.jpg)
To add or update your business directory listing, click here.
► Accommodations
► Activities
► Contractors & Builders
► Dining
► Financial Services
► Gift Shops
► Health Clubs & Fitness
► Insurance
► Legal Services
► Medical Services
► NH Products
June 4, 2007: The Democrats' first debate in New Hampshire
By SCOTT BROOKS
New Hampshire Union Leader Staff
Monday, Jun. 4, 2007
MANCHESTER – The 2008 Democratic presidential hopefuls sparred in New Hampshire last night in a wide-ranging, often heated debate that promised to test their appeal among influential New Hampshire primary voters.
Last night's nationally televised debate at Saint Anselm College was highlighted by several sharp exchanges that helped to delineate the differences between the eight contenders on stage.
Former Sen. John Edwards went on the offensive early when he attacked his two main rivals for keeping quiet on their way to the Senate floor during recent deliberations over a bill to fund the war in Iraq. Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton opposed the measure, saying they would not support a bill that did not include a timeline for troop withdrawal.
"I think there is a difference between making very clear when the crucial moment comes on Congress ending this war, what your position is, and standing quiet," the former North Carolina senator said.
CNN lighting designer Michael Poley directs the placement of the stage lighting during preparations for the presidential primary debates at Saint Anselm College in Goffstown. (BOB LAPREE)
Live debate video stream begins about 7 p.m. at:
►Analysts: Edwards, Richardson fell short of goals (4)
►Local audience plays a key role
►Protesters, supporters put on show
►War drives activists to rainy debate site
►Drew Cline's debate night blog
►Complete transcript of the debate
►Meet the candidates: Eight Democrats, 10 Republicans debate in NH this week
►CNN perspective: Face to face matters in the first-in-the-nation primary
►In town hosting debate, voters focus on pocketbook issues
►'Cookie Mom' to candidates: Why waste billions on nukes? (2)
►Even future Presidents can get bad report cards in school
►Democrats urge end to war at state convention
Obama, the junior senator from Illinois, fired back with a reference to Edwards' 2002 vote to authorize the war.
"The fact is I opposed this war from the start," he said, addressing Edwards directly. "You were about four and a half years late on the importance of this issue."
The New Hampshire debate -- sponsored by the New Hampshire Union Leader, CNN and WMUR -- pooled all eight of the party's major contenders for the 2008 nomination onto a single stage for just the second time. It was the first debate in New Hampshire this season.
National security issues and the war in Iraq occupied all of the debate's first hour. Candidates were unanimous in voicing their disapproval of President Bush's foreign policy, though there was at least one concession, from Obama, when moderator Wolf Blitzer, a CNN anchor, asked whether foiled terrorist plots such as the planned explosions at John F. Kennedy International Airport prove the Bush administration has succeeded in making the country safer.
Obama said the administration has done "some things" well. Clinton said the country is safer than it was, but said "we are not yet safe enough."
"I am a senator from New York," Clinton said. "I have lived with the aftermath of 9/11, and I have seen firsthand the terrible damage that can be inflicted on our country by a small band of terrorists who intend on foisting their way of life (on us)."
Over two hours, the candidates were grilled on a range of issues, including health care, illegal immigration, civil unions, the genocide in Darfur
Edwards went after Obama's recently released health care proposal, saying he did not believe it was "completely universal." Obama's plan differs from Edwards' in that it does not require individuals to buy health insurance.
Obama said his plan acknowledges the likelihood that poor Americans would not be able to pay into the system.
Edwards countered by saying, "I believe unless we have a law requiring every man, woman and child be covered, we're going to have millions of people who are not covered."
For the candidates, the New Hampshire debate presented a second chance to distinguish themselves from a crowded field. All eight last appeared on stage together April 26 in South Carolina.
That debate was widely viewed as a tame affair, notable more for the candidates' cordiality than for its few tense exchanges.
Last night seemed designed to be different, with the three candidates leading in most polls - Edwards, Clinton and Obama -- placed at adjacent podiums in the middle of the pack.
Clinton, in particular, seemed to be trying to strike a less confrontational tone. She was quick to compliment Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico for the negotiating skills he brought to her husband's administration, and she made a point of noting the similarities marking many of the candidates' positions.
"The differences among us are minor. The differences between us and the Republicans are major," she said. "And I don't want anybody in America to be confused."
Clinton reserved her criticism for the debate's moderator, Blitzer, who repeatedly asked the candidates to answer questions with a show of hands.
Several candidates objected when Blitzer asked whether, as President, they would assassinate Osama bin Laden if given the chance, even if it could result in civilian casualties.
Soon afterward, Blitzer asked whether the United States should use military force to stop the genocide in Darfur.
"Wolf, we're not going to engage in these hypotheticals," Clinton said to applause from the crowd.
Sen. Joe Biden, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was particularly forceful in both his language and gestures. Biden was the only senator in the field who voted in favor of the recent supplemental war-funding bill, which Clinton, Obama and Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut opposed. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio also rejected the bill.
Biden said he could not deny funding to U.S. troops, even if the bill did not have a timetable for withdrawal.
"Some things are worth losing elections over," he said.
Former Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska stood alone at times. He was the only candidate who raised his hand when asked whether English should be made the national language. Gavel also said he would abolish earmarks for local projects in congressional legislation.
The debate was divided into two hour-long segments. In the first half, candidates took questions from Blitzer and the night's panelists: New Hampshire Union Leader State House Bureau Chief Tom Fahey and WMUR political director Scott Spradling.
After that, it was the audience's turn to grill the candidates.
An American Research Group poll of New Hampshire voters, released last week, showed Clinton with an almost 2-to-1 lead over her nearest rival, Edwards, besting him 34 percent to 18 percent. Obama came in third at 15 percent.
Other polls suggest a much closer race. A recent Zogby telephone survey shows Clinton and Obama almost neck and neck at 28 and 26 percent, respectively, with Edwards a distant third 15 percent.
Of course, there's still a long way to go. New Hampshire voters are not scheduled to go to the polls until Jan. 22, 2008, nearly eight months away.
Republicans will debate on the same stage Tuesday. Both debates are sponsored by CNN, the New Hampshire Union Leader, WMUR-TV and St. Anselm.
New Hampshire Union Leader Correspondent Trent Spiner contributed to this report.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. © 1997-2010.
YOUR COMMENTS
No further comments will be posted on this article.
Actually, I agree that Kucinich did very well in this debate. I'm tired of the same ol' same ol' from Hillary, Obama, and Edwards. I know Kucinich ran last time, but he actually has original ideas. I want a fresh perspective for my candidate!
- Paul Marker, Portsmouth
Unfortunately, I found that with so many candidates on the same stage, none of them had enough time to adequately answer the questions.
Perhaps at some point, a debate will be held where questions are answered fully and if not, follow up questions are asked.
I look forward to hearing from a candidate that answers not only the question but also explains the way they intend to accomplish it.
- robert dondero, Concord N.H.
Obama, Clinton, and Biden were the winners. They gave the clearest answers without attacking other candidates unless attacked first. I got the sense that Edwards and Richardson felt like they needed to make a move, but failed to do so. Most reviews of the debate I've seen see it the same way.
Edwards' criticism of Clinton and Obama was very weak and he paid the price for it when Obama came back at him strongly. Talking about your vote is not leadership. If it is, then Edwards' leadership must be pretty poor, since the vote didn't even come close in the end. Edwards was wrong on Iraq from the beginning and stuck by it until public opinion turned strongly against it. Only now, when he's running to the left in a Presidential primary, is he strongly talking about withdrawing troops. That's not leadership, it's pandering. And unfortunately for him, I think most voters are smart enough to tell the difference.
- Sarah Sinson, Conway
I thought Kucinich did quite well. I thought him a minor character in this, but now am considering him more seriously.
I totally disagree that Edwards won the debate... to me he sounded more like Obama's biggest fan. He was complementing him with every question asked.
- Melvin Paquette, Weare
Smoke and Mirrors.. The issue is less about Iraq, then it is about the very survival of Democracy and our lifestyle or the other option. Sharia Law..
- Ray Ninness, Bedford
To call last night's televised event a debate is a mistake. It was a fairly open discussion on the problems we now face due to Bush's stumbling and inept management, but not a true debate.
This election is too important for the American people to dilly with this time. We must know without a doubt that who we vote for is the real deal....a leader, someone who first of all understands the problems, and secondly, someone who can intelligently work a plan to solve the problems, and thirdly, someone who has the fortitude to follow through with the plan in the best interest of all Americans.
These "discussions" give us a clearer picture of each candidate's character and personality; however, I would really like to see at least an outline of plans, reminiscent of Clinton and Perot's. The American people are not dummies, we can handle it!
Midge Palmer, Corning, OH
- Midge Palmer, Corning, OH
It appeared to me that John Edwards won this debate, with Senator Obama coming in a close second. Hillary contradicted herself on many occasions and failed to show any "realness". It's like watching a robot when she speaks. I cannot figure out why so many Democrats want to nominate her for the party. She would be lucky to win half the states John Kerry did in 2004. We cannot afford four more years of Republican leadership for the sake of making a point about equality in the 21st century.
- Ben Campbell, Hillsville, Virginia
There has been a lot of talking heads who said that Sen. Obama does not have the experience to lead the country.
I will say one thing after watching the debate this evening. Obama sounded like a politician for the first time tonight, and it wasn't a pretty thing. The contrast between seeing Senator Obama on the stump and at the debate was shocking.
John Edwards was the winner of this debate because of the strength of his positions.
It is a pleasure to see several high quality Democratic candidates available to choose from. I can say honestly that I could vote for almost any of them (sorry Mike Gravel) and have my doubts that many Republicans will be able to say the same on Tuesday evening.
- Michael Brennan-White, Manchester, NH
I thought that Obama failed to understand what Edwards said about leading as opposed to legislating. When Edwards voted for the war (which he admits was a mistake), he didn't try to obfuscate about it. He was up front and discussed it.
The funding bill that Obama and Hillary voted against in the last minutes screamed for leadership, for senators to speak out on why it was important to stand up to the White House to bring our troops home.
It seemed to me that they were not only failing to lead but were actually trying to hide their vote in case they would have to answer for it in the general election.
That is not the leadership called for on something that is a matter of life and death of our children.
- Laura ODonnell, Littleton
Having this debate a year before it matters is premature and irrational. I don't believe a word any of them said, even though some of what they said was on the right track. I think they are not sincere and are of the weaker side. It is a showcase of comics with pretentious self serving attitudes. If a Dem is elected taxes will rise and a bigger much more devastating war is immenant.
- Mike, Lee NH
I watching the debate, it was not a debate just 8 people sitting there to see who can out the other on continuing bringing the party to the Socialist Party that has been its direction since President Johnson!
It was funny to see 8 people offering to give the public everything! There will no longer be a earning society, but who is going to give me the most for doing nothing!
They all want to give up, surrender in Iraq and throw in the towel!
There is no difference in any of them!
I was in hopes that Richardson by entering the group would bring some common sense back into the party!
I was wrong, the group brought him in to their way of thinking!
It is evident that Michael Moore, George Siros are well represented and the group all loose by default!
Roger Bryce
Winter Haven Florida
- Roger Bryce, Winter Haven Florida
Safer? According to a recent US government report, terrorism around the world has escalated.
- Amy, Raleigh, NC
I am watching the debate right now and find it very interesting and, somewhat unnerving, that when the candidates were told that the majority of American citizens want English as the official national language of the United States, no one commented/answered, etc. AND, the moderator, let it go...why?? When faced with what their constituents really "want", they openly, on national television, ignore it!
- Tonya LaBrosse, Milford
Over recent years there have been several editorials giving credit to President Regan for winning the Cold War by breaking the Soviet Union's economy through by forcing military spending. Now we are engaged in Afganistan, Iraq, financially engaged in Pakistan, etc. Russia is now saying another arms race is immenent. Are we not setting ourselves up for the same economic fate as the former Soviet Union and how do we prevent it?
- Stacey Todd, Winston-Salem, NC
I have both read and been informed that sen. Clinton is in support of the Real I.D. Act I would like to know if this is true.
- mirranda wright, Apison
With gasoline prices and health care costs rising, the middle class is being squeezed out of the opportunity for financial security. How do the candidates propose to help the middle class and working poor?
- Scott Henson, Manchester, NH