The Reviews are In - Edwards broke away as Clinton's main challenger at the debate tonight

[jsamuel]

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/9/26/23634/6247

Check out what some others are saying...

Salon.com’s Joan Walsh Said Edwards “Made a Strong Impression” and Named Edwards the Winner of the Debate. Chris Matthews posed the question, “Who won tonight’s debate?” and Salon.com’s Walsh responded, “I think Edwards made a strong impression and I think he pushed her back, he brushed her back a little bit. So I would go with Edwards.”

NBC's Chuck Todd: “Edwards Stood Out to Me,” “It Was One of His Better Performances.” “Of the candidates chasing Clinton, Edwards stood out to me. He seemed to realize he needed to prove contrast with Clinton on just about every answer he gave. It was one of his better performances. The guy is getting his William Jennings Bryan schtick down pat.”

Newsweek’s Howard Fineman: “Edwards Has Emerged So Far the Most Forceful Challenger To” Clinton. “From where I sit, Edwards has emerged so far the most forceful challenger to her (other than Tim Russert).”

Marc Ambinder: “Victory for JRE” “Edwards Was Straightforward, Confident, Clear.” Edwards was Edwards on Centrum Silver: straightforward, confident, clear, knowledgeable, thoroughly encased in his own frame. Ying to the yang of both Obama and Clinton; If you’re new to nomination politics, then you’d think Edwards – and not Obama – was Hillary Clinton’s main foil. The war. Social Security. Health care. Campaign ethics. Clinton didn't take the punch, but she did move to dodge them, which is a victory for JRE.

ABC’s Rick Klein: “Edwards May Have Done Himself the Most Good Tonight.” “11:02 pm: Quick thoughts -- Hillary Clinton benefits whenever no one else distinguishes himself, and Edwards may have done himself the most good tonight. Obama squeezed in one good line, but I don't see that as enough for the evening.”

NBC's Domenico Montanaro: Edwards Was “More Presidential” and “Looked Poised.” “Edwards looked poised in following up on his answer. Not angry or frustrated as we've seen him before, more presidential.”

Newsweek’s Howard Fineman: “Edwards Then Hits It out of the Park,” “Wins the Round” on Social Security. “Edwards then hits it out of the park, talking about a ‘protective zone’ of income between $97,500 and $200,000. His proposals sounded carefully thought through—whether you agree with it or not—and was much more specific than what Obama had to say on the topic. Hillary is talking too much about what her ‘husband’ did; she isn't being specific enough—Edwards wins the round.”

NBC’s Athena Jones: Edwards Gets a “Whoop” for Promising to End Health Insurance for Congress if No Universal Health Care. “A whoop here for Edwards' promise to cut off health insurance coverage for members of Congress if they don't pass health care by July 2009.”

ABC’s Rick Klein: “Edwards Is the First to Draw Real Distinctions About” on “9:07 pm: I'm ready to give the Big Three credit for intellectual honesty by saying troops will have to remain in Iraq for some years. But John Edwards is the first to draw real distinctions about what to do going forward. This won't be the last time he finds a way to set himself apart.”

NBC's Domenico Montanaro: “Edwards Is Pressing the Distinctions with Clinton.” “Edwards is pressing the distinctions with Clinton. He said they had learned different things on their war vote and said this Iran vote was indicative of that. Will it matter? Edwards clearly wants to put her on the defensive. So far, he's the only one.”

NBC’s Chuck Todd: “Edwards Seems on His Game Tonight.” “It's VERY early but Edwards seems on his game tonight.”

ABC’s Rick Klein: “I'd Give Edwards a Slight Edge in Making His Points and Making Them Solidly.”10:05 pm: “But I'd give Edwards a slight edge in making his points and making them solidly.”

ABC’s Rick Klein: Edwards “Distinguished” Himself. “9:33 pm: One-fourth of the way in, Edwards and Richardson have distinguished themselves. If people were looking for a new, more aggressive Obama tonight, it doesn't look like they're going to get it.”

Chris Matthew Said Edwards Came with a “Clear Strategy” to Differentiate Himself from Hillary Clinton. Chris Matthews said, “Senator John Edwards was one who came out with a clear strategy to differentiate himself from Hillary Clinton on the issue of combat troops in Iraq and U.S. military action potentially against Iran.”

Quarter 3 is almost over, please contribute: http://www.actblue.com/page/bloggersforjohnedwards

[tekisui]

1. I hope HRC enjoys being the front runner. Edwards will be a great President.

[jsamuel]

2. Yes he will!!! Real change for the first time in too long.

[pioneer111]

8. Edwards hit all the right notes tonight

In particular he really challenged Clinton on Iran.

[jsamuel]

9. I like the Edwards Rocks guy!

[wildbilln864]

10. Ye4s he absolutely will!

Edwards/Kucinich '08! :patriot:

[Tellurian]

14. Hillary doesn't have a problem. Obama is now trailing 3rd...

Big blow to Obama's campaign, as we've been saying right along!

The contest always was between Obama and Edwards, not Hillary and Obama.

[Mojambo]

3. I'm an Edwards supporter, but I've never given a rat's ass what the punditocracy has to say

And I'm not going to start now.

Luckily, I think Edwards is the choice of lots of REAL working people.

And that'll be the difference when the voting starts.

[jsamuel]

4. Good point!

I don't mind amplifying them in the rare case that they are right though.

[waiting for hope]

16. The commentators last night

were so off the mark and totally disconnected with reality - one comment was the Edwards doesn't have the elitist Dem vote - the ones inside the beltway. I used to live right outside of DC, and I also lived in New Orleans and now I'm in North Carolina - Guess What? The percentage of the DC insiders against the REST OF THE COUNTRY is like comparing the number of how many pictures of my kids that I have to all the grains of sand in the world. It's amazing how little they think of the rest of us.

[knight_of_the_star]

48. That was asinine for that pudit to say

Considering that the Beltway insiders might have money and influence, but there's a LOT more poor and middle class people and grassroots activists than Beltway Dems. They seem to forget that in the game called Democracy, the one with the most votes wins.

[GMFORD]

62. Have no idea what they

meant by that. Were they trying to say the delegates won't pick him over Hillary? I ain't so sure about that -- he made a great showing last night IMO. I'm thinking of backing him in the primary now.

[Eclectia]

60. AMEN!

[illinoisprogressive]

5. Seeing that Obama was sick tonight with a head cold and flu, Edwards picked it up.

good for him.

[AtomicKitten]

6. I'm glad Edwards took Hillary to the wood shed.

well done

[Tellurian]

15. Edwards never laid a glove on Hillary..

for you to say so, is just disingenuous!

Edwards did kick Obama in the nuts, though!

[rhett o rick]

31. Huh? You must have watched a different debate. HRC refused to take

a stand on elimination of the cap on income subject to social security taxes. With social security in trouble, she refuses to side with the middle class and eliminate this horrible inequity that allows the rich to escape from paying their fair share of social security taxes. Time after time she sides with rich corporate America in lieu of the middle class.

[Tellurian]

40. I guess you listened with half an ear.. or didn't understand..

She's going to reinstate Taxing the Rich and is pushing for mandating Fiscal Responsibility aka a balanced budget. That should be enough to balance any future SS deficits.

[rhett o rick]

43. Wow what a dodge. Why didn't she comment on eliminating the cap on income requiring

social security taxes. She wouldn't comment. I believe she won't eliminate the cap because her rich friends told her not to.

"She's going to reinstate Taxing the Rich.....", is a bunch of rhetoric.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. Michael Jordan Won The NBA Finals With A 104 Fever

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4BswHnf0xM

[rhett o rick]

32. He got a lot of help from the officials. Pro basketball is fixed. nm

[Dawgs]

47. Yeah, and Obama performed well in the debate last night. What's your point?

[0rganism]

50. that would explain a lot -- I was wondering what happened to him up there

I didn't watch straight through, but every time I'd tune in and Obama would be talking, he looked like about half the candidate I'd seen previously, no spark at all. He might have done himself a favor by taking a pass on this one.

[pingzing58]

7. Hillary lost my vote today for voting for the f-ing Lieberman-Kyl amendment.

She's a warmonger, apparently, and I will not support a candidate who will take us into WWIII!

[Tellurian]

17. Another poster who never read the Amendment..

Here, I'll post the non-binding Amendment for you to read yourself:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/kyl-lieberman-amendment/?resultpage=1&

Posters who shall remain nameless are posting a misrepresentation of facts.

I'm sure you trust their judgment more than the evidence itself.

[robinlynne]

19. do you support the amendment?

[pingzing58]

22. "This is not intelligence" like the lies that took us to war with Iraq "This is evidence."

Taking us to war with Iran is going to be a lot easier for Congress after putting the Qod forces on the terrorist list. This time I will not blame Bush and Cheney for the preemtive agression (war) against Iran - I blame those dubed by this administration. I blame Hilary for her vote. I will not believe that a "diplomatic approach" through sanctions and table talks is really on their minds. We are all fools if we believe this - it just makes this - GO TO WAR - pill easier for the public to swallow. The changes the amendment is a ruse.

[Lord Helmet]

23. right on

[Tellurian]

26. Still trying to be a sneak I see. It says right in the Amendment..

they have hard evidence... not basing their decision on intel reports..

bawk! Try again!

[rhett o rick]

33. They had hard evidence before, remember? Colin Powell said so. nm

[Tellurian]

37. Colin Powell wasn't involved in any way of gathering evidence.

checkmate!

[rhett o rick]

42. No but he was selling it like those that are now trying to sell the new "hard evidence".

Fool you once shame on you, fool you twice shame on you all over again. I wouldn't believe this administration ever.

What is this checkmate shit?

[huskerlaw]

54. Did the intel come from the Bush administration?

Yes, yes it did.

Game over. Hillary loses.

[Alcibiades]

64. I cannot believe that there are people who are buying this

I did read the amendment. Coming from people like Kyl and Lieberman (and their masters in the Bush administration), it can only be one thing: it's a legal instrument to make the case for a casus belli against Iran. It's a prelude to war. What's starling is that we have been here before, not too long ago, with the Iran WMDs. We had hard evidence--not intel, but hard evidence--that Saddam had unpiloted drones full of WMDs ready to send to the US. Of course, the images of these shown to members of congress were fake, as were the aluminum tubes that could supposedly only be used to make nukes, the mobile weapons labs, etc. When all is said and done, it is quite likely that the munitions used to defeat our armor are being made in Iraq, by Iraqis, from some of the vast stockpiles of explosives acquired back when the Bush administration decided looking for imaginary WMDs was a bigger priority than guarding actual high explosives.

Anyway, the whole thing stinks. It's justified only by the testimony of Crocker and Petraeus, men who owe their current jobs to W. himself. According to Petraeus:

``hat we have got is evidence. This is not intelligence. This is evidence, off computers that we captured, documents and so forth. ..... In one case, a 22-page document that lays out the planning, reconnaissance, rehearsal, conduct, and aftermath of the operation conducted that resulted in the death of five of our soldiers in Karbala back in January''

No, what they have is a document. This is apparently the best they have (if they had anything better, it would be all over the media). If the Iranians were really as significant as they claim, then there would be more evidence than a document. Documents can be faked--remember the phony Nigerian Yellowcake letter? Please don't fall for this one again.

As for the claim that Iran is funding Hezbollah, that's nothing new. We provided support to the Taliban, after all--are we responsible for everything that they did? What about Noriega?

Petraeus also claimed:

"It is an accepted fact that most of the sophisticated weapons being used to `defeat' our armor protection comes across the border from Iran with relative impunity''.

It was also an accepted fact that Saddam had WMDs. We have nothing except the word of this administration, and those to whom it gives orders. As for the supposed intel from captured prisoners, Qais Khazali included, it's clear that people will tell you whatever you want to hear (or whatever they think you want to hear) just to make the torture stop.

Anyway, the whole thing is based on a false premise (many, actually) that, if Iraqis are pro-Iranian, it is because they do not know their true self-interest. If Iraqis are pro-Iranian, it is because they must be dupes of the Mullahs, not because of anything the Bush administration did. What this amendment calls for is:

"that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies"

So what's the greater destabilizing influence in Iraq, Iran or the US-led occupation? What if democracy in Iraq means people will vote for a government that actually pursues closer ties with Iran?

To quote anyone from this administration as if they could be trusted on this subject is not only unserious, it's as ludicrous as believing in fairies. I'm not asking anyone to think seriously about solving all the problems in the Middle East--the arrogant belief that we could is what led so many to support the foolishness in Iraq to begin with! Just please don't fall for these same damn lies again. There's a limit of only one life-wasting, budget-busting, crony-enriching illegal wars per administration, and this bunch has already used it up.

[The Wizard]

61. But why did Reid

allow this to come up for a vote? Everything proposed by the Quisling Josef Liebermann should be trashed. The slimy scumbag should have his foreskin reattached without anesthesia. Liebermann was Gore's biggest mistake.

[ihelpu2see]

27. so then why would she vote in the affirmative.... If it means nothing?

She only does the yes vote because she is weak in the general election. Ive said it before she loses in the general especially if Calif. changes its electoral vote set up. And she is the only one of the dems. that would lose a general election.... at this point in time.

[zulchzulu]

28. Bingo! Why would she vote if it "meant nothing"...

Why do Clinton fans bring up Obama's not voting for it if it "meant nothing"?

Game. Set. Match.

[Ignis]

39. HRC pander to hawks? That's unpossible! (nt)

[rhett o rick]

34. Do you support this amendment? nm

[Tellurian]

38. Do you support Iranian's of a terrorist bent killing our troops?

This Amendment identified specifically who they are..

[rhett o rick]

45. Not sure what you asked. I don't support terrorists including those that

are trying to instigate war with Iran. I think I answered your question, now will you answer mine?

Do you support the amendment.

[knight_of_the_star]

49. Just to point out

Calling the military of another sovereign nation a terrorist organization is two steps short of a declaration of war and will probably be viewed as such.

[truedelphi]

65. Do you remember a war called Vietnam?

During THAT conflict, we did not need no stinkin' amendment to allow us to kill anyone inside the country of vietnam that was there endangering our troops.

Hell we even invaded Laos and Cambodia a couple of times.

And believe me, we DO NOT NEED AN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW US TO KILL IRANIANS INSIDE OF IRAQ who are there for the express purpose of harming our troops.

So why is there an amendment? SO that we can identify the "Bad Guys" and THEIR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN.

And then, with the amendment established, we are allowed to go one step closer to actual war against Iran. Which is really stupid, for two reasons.

Reason One War is Stupid against Iran - The same numbskulls that cannot bring us a victory in Iraq will be in charge of the new war - one to be fought against a country that has an actual army and actual munitions.
Reason Two War is Stupid against Iran - because after all, during Vietnam days, we did not go after Red China, even though Red China was supporting with excessive amounts of munitions and equipment, the North Vietnamese Army -- while at the same time Red China was vastly expanding its nuclear program. But in going out after Iran, we will undoubtedly call into play an alliance of Russia and China against us.

[truedelphi]

63. Now that our representative body has named the Iranian

Guard to be terrorists, the logical assumption is that we are just a half step away from
our lovely fearless leader showing that Iran has Weapons of Mass Destruction that will turn all of Tokyo, London, Brazil or where ever into another Hiroshima (Bush is probaby smartening up to the idea that most Americans could care less if Washington DC turned into another Hiroshima - it might be a giant RELIEF!)

The Chimp will drone on for a week or so while the New York Times has Judy Miller spout some further proof of the VERY REAL DANGER THAT TEHRAN poses and then we will be at war.

I mean, maybe many of us did not read the entire thing but we have seen the filmed prequel "Gods of War, Iraq 2" for four long years, 24/7, and we remember how it is that we got there.

[jsamuel]

11. kick

[Hawaii Hiker]

12. Edwards 2008!

I think he fairs best in the general election, he needs to get the nomination!....

:woohoo:

[Stop Cornyn]

18. I think an Edwards-Obama ticket would be unbeatable and, would sweep many down-ballot Democrats into

office (I also think an Obama-Edwards ticket would have much the same effect).

[rndmprsn]

56. ding ding ding...great ticket

Gore/Edwards even better =]

[robinlynne]

20. good news.

[laureloak]

21. Great, great, great.

[THUNDER HANDS]

24. i thought he did better than Obama

but nobody really wow'd me last night.

[rndmprsn]

30. Obama was sick i heard...

you could tell something was up with him...i expected he to push back hil the most last night, but edwards ended up doing the deed.

[Catchawave]

52. Was he able to make his NYC rally today ?

I heard he cancelled his appearance on The View to get back to DC and vote.

[williesgirl]

25. Just made my donation - please God, not Hilliary (more of the same) Clinton! rec'd

[Catchawave]

53. Love Hillary and Bill, but I too have Clinton fatigue......

I have doubts more than ever about Obama too, though I adore him also.

We're talking about PRESIDENT ! Who will fight for us?

[rndmprsn]

29. ...i thought so too.

he def pushed hil back a bit last night and drew much needed contrast between her and the liberals on stage.

[jenmito]

35. I put more stock in the opinions of over 33,000 people who liked Obama best

in this poll, Obama is winning in all the important categories, tied with Hillary in one:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20997509/

[William769]

36. And I welcome Edwards with open arms right up there with Hillary.

[MethuenProgressive]

41. Too funny! "According to JohnEdwards.com, Edwards won the debate!!"

And the begging for donations link was soooooooooo Edwardian! :puffpiece:

[laureloak]

51. Too bad it's now who raises the most money and some

people (ahem) think that's laughable. Shame, shame.

Seems about everybody agrees that John won.

[democratsin08]

44. edwards destroyed obama

obama looked very childish last night

[Dawgs]

46. You care to give one example?

[Kelly Rupert]

55. I'll wait 'till the polls are in, thanks n/t

[JustAnotherGen]

57. I'm an Edwards supporter

But I have to say . . . and I think we'd all agree.

What we heard was 10000 times better than ANYTHING Bush has EVER said . . . or for that matter - any of the current Republican candidates.

BTW - I loved Gravell's idea - that those in Congress bring a bill every single day until President Numnuts caves. ;-)

[rateyes]

58. I'm going to get lambasted for saying this, but so be it...

I was leaning toward Kucinich, but right now, it's more important to me to have Clinton out than to have Kucinich in, and I really don't think that Dennis has much of a chance (much as I hate to say it). Therefore, at this point in time, I believe I will vote for Edwards (unless, perhaps Biden makes a strong move)...but if Clinton is the front runner...the only way to keep her from getting the nomination is if almost everyone who doesn't vote for Clinton coalesces around another candidate. If most of the field drops out after South Carolina and Nevada....with two left standing going into Super Tuesday...and one of those two is Clinton....I'm voting on Super Tuesday for whoever is opposed to her.

This is the reason: I want a candidate to answer questions...not dodge them.

[jsamuel]

59. Thank you!

Welcome to the Edwards team!

[Blackhatjack]

66. Edwards is building momentum and he is getting tremendous response on the campaign trail...

The response Edwards is getting from voters across the board is the greatest of all Democrats. IF Democrats are focused on winning back the White House, Edwards is the best candidate to get that done.

And keep in mind that Repubs want Clinton to be the nominee for their own purposes, and Edwards' positions are never attacked -- the opposition research coffers are close to empty when it comes to Edwards as the nominee(they used what they had last campaign cycle).

I have heard Edwards speak on the campaign trail and he is dynamic.

Having a populist progressive Democrat in the White House would be a strong step forward in cleaning up the mess left over from this Administration, and Edwards would begin the process of restoring our constitutional rights and cutting off the influence of corporate campaign contributors.

It would be a stark change .... one we desperately need as a country. And for the rest of the world.

[Gloria]

67. I heard Buchanan say he thought Edwards might get a bump...

[Blackhatjack]

68. I don't think Hillary Wants To Go Head to Head with Edwards...

It would make for a very interesting discussion if they debated EACH OTHER instead of these lame so-called debate formats in which all the candidates do not answer all the questions and get the same amount of time to address the other candidate.