Interesting post here on the debate. Seems there was a claque. Guess who?

Thanks for the link. I hope someone reputable will thoroughly investigate this charge. Because if this is true I don’t see how any progressive could support her campaign. I know that Hilliary supporters don’t like to hear about comparisons with Bush, but sorry folks, that is exactly the correct comparison if what this person is saying in the KOS diary is correct. I hope the progressive Hilliary supporters will be the ones that are front and center in calling for an investigation into this charge. If it’s not true then it will clear the air and if it is true it really needs to be addressed by all of us.

Ouch; that’s gonna leave a bruise. :o)

There was one point at the beginning of the evening that foretold what the evening would be like. Senator Clinton accused Senator Edwards of mudslinging. Wolf Blitzer never followed up with her to ask for specifics. He also NEVER allowed Edwards to respond to a blatant attack. That set up was no accident.

Later in the debate Biden had just finished answering a question and Wolf said he was going to go to Hilliary for a response. Biden chimed in…I didn’t attack her (which obviously meant why are you giving her a resoponse)…to which Wolf said that she had voted for what Biden was talking about and deserved to have a response.

Clinton levels an attack at Edwards which the media has credited her with doing but Edwards was not allowed to respond. Biden doesn’t attack Hilliary but she IS allowed to respond. How do you square that with the idea that CNN was against Hilliary?

One last comment…the after debate “analysis” had a stacked deck. There were former Clinton people giving the analysis. How in the world is that anti-Hilliary.

I didn’t see anything in there about John Edwards, or what his relationship to them was.

If I missed the link or the page, can you point it out for me?

And speaking of pointing things out, when John Edwards shows up at a bash celebrating FoxNews’ birthday, or when he lets Rupert Murdoch hold a fundraiser for him, I’d sure like to know about that. :o)

As a “vet” of a LOT of contentious posting about all the GOP fuckery, I think the level of fur that’s flying here, about Clinton and the debates, is just about right.

We’re democrats. And progressive democrats.

We SHOULD mix it up some. :O)

No one is sacred, but if we stick fairly close to the issues, we’ll be OK.

(Maybe some pissed, but still, OK. :o) )

Sorry to get that wrong. Months ago, when he came to S.C. I seem to remember that he used the “P” word, and if he didn’t, he was sho’nuff’ hinting about it. :o)

Which, as I said, impressed me.

But, I may well have been wrong. :o)

My point is the same I made earlier. I think the notion that Iraq will hold together on it’s own, without our military there to impose that “unity” on the factions, is a fantasy.

And, it’s the kind of “light at the end of the tunnel” fantasy that will aid and abet george bush and the goopers dumping the flaming shitbag in the democrats laps, and then turnING around and beating them to death for “losing Iraq”.

Understand; I STILL favor a complete withdrawal spread out, say, over a period of 3-6 months. That’s plenty of time for the factions to decide if an even bloodier civil conflict than the one which our military is partially suppressing now, is more attractive to them than making the LARGE compromises necessary to avert it.

And here’s the capper, Susan: THEY, and ONLY they, are going to have to make that decision, and they will have to make it 6 months from now, or 6 years from now.

Since you support Biden in some sort of “keep ‘em there until it gets better” plan, can you say what evidence you have that that will work?

Scarecrow, your posts are now completely irrelevant to me. Anyone that uses the “won” moniker in this type of format is being intellectually dishonest. You and James Carville can start writing your opinions for the next debate. I’ll help you out: “Wow, Hillary really hit it out of the park this time! I don’t know if the others can recover in time. The Iowa caucuses are just a couple weeks away…”

Is it possible to disagree with Scarecrow without going into attack mode? Scarecrow has written some of the most kick-ass posts I’ve ever read. Maybe this post is too subtle. I never heard Scarecrow let Clinton off the hook for Kyl/Lieberman and any other egregious stuff. (apologies to egregious))

portia.vz @ 169

…
But to top it all off, her makeup was perfect and flattering, her eyes looked youthful and intelligent, her skin glowed, and whoever her stylist was made sure that when the guys flanked her on both sides, her tweedy light gray jacket popped out from a sea of dark charcoals and navys. …

If appearances are all that matters then George W. Bush could be considered a decent president. Except for that weird box on his back during the debates with Kerry his suits fit beautifully and his hair is always nicely trimmed. He smiles quite a lot too.

What’ the difference Dubya or Hill?

Fortunately for Clinton, her other attributes more than qualify her for the job. But it was very nice to see someone who looked so upbeat and optimistic and she *did* stand out, not because she was a woman but because she looked energetic and brighter than the others. Never underestimate the value of good makeup and lighting.

The ones who show up are the activists. I said I wasn’t defending it. But. It’s not all bad to have the people who are paying the most attention be the ones who choose. That is true in any primary election.

Then perhaps, just perhaps, someone besides HRC or one of the other ‘front runners’, so designated by the stellar wisdoms in the msm, might emerge victorious. Should I hold my breath or do Iowans factor in ‘electability’ and all the other ‘pragmatic’ gravitas-laden qualities so beloved by the punditry? Not really giving you a hard time but I’m awfully tired of the ‘conventional’ perspective which delimits and makes a mockery of movement toward genuine ‘participatory’ democracy, silly dreamer that I am.