes that any of them say they believe in. It does nothing to change minds. A good presentation of an idea can make all the difference, and debates have the potential to do that. It was a good point to make at the time, that what was going on was a waste of time. It should have been directed at Clinton and she should have been blamed for throwing that shit out there. But what else should he have said at the time? 'I have something else to say, but this is ok too?' Not acknowledge it at all?

    Posted by dentedpat at 01/22/2008 @ 11:58am

31. Posted by HRAYOVAC 01/22/2008 @ 11:39am | ignore this person

    Edwards has offered the most comprehensive policy proposals in all areas related to the role of government, yet he's been ignored by the media due to personality worship coverage more appropriate of the tabloids. Focus groups designed to assess the reaction of voters to the perfomances of the candidates have consistently shown Edwards as superior to his rivals when placed side by side, and yet he is perpetually ignored by the pundits. The same idiots who share some responsiblity for cheerleading us into the Iraq war and for making the 2000 election a kind of popularity contest for frat boys whereby beer drinking inclinations were preferred over policy credentials.

    Your cheap shots betray your ignorance and say nothing substantive. If you dislike Edwards then point to flaws in his policy propsals and prove them wrong.

    Posted by Oustbush at 01/22/2008 @ 12:08pm

32. Posted by HRAYOVAC 01/22/2008 @ 11:39am | ignore this person

    Your mentality is exactly what gave us Bush over Gore.

    Posted by Oustbush at 01/22/2008 @ 12:10pm

33. Oh and it is disheartening to see that there is a school with low enough standards to hire HAMILTONGRAD, assuming that she wasn't making her job up. On the other hand, the lower the standards are in general the better the chance I will get a job. So thank you HAMILTONGRAD for giving me hope that any idiot can get a tenure track job.

    Seriously though, that little rant represents the worst in feminism. Real feminists talk about things like the income gap, or about subtly negative portrayals of women in media. The idiots who read a little too much Heidegger talk about how rationality and truth are 'male constructs'. The serious will talk about how academic discourse which is supposed to value rationality will often build in lots of biases against women. But the idiots talk about not thinking with your brain, but with your heart. This does nothing but play into the hands of sexists who think that women are just emotional creatures and cannot be trusted to make good decisions.

    Feminists, who I take it have a special concern for what are called women's issues or on how general issues affect women, should chose the candidate who does best on the issues. Who wins on this? I am not sure. I think the fact that Edwards, and to a lesser extent Obama, have focused on the plight of the poor should put them ahead. Poverty hits women harder, because in addition to class bias against them they face sexism in the marketplace. Plus a mother in poverty is much worse off than a man in poverty. On traditional women's issues I don't see a big difference.

    Posted by dentedpat at 01/22/2008 @ 12:12pm

34. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 01/22/2008 @ 10:57am

    Willing to put the next house payment on....John Edwards NOT accepting a Veep slot from Hillary OR Obama.

    Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 12:32pm

35. Posted by WOODYEE 01/22/2008 @ 10:56am

    Sorry, WOOD...you forget one scenario...

    "Clinton/OBAMA in 2008".

    Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 12:33pm

36. I didn't watch the debate but I'm struck by John's description of Wolf Blitzer's role in it. What the heck is Wolf Blitzer doing moderating a debate? He's not qualified, he's bad at it, but he always seems to turn up like a bad penny. Who's paying whom and why? Why are we stuck with media figures moderating debates? Come to that, why are we willing to allow MSM (present company excepted!) to act as a kind of firewall, coming between voters and significant discussions of the issues and of candidates' qualifications?

    Posted by saetias at 01/22/2008 @ 12:53pm

37. actually obama's fighting back is right on target. whats he supposed to do? stand around while the clintons resort to rovian lies and smear tactics nd keep smiling like an idiot, taking the high road?

    hell no! america loves it when they see someone smack down a rotten bully. gee...bill hangs with the bushes and next thing we know here's the clinton machine reaching into the bag of sleazy rovian lies and dirty tricks and slinging mud.

    if obama did not show some righteous rage (which i'm sure is legitimate and not staged) we'd have nothing more than a dark young version of kerry!

    so squabble barry. fight. oppose sleazy lies with righteous and eloquent anger.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/22/2008 @ 1:02pm

38. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 01/22/2008 @ 1:02pm

    I liked his line when Hillary was throwing out more lies saying he has a pattern of distorting votes and he responded with "No there has been a certain pattern from you of distorting the facts about my record." It was like watching her get slapped across the face when he finally just got sick of it. It was great.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/22/2008 @ 1:10pm

39. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/22/2008 @ 08:46am

    You assuming only blacks will vote for him. Obviously, that's untrue.

    Posted by DENTEDPAT 01/22/2008 @ 12:12pm

    When you get past the hyperbole of people like HAMILTONGRAD, you do have some truth. Who, for example, is going to understand women's issues better? I don't think it is subject to debate that HRC does simply by being part of that group - just as Obama will have a better grasp on the black experience.

    The question really revolves around what they can deliver and how these concerns stack up against other issues, such as the War of Terror. If women's issues are your central or only concern, then I would agree with her that it is a relative no-brainer to go with Clinton. However, I also think it is a subtle form of sexism that would decried if men made their choices that way. It's this double standard in some versions of feminism that I personally detest.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/22/2008 @ 1:21pm

40. Posted by SRJENKINS 01/22/2008 @ 1:21pm

    c'mon, srj. war on terror? please.

    you can't wage war on a tactic.

    perhaps a better term would be "excuse for giving taxpayers money to assholes like blackwater et al. 'cause the cold war ended and the war on drugs is a joke".

    or EFGTMTALBEACTCWEATWODIAJ

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/22/2008 @ 1:32pm

41. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/22/2008 @ 1:32pm

    EFGTMTALBEACTCWEATWODIAJ, doesn't quite have that ring or pronouncability one needs in a slogan, FROSTY.

    There's many words and phrases that need to be retired. I'd put War on Terror, Homeland and Islamo-fascists all near the top of my list.

    Why is wasn't War on Al-Qaeda or better yet simply an international police investigation, I'll never know.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/22/2008 @ 1:58pm

42. Race women race women = What happens to these arguments when McCain picks one of the very well thought of Republican Women Senators as his running mate?

    Posted by wmnorton at 01/22/2008 @ 2:24pm

43. ....when McCain picks one of the very well thought of Republican Women Senators as his running mate?

    Posted by WMNORTON 01/22/2008 @ 2:24pm

    IF McCain picks a woman, 100% sure won't be a Senator, present or past. Ex-Governor, perhaps! Ex-SuperWomen (eg: Carly Fiorina or Meg Whitman type).....very interesting possibility!

    Posted by Happy at 01/22/2008 @ 2:30pm

44. Posted by HAPPY 01/22/2008 @ 2:30pm

    Carly Fiorina, yeah, brilliant Happy. Maybe she could do for the United States what she did to HP. Maybe try to merge Canada and the United States and live a big mess behind while taking a multi-million dollar severance package.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/22/2008 @ 2:52pm

45. Carly Fiorina, yeah, brilliant Happy. Maybe she could do for the United States what she did to HP.....

    Posted by SRJENKINS 01/22/2008 @ 2:52pm

    I toss out a random thought/possibility and guess who `bit'....but mighty SRJ, heheheh :)

    BTW, count me as someone who misjudged her signature acquisition of Compaq Computers. As you probably know, Compaq was based in Houston and I've known quite a few folks that worked there.....as well as having been an investor in CPQ as well as HP.

    When HP announced Mark Hurd replacing Fiorina, its stocks popped a few bucks and I sold with modest gains.....BIG Mistake! It has more than doubled since then and lo and behold, HP has since overtaken Dell as No. 1. The business press has already recognized her vision and, she does have political potential....matter of whether she elects to enter the fray.

    Posted by Happy at 01/22/2008 @ 3:18pm

46. .....McCain will strongly consider Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson from Texas. She would really strengthen McCain's appeal in the South and Midwest, and give voters the opportunity to still have at least a woman vice-president.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/22/2008 @ 3:02p

    I think you live in CA and have been infected with some coastal thinkings :)

    Two Southwestern Senators just aren't what I think will create a buzz nationally. While Kay B. has great credentials as a Conservative, I suspect she is not yet a national figure. But we agree that....A woman on the ticket, absolutely.....even better if she is black--possibilities quickly narrows!

    What McCain need is a woman/black running mate, a strong Conservative with business/mgm't savvy, or a Northeastern or Midwest household name! He alone, is "Southern Man" enough!

    Posted by Happy at 01/22/2008 @ 3:27pm

47. Posted by HAPPY 01/22/2008 @ 3:18pm

    The Compaq/HP deal went through in 2001 - dropping the stock price from 80 to below 20, and hasn't recovered yet. Yes, that sounds like a winner. Even factoring in the stock split in 2000, that deal to anyone that was around before it was made, i.e. the original stockholders, is a loser. And anyone that tracks the industry knows it was a disaster under Carly Fiorina's watch.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/22/2008 @ 3:46pm

48. Posted by HAPPY 01/22/2008 @ 3:18pm

    Posted by SRJENKINS 01/22/2008 @ 3:46pm

    Do we have a new modern philosophical cliche?

    "How many CEOs can dance on the head of a daisy wheel?"

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 3:58pm

49. Posted by MASK 01/22/2008 @ 3:58pm

    how many ceo's could live a middle class existance on the compensation packege of one of them?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/22/2008 @ 4:19pm

50. The Compaq/HP deal went through in 2001 - dropping the stock price from 80 to below 20, and hasn't recovered yet....

    Posted by SRJENKINS 01/22/2008 @ 3:46pm

    It is, indeed, with rare pleasure that I can absolutely `nail' you with hard facts!

    The HP/Compaq deal closed on May 6, 2002 (NOT 2001) and HP's stock ended the day before @ $18.22, NOT $80!!! The last time HP was anywhere near, but short of, $80, was at NASDAQ's peak, March, 2000.

    I had bought HPQ at around $20 sometimes after the deal closed and sold a couple of years ago at about $25! Today, HPQ closed at $42.91. Back in October when all indexes were at highs, HPQ was at $53.

    Bottom line, Carly is SuperWoman!

    Posted by Happy at 01/22/2008 @ 4:19pm

51. how many ceo's could live a middle class existance on the compensation packege of one of them?

    Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 01/22/2008 @ 4:19pm | ignore this person

    I would just keep it simple when analyzing capitalism:

    Garbage rises.

    Posted by Oustbush at 01/22/2008 @ 4:24pm

52. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 01/22/2008 @ 4:19pm

    Well, come the Revolution, comrade, the capitalist exploiters will be brought down and we shall all equally share in the means of production....or some similar ancient myth from the 19th-20th.

    Posted by Mask at 01/22/2008 @ 4:26pm

53. Posted by HAPPY 01/22/2008 @ 4:19pm

    If I recall correctly, there was discussion about the deal for at least a year. Major shareholders moved to block it, and investors dumped the stock.

    Do you want to pretend that all the uncertainty wasn't priced into the stock until the deal was complete? Do you want to pretend that going from 80 to 18 isn't a loss for the shareholders that owned stock prior to any discussion of a deal and that somehow that it is all solely a function of recessionary pressures and market timing?

    More to the point, even if you accept that HP has eventually turned around (which I don't believe), you still have to deal with the fact that Carly did the deal and couldn't figure out to do the operational end of it. Someone else had to come in and try to clean up the mess.

    I love when people can point out I am wrong. It generally means I learn something. But, I don't think I'm wrong here - despite the WSJ praises.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/22/2008 @ 5:46pm

54. Do you want to pretend that going from 80 to 18 isn't a loss for the shareholders....

    Posted by SRJENKINS 01/22/2008 @ 5:46pm

    Stubborn! OK, more facts!

    NASDAQ peaked on 3/10/2000 at 5,049, and when HP/CPQ closed on 5/6/2002, it had dropped to 1,578. That is, the 100 largest Tech stocks had dropped 69%.

    HP peaked on 3/9/2000 at $53.6 (long ways from $80) and had dropped to $18 by the CPQ deal in May, 2002.....a drop of 66%, LESS than the NASDAQ as a whole.

    HP's drop from 3/00 to 5/02 is market-based, not due to Fiorina. In fact, she recognized that the tech sector had changed and consolidation is in order....leading to the, yes, contentious CPQ deal. Most of the post-acquisition `pains' were administered by her, NOT Mark Hurd....he made NO major changes from the path she laid.

    HPQ's stocks have increased from $18 to $43 in < than 6 years....IF NASDAQ had increased the same %, it would be at 3,770.....it closed TODAY at 2,292!

    Is it just me being a fair MAN giving credit to a WOMAN or do you have something against Repub woman of brilliance? Don't forget, Carly was a top sale exec. at Lucent/Bell Labs before going to HP!

    Posted by Happy at 01/22/2008 @ 6:08pm

55. Oh, another thing....Carly's recognition that the PC/Tech sectors had to consolidate was visionary......IBM later sold its PC Biz, Gateway dying by the roadside......SONY out of desktops.....Oracle thriving on buying out significant competitors (a winner in my portfolio)!

    Posted by Happy at 01/22/2008 @ 6:11pm

56. I am supporting John Edwards exactly because of his rejoinder to the media-exploited squabble between his two star-crossed opponents. Mr Edwards brings the issues back into the campaign or he attempts to. God forbid that the candidates would have to explain and support their position on the issues. This election, all elections, are about ISSUES. Whenever he can, John Edwards wants to talk about issues and does, clearly and with conviction. Like him or not, you know where he stands. Despite what the mainstream media outlets think, ordinary people are interested in the ISSUES. I put my trust in them, that in the end, the people will applaud loudly as they did here for John Edwards, the candidate who campaigns on the important questions of our day and has an answer for them.

    Posted by Moderatus at 01/23/2008 @ 06:58am