"Hillary's Debate Moment"

From ABC Jake Tapper:

It won't come across on the transcript, but Sen. Hillary Clinton got angry during the debate tonight.
She was bickering with Sen. Barack Obama about their differences on health insurance, and whether Obama's plan leaves millions of Americans uninsured.

And then she … well … she got angry.

Frankly, I don't even really understand what she was saying. What I was getting was how angry she is. Not about an issue, so much, as about the fact that Obama is beating her.

The clip, I predict, will be played again and again and again.

Pundits will say that her tone made male voters recoil. And led some female voters to sneer.
Clinton people are spinning this as her projecting strength. I do not think that will be the widely-head
view.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/hillarys-debate.html

that you are all of the voters, and thus, know what all of them thought.

I hope it doesnt though. These guys are dead tired you could see it in all of them. I know I sure as hell get cranky when I am tired. I am going to give her a pass on this one.

Theres plenty of real reasons not to like her I hate to think this fluff has any effect, it probably will though.

She was pissed off when anyone dared to challenge her. When she challenged Obama or Edwards, they responded far better than she did to their challenges.

It's not because she's a woman. It's because she's a hothead. This was never more clear than it was tonight. Even though I'm not a HRC supporter, I never thought she'd behave so badly.

everytime she gets angry. If you turn the volume off while watching the video so you can't hear her words, the angry expression becomes painfully obvious. And this isn't the first time in a debate that's happened to her. She needs help learning how to control that kind of facial expression. It turns people off.

At first I thought Bush was 100 times worse than Hillary here but after watching both videos again they are more similar than I thought.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrXXa1_oArM

Gibson started with Obama, then went to Edwards, then - Richardson!

From what I perceive about Clinton, that must have really annoyed her.

Edwards said she was part of the status quo trying to prevent positive change. That was an ignorant unfounded insult. Hillary has the same objectives as Obama or Edwards. She just plans to go about them a different way. What change is Hillary trying to stop? Edwards was the one who was getting belligerent.

Edwards is a phony and a mudslinger and he should quit because he's never going to win the nomination. All he can possibly do now is get rid of Hillary by taking second. Edwards has no hope at all of beating Obama. Edwards will just hurt the nominee out of his own vanity.

Edwards just took advantage of a golden opportunity to point out the obvious.

And Edwards is no Seabiscuit.

Corporate American running this country. The status quo is allowing lobbyists to influence the votes of our congress. The status quo is letting things like NAFTA put millions of people in this country out of work. The status quo is allowing big corporations to outsource jobs and get tax breaks. And you really think Hillary is not part of this??????

They have great influence. Edwards can't change that. Hillary isn't defending that. Hillary takes on the corporations all the time.

The first amendment allows citizens to petition the government. That includes everybody, even corporations and lobbyists. Is the first amendment status quo? Does Edwards plan to overturn the first amendment? Or is he going to do this magically, like the way he's going to get Congress to vote away their health care? Hillary is at least honest about the limits the first amendment puts on reform.

Hillary and Edwards have the same position on NAFTA. Both want to reform it but keep it. Is reform status quo?

Does Hillary defend tax breaks for outsourcing? That's news to me. She did defend outsourcing. I don't see how it can be prevented.

I don't think Hillary is part of the world described here. I think the entire world view is skewed into a black and white, good versus evil model.

Rampant sexism on the campaign trail.

The, "Well, that hurts Charlie" comment was the mosts human of her campaign, but also used her gender. I was fine with it, btw.

Very angry. She is starting to realize her life long dream is coming to an end.

She did fine, except for a couple of obvious cheap shots.

I thought that was her best moment. She was strong and articulate. Passion is a good thing. She is right. It is not about who will make change. It is about WHAT KIND of change, and where the priorities lie.

I'm not saying the Clintons are pure evil. Far from it. Most of what they did was at least neutral or good for America -- and far better than any Republican would ever do. But still, their natural instinct is to buddy up to the giant corporation and lobbyists. That is just how they think. That's a change they will not make. I agree with Edwards that the nation is at a moment, near destruction, where we can no longer look upon the process of change as a cozy little Beltway negotiation where everybody walks out of the room getting their piece of the pie. There isn't enough pie left for that. Bush has seen to that. We have to start drawing some hard lines, and I simply don't trust the DLCers to do that. That kind of approach to making change is simply not in their DNA.

Headline screams "Clinton Fumes As Edwards Takes Obama's Side," followed by these:

Really guys, I prefer Obama to her 1000 times, but don't use this shameful distortion as ammunition. There's enough real stuff - this makes 51% of the population take Hillary's side - just out of sense of fair play.

n/t

The moment right after that was key. I thought her stumbling over her own listing of those changes she did for the past 35 years the most interesting moment. When she was listing them her voice got softer and softer and trailed away. She was blowing smoke and knew it and realized she was backing herself into a corner. I was surprised that no one said, 'no please continue and elaborate some more.'

I thought it was the weakest I have seen her and not good sense to back herself into a corner where she couldn't back up what she'd done for the past 35 years. She has only been able to effect change since she became a senator and that is for the past 7 years - not 35. She's taken other actions prior to that that have certainly helped certain groups in Arkansas or maybe swayed public opinion nationally. But there have been no huge successes she can point to in the last 35 years of her life in the spotlight. She needs to back off that assertion as it is unfounded.

edit to add transcript... her floundering on her 35 years came later in the debate and well past the moment in this video clip: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=4092530&page=3 (towards the bottom of the page)