Unlike their "American Morning" counterparts who liked most of the candidates, CNN legal analyst Jeff Toobin and CNN contributor Roland Martin had clear favorites on who was the best Democrat at the CNN/YouTube.com debate. In the post-debate special on Monday night, host Wolf Blitzer asked Toobin about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's response to a YouTube video questioner who asked whether the candidates would meet with the leaders of rogue counties like Iran, Syria, and North Korea in their first year in office. Toobin gushed, "I thought on this issue, and throughout the debate, this debate was Gladys Knight and the Pips. Hillary Clinton is the dominant figure in the party. She's the dominant figure in the debate. And everybody else was responding to her." About twenty minutes later, Martin took issue with Toobin's comments, and argued that Obama did as well as Hillary in his answer.
The full transcript of the exchange between Wolf Blitzer and Jeff Toobin:
WOLF BLITZER: Jeff Toobin, what did you think, on this sensitive issue of having a dialogue, a direct dialogue, at the highest levels -- the difference that was expressed by -- between Senators Clinton and Obama?
Story Continues Below Ad ↓JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: I thought on this issue, and throughout the debate, this debate was Gladys Knight and the Pips. Hillary Clinton is the dominant figure in the party. She's the dominant figure in the debate. And everybody else was responding to her. On that question, you know, Obama, I thought, looked inexperienced and naive. And Hillary Clinton looked like someone who might be president. It was a very big win for her on that question. And I think this debate, again, showed her to be a very good debater.
BLITZER: She said she would be ready to meet. But she wanted to make sure that there was a lot of advance work done, to make sure that such a high level meeting would not simply be a propaganda -- a propaganda statement for these other dictators.
Roland Martin's full response to Toobin about twenty minutes later:
ROLAND MARTIN: Wolf, I have to do one thing. I have to take exception to something Jeffrey said. And we talked about how Senator Clinton, how she sort of outshone Obama on the question on meeting with the presidents ,or the heads of Cuba, Venezuela, as well as Iran and Syria. First of all, I think the American people are smart enough to know that if Edwards or Obama would meet with them, there would some sort of pre-planning. It's not as if they would just get in there and just meet with them all of a sudden, because remember, the set-up to the question was President Carter met with Sadat and met with Begin. And so, I think that was the whole point. As president, how would you intervene by meeting with those other heads of state? So, that was a set-up. So, I wouldn't say that she somehow distanced herself from that. I mean it was a very good answer, frankly on both part. I think what Edwards and Obama were saying is we have to engage in dialogue, which is what we haven't done.
—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Rash promises
July 24, 2007 - 17:27 ET by nkviking75Martin: "First of all, I think the American people are smart enough to know that if Edwards or Obama would meet with them, there would some sort of pre-planning. It's not as if they would just get in there and just meet with them all of a sudden, because remember, the set-up to the question was President Carter met with Sadat and met with Begin. And so, I think that was the whole point."
The whole point of the original question was, would they promise to meet these despots... excuse me, world leaders... in the first year of their administrations. Anyone foolish enough to make such a rash promise is naive at best. It might be their goal to meet these leaders, but no one can guarantee they'd get it done in the first year. Give Hillary for having a tad more common sense than Obama on this one.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
More like Not-So-Bright and
July 24, 2007 - 19:12 ET by fitzfongMore like Not-So-Bright and the pits.
Previewing questions
July 24, 2007 - 19:15 ET by dagdaI heard that the candidates had the opportunity to preview the questions. Is that true? And if so, how the heck could they screw it up?
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
I'm sure it is true.
July 24, 2007 - 19:43 ET by fitzfongI'm sure it is true. Hillary's true secret up to this point has been to get matched up against lightweights. She's running against a herd of lightweights in the primary and is hoping that the Republicans eat their own. Team Clinton is praying that a bloody primary will serve her up a severely-weakened Republican opponent (or that NYC's chief windbag will run splitting moderate Republicans from conservative Republicans). After all, her husband never got 50% of the vote. She's never had a competitive race because she's been able to run against nobodies like Rick Lazio, and her PR flaks in the "mainstream" media see to it that she's never forced to deal with difficult questions.
Yep, it is true dag. They
July 24, 2007 - 21:42 ET by bigtimerYep, it is true dag.
They had I guess around 3,000 entries that were posted for all to see.
Sooooo, I suppose her and her aides had time to sift throught them....along with the other candidates.
True debate
July 24, 2007 - 21:47 ET by dagdaI would like to see a true debate where they do not see the questions in advance.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
You and me both dag. Too
July 24, 2007 - 21:52 ET by bigtimerYou and me both dag.
Too simple and honest...we can't have that now can we?
Presidental news conference
July 24, 2007 - 21:55 ET by dagdaThey do not see the questions on a presidental news conference, why should they see them for a debate. This goes for both sides.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
Good luck with that.Might be
July 25, 2007 - 01:21 ET by well99Good luck with that.Might be nice also if they actually answer the questions.No spin.Just answer the question.Oh well better chance of winning the lottery then that happening.
Gladys Knight and
July 24, 2007 - 21:39 ET by bigtimerGladys Knight and the what?
Say what...
Man I could fill the void in there with some fun choice of words.
I won't, but sure is tempting.