The Democrats met for another debate last night, this one in Las Vegas, and early reviews for Hillary Clinton are far better than those following the Philadelphia debate. The early media consensus is that Clinton changed her strategy, focusing more on attacking and counter-attacking her opponents than at previous events. The AP reports in a widely-distributed story, "Under pressure in a feisty debate," Clinton "accused her closest rivals Thursday night of slinging mud 'right out of the Republican playbook' and leveled her sharpest criticism of the campaign at their records." Clinton said, "People are not attacking me because I'm a woman, they're attacking me because I'm ahead." The AP adds the "three-way confrontation" between Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards "at the beginning of a lengthy debate reduced the other Democratic presidential hopefuls on the debate stage to the uncomfortable role of spectator, yet it perfectly captured the race for the party's nomination. Clinton leads in the nationwide polls, but recent surveys in Iowa show she is in a virtual dead heat with Obama and Edwards."
Under the headline, "Clinton Holds Her Own Against Edwards, Obama Attacks," McClatchy (11/16, Thomma) reports Clinton "was waiting for them when" Edwards and Obama "went after her," and she "swung back at both in a raucous, two-hour debate as her two closest rivals picked up their criticisms where they left off two weeks ago in their last debate, one that shook up the campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination." Clinton "accused" Obama "of wimping out on health care, a vital issue for Democrats." Clinton retorted, "He talks a lot about stepping up and taking responsibility and taking strong positions. But when it came time to step up and decide whether or not he would support universal health care coverage, he chose not to do that. His plan would leave 15 million Americans out."
The Washington Post reports in a front page story that Obama "directly accused" Clinton "of being duplicitous in one of several testy exchanges that marked the Democratic debate here Thursday night as one of the most heated of the presidential campaign." Clinton "was much more aggressive, repeatedly challenging her rivals by name, as she had not done in past debates. She also denied playing up her gender, even as she described her delight at the possibility of being a serious contender to become the first female president." If Clinton was "significantly more critical of her rivals, Obama was more direct than he has been in previous debates. In response to his first question from moderator Wolf Blitzer, he said that 'what the American people are looking for right now is straight answers to tough questions, and that is not what we've seen out of Senator Clinton on a host of issues.'"
The New York Times reports in a front page story that Clinton "struck a notably more aggressive posture in the face of attacks from" Obama and Edwards, "challenging their positions on issues like health care and warning" Edwards "in particular against 'throwing mud.'" Clinton's "new strategy was two-sided - framing the Democratic contest as it now stands as a series of attacks that risked damaging the ultimate party nominee, even as she went on the attack for the first time herself."
Clinton Seen As Clear Debate Winner. Early post-debate analysis is clear viewing Clinton as the winner of last night's brawl. In his Des Moines Register column, David Yepsen, who panned Clinton's performance in the last debate, said, "Give Thursday's debate to Hillary Clinton. After two bad weeks in the 2008 Democratic presidential campaign, she recovered her footing and pushed back sharply at her opponents in a debate Thursday night." Obama "had only an average night, and on a couple of questions he seemed flummoxed." And Edwards "should have stayed home." In a Newsweek online exclusive, Howard Fineman says, "Hillary Clinton said she was wearing her 'asbestos pants suit' in Las Vegas, but, more important, she was wearing a smile and carrying a fistful of ammo and sound bytes. It was time to drop her rising challenger, Barack Obama, and she did it with the grin and grace of a Park Avenue gun moll." Time today rates the candidates, and gives Clinton the highest marks of the contenders.
In his column in The Politico, Roger Simon writes, "The (rhymes with rich) is back," noting that Clinton "gave as good as she got. And those who tried to kick her, stubbed their toes. John Edwards got booed when he attacked her for taking money from Washington lobbyists...and seemed both surprised and irritated." In a posting on the politics blog of CBS News, Vaughn Ververs says Clinton "went a long way toward regaining her political footing." In an analysis on the website of CNN, CNN Political Editor Mark Preston writes, "Oftentimes the biggest news coming out of a presidential debate is when a candidate makes a major stumble, but on Thursday night it was about a recovery." In an analysis in the New York Daily News, Josh Greenman also suggest that Clinton "rebounded" and "regained her footing," noting that she "was poised and pugnacious" and "proved that she can say 'yes' or 'no,' even on uncomfortable issues, without breaking into hives." Even those who liked Obama's performance still gave the win to Clinton. In a blog posting on the website of The New Republic, Noam Scheiber describes Obama as "focused, energized, tough, charismatic-pretty much everything the press had accused him of not being in previous debates. And yet the candidate who probably helped herself the most was Hillary Clinton."
A new Fox News poll shows that while John McCain "trails front-runner Rudy Giuliani in the race for the Republican nomination, slightly more Americans see McCain as a straight-talker and as honest and trustworthy than Giuliani; furthermore, for the second month in row McCain performs better against leading Democrat Hillary Clinton in hypothetical matchups than any other top-tier Republican." And despite Clinton "having the highest negative rating of all the top contenders, she continues to not only hold a commanding lead in her party's primary, but also to best her Republican opponents in the horserace."
Among the poll results: In the Democratic primary, 44% would vote for Clinton; 23% would vote for Obama; 12% would vote for John Edwards; 5% would vote for Bill Richardson; 2% would vote for Dennis Kucinich; 1% would vote for Joseph Biden; 1% would vote for Chris Dodd; 10% don't know; 2% would not vote. On the GOP side, 33% would vote for Rudy Giuliani; 17% would vote for John McCain; 12% would vote for Fred Thompson; 8% would vote for Mike Huckabee; 8% would vote for Mitt Romney; 3% would vote for Duncan Hunter; 3% would vote for Ron Paul; 1% would vote for Tom Tancredo; 13% don't know; 2% would not vote.
In general election trial heats, Clinton tops Giuliani 47%-43% and Thompson 49%-40%, but is in a tighter race with McCain, whom she leads 46%-45%. Clinton trounces Romney, 50%-37%. Fox News surveyed 900 registered voters over November 13 and 14.
Romney Closes On Giuliani In New ARG National Poll A second national poll, this one from American Research Group, shows Romney only 4 points behind long-time frontrunner Giuliani. Giuliani leads the GOP field with 25%, followed by Romney, 21%; Thompson, 17%; McCain, 12%; and Huckabee, 6%; the rest of the field is at 4% or less. A month ago, Giuliani led with 24%, followed by Thompson, 16%, and Romney, 15%. On the Democratic side, Clinton leads with 45%, followed by Obama at 21% and Edwards at 11%. A month ago, Clinton led Obama 45%-20%. ARG surveyed 600 likely voters from each party from November 9-12.
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Clinton, Romney Lead KCCI-TV Iowa Caucus Poll KCCI-TV reports a KCCI-TV poll shows 27% of Iowa Democratic caucus-goers would vote for Hillary Clinton; 25% would vote for Barack Obama; 21% would vote for John Edwards; 10% would vote for Bill Richardson; 4% would vote for Joe Biden; 1% would vote for Chris Dodd; 1% would vote for Dennis Kucinich; and 11% were undecided.
On the Republican side, 27% of caucus-goers would vote for Mitt Romney; 18% would vote for Mike Huckabee; 16% would vote for Rudy Giuliani; 10% would vote for Fred Thompson; 6% would vote for John McCain; 5% would vote for Ron Paul; 2% would vote for Tom Tancredo; 1% would vote for Duncan Hunter; and 15% were undecided. The poll surveyed 600 likely voters (in total) from November 12-14.
Clinton Has Wider Lead, But Huckabee Closing On Romney In ARG Poll The Des Moines Register reports an American Research Group poll of 600 likely Democratic Iowa caucus-goers (+/- 4%), conducted over November 10-14, shows 27% would support Clinton; 21% would support Obama; 20% would support Edwards; and 12% would support Richardson.
On the GOP side, an ARG poll of 600 likely Republican caucus-goers shows 26% would vote for Mitt Romney; 24% would vote for Mike Huckabee; 11% would vote for Rudy Giuliani; 11% would vote for Fred Thompson; and 10% would vote for McCain.
Clinton, Obama In Tight Race In Strategic Vision Poll, Romney Up By Double Digits A poll from Strategic Vision shows Clinton only narrowly leading Obama in Iowa. Clinton leads with 29%, followed by Obama, 27%, and Edwards, 20%. Richardson is a distant fourth with 7%. On the GOP side, Romney leads with 30%, followed by Mike Huckabee, who has been surging in recent polls, with 19%. Giuliani is third with 12%, followed by Thompson with 11% and McCain with 7%. Strategic Vision surveyed 600 likely caucus-goers from each party from November 9-12.
The Detroit News reports that a Detroit News/WXYZ-TV survey of 400 likely Michigan Democratic primary voters, conducted by EPIC-MIRA Nov. 7-13, shows Sen. Hillary Clinton leading the Democratic presidential field with 49%, followed by Sen. Barack Obama with 18% and John Edwards in "the mid-teens." The News noted that Clinton's support is "up from 40 percent in the Sept. 1 survey." On the GOP side, the survey of 400 likely Michigan Republican primary voters shows Rudy Giuliani leading with 28%, followed by Mitt Romney with 25%, Fred Thompson with 13% and Sen. John McCain with 12%.
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
The Washington Times reports Democratic congressional leaders on Thursday "rejected reports of US military progress in Iraq, saying victory remains 'out of reach' as long as political divisions roil Baghdad." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, "It's not getting better; it's getting worse. ... The goal remains out of reach." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, meanwhile "said the reduced violence in Iraq wasn't enough to win her support for the mission."
Last night, the CBS Evening News reported Iraq has "seen a dramatic decrease in roadside bombs, which account for nearly half of all American deaths there. The US military reported today that in October, 1,560 roadside bombs were either found or exploded in Iraq, that's less than half as many as this past March." The Washington Post runs a similar story under the headline "Explosive Weapons On Wane In Iraq, US Says."
Gates Raises Stakes In War Funding Standoff ABC World News reported President Bush yesterday "raised the stakes in his battle with Democrats in Congress over the Iraq war today. Defense Secretary Gates warned that the Pentagon will draft plans to lay off civilian workers and slash base operations unless Congress quickly approves new funding for the war. Democrats have been trying to tie new spending to troop withdrawals." The Washington Times notes Gates said "the spending cuts would take effect next month if Congress doesn't pass an emergency war spending bill." The cuts "include terminating contracts, preparing bases for reduced operations and laying off civilian employees for the Army and Marine Corps, he said." The Los Angeles Times, meanwhile, says congressional Democrats "reacted skeptically, recalling similar warnings from Gates earlier this year."
The AP is reporting reports House Republicans last night "narrowly sustained President Bush's veto of a Democratic health and education spending bill." The 277-141 vote was "uncomfortably close for Republicans, falling just two votes short of the two-thirds tally required to overturn Bush's veto." The Washington Post calls the vote "a setback for the Democratic social agenda championed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (Wis.), the bill's chief architect." Addressing the close tally, the Post adds "Republicans appeared reluctant to criticize the bill on the floor. Tossing out his planned remarks, Rep. Jerry Lewis (Calif.), ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee, instead simply urged fellow party members to sustain Bush's veto, saying, 'Never miss the chance to shut up.'"
The Wall Street Journal's coverage notes Democrats appear to have concluded they need a "different approach" to the ongoing budget showdown with Bush. The Journal reports Democrats "prepared to scale back their demands for more domestic spending after the House narrowly failed to override...Bush's veto." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid "has reached out to White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten to try to open negotiations, and Democrats are offering to cut about $10.6 billion from proposed domestic spending for the new fiscal year that began Oct. 1." But "the initial White House reaction yesterday was cool, and the offer comes amid increased tensions between Congress and Mr. Bush over funding for the war in Iraq." Likewise, the New York Times runs a story titled "White House Rejects Overture To Break Budget Impasse," in which it reports "Democrats on Thursday made a new overture to reduce the spending sought by Congress, but the administration quickly dismissed the move." Republicans "did not embrace Mr. Reid's proposal. But some said he had essentially opened the door to discussions."
8,000 Earmarks, At A Cost Of $18-$20 Billion The Politico reports, "It looks like Congress won't even come close to giving up those irresistible earmarks." Citizens Against Government Waste "is putting the finishing touches on its tally of pork projects in the pending spending bills -- and the picture isn't pretty." The group "estimates that there will be at least 8,000 earmarks this year, costing U.S. taxpayers, $18 billion to $20 billion." Yet, says the Christian Science Monitor, "public interest in waste and corruption and Americans' rising distrust of Congress as an institution continues to act as a prod toward greater transparency and disclosure on Capitol Hill."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
In addition to Iraq and a major spending showdown, the President and Congress are on course for a clash on a congressional bill on the warrantless surveillance program. USA Today reports the measure would "require telecommunication companies that aided the administration's warrantless surveillance program to face lawsuits from American customers." The House of Representatives voted Thursday night "for a Democrat-sponsored foreign surveillance bill that would block retroactive immunity from lawsuits for telecoms that facilitated wiretapping or shared customer information with the federal government" despite the fact that President Bush "has promised to veto any measure that does not include such immunity." Meanwhile, in the Senate, the Judiciary Committee "approved a proposal that would place foreign surveillance measures that might also eavesdrop on Americans under the oversight of the nation's secret foreign intelligence court" and "also sent a pair of proposals - one that included retroactive immunity and one that didn't - to the full Senate to resolve."
The AP calls the moves in both chambers "a rebuke to...Bush." In a statement after the vote, the White House "reiterated Bush's intention to veto the legislation in its current form." The Washington Post and New York Times focus their reporting on the Senate action. Writing in the Washington Times, meanwhile, Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold makes his case for amending the current terror surveillance law, and calls for "a law that lets the government spy on suspected terrorists without infringing on the rights of the American people."
The President last night reopened yet another front in his running war of words with Congress. Addressing the conservative Federalist Society, President Bush yesterday blasted Congress' handling of his judicial nominations. The AP reports that his "swipe at the Democratic-run Senate comes amid mounting White House frustration over the president's stalled nominations" and "is part of a clear pattern by Bush to condemn Congress for not getting its work done, a strategy the White House believes gives it the upper hand." USA Today notes Bush "accused the Democratic-controlled Senate of waging a 'search and destroy' mission against his judicial nominees that ruins reputations." The Washington Post reports Bush also said Congress "is abusing its duty to confirm judicial nominees by rejecting or leaving in limbo those who will not 'guarantee specific outcomes.'" The Washington Times, meanwhile, says Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy "blamed the White House for the delays and said the Democrat-led Congress has confirmed more judges than the Republican Congress had in the previous two years."
President Bush's plan to ease air traffic congestion during the Thanksgiving holidays and what he termed "an epidemic of airline delays" is receiving extensive media coverage. All three networks reported the story last night and cast Bush's plan in a generally positive light. ABC World News, for example, reported Bush "took steps today to help the millions of Americans who are going to be flying this coming week." The President "announced steps to ease what he called the epidemic of airline delays. The most significant? Opening up military air space for commercial use." This morning, the New York Times reports Bush's announcement was "applauded by Senator Charles E. Schumer," who "had called for opening up the military airspace." Schumer "said the change should be made permanent."
In other print media, however, much of the reporting cast doubt on the effectiveness of the White House proposals. On its front page, for example, USA Today reports "aviation experts and the union representing air-traffic controllers say the plan will have little or no impact during the next 12 days, the Thanksgiving travel crunch." The Chicago Tribune, meanwhile, says "experts said the White House's strategy represents a mixture of old initiatives to simply urge the airlines -- without any threat of enforcement -- to ensure ticket counters, aircraft and baggage sorting rooms are adequately staffed this holiday season." And the Washington Post reports, "Industry critics said the measures laid out by Bush don't address the root of the problem of airline delays: the nation's outdated air traffic control system." The AP, Wall Street Journal, McClatchy and Los Angeles Times run similar reports.
The Politico reports this morning that Newsweek editor Jon Meacham "wasted little time finding out the post-White House plans of Karl Rove, who was announced Thursday as the magazine's newest contributor. On Aug. 13, the same day Rove stood alongside President Bush on the South Lawn, Meacham said he e-mailed the strategist about getting his byline in print."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
The late night shows were in reruns last night due to the ongoing writers strike.
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
Click image for larger view.
Smart analysis, insightful reporting, in-depth perspective—in a new, digital format.
Log in | Buy Now | See sample
View sample page 2View sample page 3View sample page 4View sample page 5advertisement
Get your POLITICALBULLETIN
Click image for larger view.
Smart analysis, insightful reporting, in-depth perspective—in a new, digital format.
Log in | Buy Now | See sample
View sample page 2View sample page 3View sample page 4View sample page 5Embed exclusive U.S. News headlines, rankings, columns, and blog postings to your Web site, blog, or social network.
advertisement
Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our Terms and Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
