Jane!

2

Yeah, but that first 30 minutes made my butt itch.

I thought it was overall much better than any of the others, as we got to hear some somewhat substantial policy plans. Edwards and Clinton came across as more passionate and focused than Obama, who I thought tended to ramble and drone.

FWIW Kos has up a vote on who won the debate: For the moment: Obama, Edwards, Clinton – in that order. Grain of salt….

Glad i came in on the tail end

(((((((JOHN/HILLARY 2008!

I agree. I think casual viewers will get the clear message:

Democrats = Diverse
Republicans = Not

I was proud of them too!!

Dems: smart, informed
Rep: not, not

Of course, CNN is focusing on that first 30 minutes, particularly Rez.

The idea that any candidate “wins” won of these things is patently absurd.

Being a fan of Airplane…
may I just say….
John Edwards sure picked the wrong election to be
a straight, white, male.
Strange, interesting stuff here.

I STILL want to know why Bill was live in Nashville (on CNN) during the debate.

Oh dear – Bill…what are you thinking?? I dunno, what think you:

http://www.nypost.com/video/?v…..itrate=700

Would Hillary take Edwards as VP? I don’t think so. My impression is that she desires a Milquetoast.

As soon as it ended those pernicious assholes started in with the “who scored what points on whom” bullshit. I am so disgusted with the mainstream media right now, it sometimes even distracts me from my disgust with the Republicans.

Alas you are a scientist (substance?), I am a humanist (art of the debate) :-). And I said, grain of salt….

grain of salt?? more like a big giant hunk of salt lick…

;-)

I believe the supporters of all three candidates could feel good about the performance of their respective candidates. It was by far the best debate performance by Edwards. He had “home field” advantage and he used it very effectively. It was pretty obvious that many in the audience were rooting for Obama. This could be an indication of what will happen on Saturday.

I think Wes Clark will get the job if he wants it.

Would Hillary take Edwards as VP?

And would he even agree to that? Prob’ly not.

It is also up on Drudge. Ouch.

There are way bigger fish to fry than SC. And whoever doesn’t come in first there will spin it that way.

Mark Warner

What is up with Bill?

That’s what they do. I had to turn it off. CNN has a Lyndsay Lohan look alike sound alike. Did you see her?

Perhaps it was because the field has now narrowed to three,

What’s with the passive voice here? You and the mainstream media may have decided to narrow your options to those three. I do not accept them. Kucinich is still running. He has my vote. Did the rest of the progressives roll over and die?

I Googled “Obama Rezko” and came up with all sorts of links to Free Republic – a site not noted for its interest in the truth. Hillary’s people are digging in the same places as Free Republic?

I was actually quite proud of them all.

Me too.
I have problems with all three, but would take any of them over any Republican offering
No hesitation
No reservation
I am beginning to think Obama’s combination of stirring rhetoric in a public speaking situation combined with his somewhat halting off-the-cuff debate presenced could be a winning combination
I stil *like* Edwards best.
Hil has the most polished political approach, which would be expected.

snoozing Sunday morning in church… right after Saturday night in NV…

I think he’s freaking exhausted. Are you still here, LS?

Mark Warner

I like Warner :-)

yes and it so maddening to be a big, die-hard Edwards fan and at the same time so thrilled to see some diversity up there. Go white male!!! oh well

Bill is sleeping behind the speaker. At one point, he looks at his watch. Will the MSM jump on this? Hell yes they will. Poor sleepy Bill.

1 + 1 is equaling something other than 2.

As to the VP question, I for one would like to see the post relegated to it’s historical signifigance.
We need one leader, and a strong team.

I’m here.

Edwards and Clinton came across as more passionate and focused than Obama, who I thought tended to ramble and drone.

Edwards was consistently good in is responses. Clinton was uneven. When she talked about the need to fix what Bush has broken and about women and inequality she was very good. When she attacked Obama, ducked the lobbyists question, got vague about Iraq, she hurt herself. Obama I agree “tended to ramble and drone.” Unlike either Clinton or Edwards, I don’t think he gave a single response that seemed to come straight from the heart.

check the Chicago Sun Times from Sunday… quite of bit of coverage from the mainstream press… nobody else has picked it up yet…

Google Rezko Fitz.

Mark Warner

I like Warner :-)

We really need that Senate seat.

Ding

Did you see this?

There is some cognitive dissonance in that.
Who’da figured?

Our two parties can be discribed as the Sophisticates and the (what’s the name of your act) Aristocrates
.

Would have rather had him as governor next time around, because he’d ensure proper control of redistricting.

Compare the Democratic lineup to the Republican candidates. We (the Dems) have a rather progressive Democratic “son of the south” (Edwards), a woman, and an African-American. We think Edwards did quite well tonight and believe he would be the best choice for president. And we also belive that all three Democratic presidential candidates did well. We will vote Democratic in November.

Goodnight. Sweet dreams, sweet folks.

Lahoma and Oklahoma kiddo

Steve @42, you’re right. Warner for VA Senate.

Now, let’s see how much CNN plays anything that John said after they gave him ~2 minutes of face time right after the debate.

night Lahoma, night kiddo

Make that Warner for US Senate from VA (sheesh)

Finally, guy on CNN !!!! said JE was top in debate. But now they’re deconstructing all the HC-BO exchanges.
Great live-blogging.This is the way to watch the debates.!!

A VP candidate makes a difference to the voters. Cheney (with a full assist from the media) helped give Dubya credibility. See, you can have a dry drunk frat boy at the helm if you’ve got somebody smart to help him. That’s how they sold 50 million voters a train wreck waiting to happen. VP choice is important, IMHO.

CNN has a poll up too, same question as Kos. Under 1000 responses so far, BO-HC-JE-none in that order.

Score!!!!! Goooooooooooaaaalllll!!!

I also thought Clinton was really passionate when she asserted that the Congress should forbid Bush from making a deal with Iraq for permanent bases, based on the shared treaty power. I would so like for her and the Democratic Senate to really put their boot on Bush’s neck at least once before he is run out of DC.

One thing that was also heartening was that they were all starting to seem a lot more comfortable making it clear that Bush is an irredeemable fucknozzle. The American people need to start hearing loudly and clearly and repeatedly that the current national clusterfuck is a creation of the Republican Party and the band of insane neo-confederate delusional feudalists who control it.

Goodnight to you as well.

Clinton taking a nap is one of those Clinton tricks.

“See kindly old Grandpa Clinton taking a nap. You have nothing to fear from Grandpa Clinton.”

I’ve got it downloaded Loo Hoo, but Mr. LS is listening to Delbert McClinton, so I’ll watch it as soon as I can!! *g*

In all of the debates, or otherwise, has any candidate been asked “who would you choose as your VP running mate”? Not that I know

Great point!

Edwards would help either of them. I dont’ think he wants VP from either of them though.

Clinton will not VP for Obama.

If I were Clinton I would not want Obama for VP. The “not vetted” stuff is people’s way of politely saying “there’s stuff that’s going to come out.” I would probably put a warhorse in (someone without presidential ambitions) and make a deal with Obama for full support (ie. race relations are broken: go fix it!) and he can have the VP slot in 4 years if he wants it and Clinton machine support in 8 years if he wants to run for President. He’s still young, he can wait.

It’s interesting that the name “Bush” came up a WHOLE lot more times in this debate than in any of the Republican debates. Maybe not the way he’d like to be mentioned, but that’s a good thing as far as I’m concerned.

Candy Crowley speaking of Edwards as the alternative anti-Hillary candidate… I still thinking more people are voting FOR someone than AGAINST anybody…

but I may well be wrong on that.

MONTREAL (Reuters) – Consumer advocate Ralph Nader said on Monday he will decide soon on whether to make a another bid for the White House in 2008, eight years after playing a key role as a third party presidential candidate.

“I’ll decide in about a month,” he said in an interview broadcast on CBC Radio’s Daybreak show in Montreal…
____

Ralph, spare us, please. You gave us Bu’ush. Enough damage for ten lifetimes.

I also thought Clinton was really passionate when she asserted that the Congress should forbid Bush from making a deal with Iraq for permanent bases, based on the shared treaty power. I would so like for her and the Democratic Senate to really put their boot on Bush’s neck at least once before he is run out of DC.

She is trying to block the Status of Forces Agreement..and IIRC only Sheldon Whitehouse is a co-sponsor..WTF

K, LS. Think you’re going to love it!

I think they purposely don’t ask that question at this point in the campaign, because they know that no candidate would come close to answering. There has got to be a much clearer delegate picture before any of the candidates can even think about it other than in multiple contingent scenarios.

I guess things could be worse! :) I really am concerned with losing Edwards’ voice in the general. And now hearing bits about Nadar considering running. Edwards’ presence keeps the DLC honest to us progessives. Without Edwards, I fear the machine that will cause the inevitable pull to the center/right and will disenfranchise so many people like me that see a light at the end of the tunnel with Edwards. If Edwards goes, I will be hanging my head. Where will me and Susan Sarandon go?

He’s still young, he can wait.

A term or 2 as Illinois Governor would do wonders for that resume.

YEP!

Oh, Christ on a crutch. Will someone PLEASE take him out behind the woodshed with a horsewhip and get his mind right? Hasn’t he done enough fucking damage yet?

Yes, and he needs a voting record. Not a “present” record.

I wholeheartedly agree with you … Nader, please sit this one out !

One thing that was also heartening was that they were all starting to seem a lot more comfortable making it clear that Bush is an irredeemable fucknozzle.

I agree. The fucknozzle factor is not to be underestimated.

Edwards would help either of them. I dont’ think he wants VP from either of them though.

Maybe this was just wishful thinking, but I had the impression that Edwards was signaling that he and Clinton could work together, whereas he and Obama could not.

I agree that they settled down after 1/2 of the debate was over. Or I should say Clinton and Obama settled down. I also agree that some great stuff got to be debated – I think because the D’s rightfully took those questions and elevated them as they should, and I think the R’s could not.

If Obama doesn’t make it this time..I think Deval Patrick will be the next AA candidate.

Agreed – I just don’t want to actually invest the office with real power.
In other words, I like Edwards as President, or doing something productive somewhere other than as Veep.
Richadson, makes a nice Veep choice, … if he’s interested.

Stupid. This time, though, I don’t think he would affect results. Sad that this is his life.

And Bobby G? I was sorry to hear how the economy will affect your family…

No one escapes that office cleanly

One thing that was also heartening was that they were all starting to seem a lot more comfortable making it clear that Bush is an irredeemable fucknozzle.

Thank you for this. Maybe we can abbreviate it – Bush is an I.F. Love it!

Thanks. Scary.

Edwards would help either of them. I dont’ think he wants VP from either of them though.

Maybe this was just wishful thinking, but I had the impression that Edwards was signaling that he and Clinton could work together, whereas he and Obama could not.

–

Note sure about that, I think he was just banging the other side of the drum since he was mostly attacking Clinton as an arm of the same branch (insider) in the previous debate. But I do wonder where Edwards could be a VP or US AG for Clinton or Obama or neither.

Clinton has been moving left, hard and coopting a lot of Edwards plans and language. Obama is moving left a bit too, but not as fast or strongly (being the “Republicans are people too” candidate makes it hard to move too far from the “center”. The NV polls showed that as Edwards lost support, Hilary picked up more than Obama did.

Edwards knows that barring a miracle he’s not going to win. So now the question is who’s willing to implement more of his policies. At one point that looked like Obama, but over the last few weeks I’ve come to think that in economic terms, Clinton is the more progressive candidate.

It is sad that this is his life but I don’t want him messing with MY life.

A term or 2 as Illinois Governor would do wonders for that resume.

Obama is way too honest to be Governor of Illinois. There are only two kinds of Governor in Illinois, those who have been indicted and those who should be.

Gosh, where to go?
I remember in high school when a friend of mine was gonna live the US if Eugene McCarthy didn’t win.
Ha!
But, there is so much time left. Stick to your guns!
(sorry for the ammunitions reference.)

Investment Guru tips:

I recommend Confederate bills and beanie babies.

-G

Does anyone know where I can find the full debate coverage? I couldn’t see it tonight and would like to watch it at some point……Thanks!

Thats true, when fleshed out that way I understand and agree. That is why I have been trying to pick Obama and Clinton as 2 or 3 but can’t agree…I guess Edwards will have to unless he takes at least #2 in SC.

I know a couple who moved to Vancouver, BC Canada when Dubya got selected in 2000. It was a good time to go.

Hah !

… on second thought, thanks for the tip … *g*

It’s going to be repeated tomorrow morning on C-SPAN2 at 8AM (not 100% certain on the time, but pretty sure).

Plastics

Petro!

Cheers from NH.

-G

Here’s are my Bill theories:

1) He gets tired because he’s had the heart condition.
2) He’s got an agenda that is not 100% for Hillary.
3) He’s competitive with Hillary.
4) He doesn’t want Hillary to win because he wants to be the only president in the family.
5) He knows the shizzola she’s gonna face that will be thrown in her face when it comes down to it.

Hmmmmmmm….

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. No.
5. Yes.

Bottomline….He is appearing to be disrespectful to her and to her campaign, and he certainly did while he was president. He subjected her to the most humiliating circumstance by making an intern seem more desirable than she was, and it was exposed to the entire world.

What a cut down to her…no one can imagine what she experienced…nevermind…the fact is, she’s still with him, and now he’s causing her grief in her campaign by making nutsy comments…I dunno…I’d have kicked his butt out a long time ago, unless there was some really good medical explanation…

Now, when he could be of the most help to her, he’s causing her problems…WTF???

Sooner or later, you’ve had enough. Unless there is some medical explanation for his comments and his actions, I say…fire his sorry butt. But, that’s her choice, and she has to live with it. They have their personal reasons of which I am not privvy.

Well, Obama is better on some important things, like telecoms and network neutrality, for example.

So it really depends on what one’s priorities are. Fopr Edwards, economic issues are a priority, so even though I think he doesn’t much like the Clintons (not sure why, but I get that impression) and does like Obama, since the Clintons seem to be better on what he cares about most…

But I can understand why folks have trouble deciding between Obama or Clinton. I have a hard time myself.

Edwards as AG would be interesting.

To Hillary’s staff who frequent this blog: Another excellent job with the wardrobe and makeup … whoever manages this part of her campaign has my deepest respect.

Well, I can definitely say that debate got me feeling a lot better about this Democratic primary campaign.

lol

Widgets. Where would we be without them?

If I could think Clinton would hire people like Edwards to do the right thing as US AG or the like (and others in leadership positions) then I would be apt to think of Clinton over Obama as she knows some people and if was detailed in putting the best people in spots that need TLC not DLC she could do it quick.

Not much to cheer about today in Canada’s financial capital … how’re you doing in NH ?

But it’s likely Nader’s last chance! And he’s likely not going to steal any progressive votes, is he now?

Where will me and Susan Sarandon go?

Me too!

Supreme court justice is what I’d love to see. I’d laugh and laugh and laugh.

He’d be a good one too. Not top flight intellectual, but he’s smart and hard working so he wouldn’t be an embarassment, and he could help put together majorities, smooth things over and so on. And a reliable labor vote on the Supreme Court would be sweeeeet.

Plus wingnut heads would explode, and that’s always a plus. Yet, at the same time as an ex-Senator and southerner, you could probably get him through.

It would be interesting, but I can’t possibly imagine him wanting that position.

“Here’s are”…Bwahahaha…sorry :>

Any off the cuff thoughts as to who Hillary might choose as running mate if she was the candidate? I am leaving out Obama and Edwards, bec. neither seems a likely match.

But if they don’t say they will do it does that not mean she is going to be offering them corporate lobby money but that is what they are – so I hope whoever the president chooses for their jobs is down with TLC not DLC.

Edwards as AG would be interesting.

I like this idea.

I agree. He was with Clinton tonight. It worried me last debate when he seemed to be siding with Obama.

Agreed. With the added benefit of being able to actually answer straight questions with straight answers at his confirmation hearings.

Last chance for what … making a mockery of an otherwise remarkable career ?

Clinton would also not take any shit at all from Republican malfeasors. I suspect that she learrned a powerful lesson from the first Clinton presidency’s clumsy attempts at “bipartisanship”.

Here’s a compliment for Wolfy (behold my intimidating beard stubble). Blitzer was not nearly the whore that Russert was.

Obama for President 2016

Mack … do you have any thoughts on the “present” votes issues? A bunch of IL bloggers consistently say that Obama is right to use the “present” vote when he did and they see this as a slam but I don’t know the state proceedures at all?

My take is that over the next couple of weeks the world is gonna be back on the Gold Standard and bartering. Of course, the latter has no taxes, so the only one who understands that type of economy is…Ron Paul.

I do not think they would do that if he is telling the truth since that is the last thing on the mind for a “moderate” to put him on the SC. But hardworkin person with the right plan in mind could do very effective quick turn around as AG. When spot in SCOTUS opens up they should appoint a woman.

For Edwards, economic issues are a priority, so even though I think he doesn’t much like the Clintons (not sure why, but I get that impression)

I think that Edwards message of two Americas is inherently at odds with the corporatist Clintons.

Not much to cheer about today in Canada’s financial capital … how’re you doing in NH ?

We’ve taken a holiday. We’ve put off our pain till tomorrow

OK! come with us! where do you want to go? (BTW-Does anyone have her phone number?)

Hillary was at least sounding more economically progressive tonight than she has been.

Be an interesting Wall Street day tomorrow.

Meaning Edwards talk about business would make him as SCOTUS in the interest of people over business so its at best DLC over TLC (since they will always get someone for business, in a real progressive move they now allow people who believe in civil rights to serve…sometimes).

Interesting comment by Josh Marshall:

One observation stands out to me from this debate. Hillary can be relentless and like a sledgehammer delivering tendentious but probably effective attacks. But whatever you think of those attacks, Obama isn’t very good at defending himself. And that’s hard for me to ignore when thinking of him as a general election candidate.

TPM

I thought he was in Obama’s corner?

You have a lot of catching up to do … Asia has opened in the tank again …

Not really.
You are, of course, familiar with my reservations re: Obama.
I have come areound to thinking that some of his lack of commmitment on issues I care about may have been strategic positioning.
And , while I might personally resent my Senator placing Presidential aspirations above constituent concerns, I am not so worried about the pattern continuing through a Presidency (being that there is no higher office).

Meaning Edwards talk about business would make him as SCOTUS in the interest of people over business so its at best DLC over TLC (since they will always get someone for business, in a real progressive move they now allow people who believe in civil rights to serve…sometimes).

—

The exceptions being when R’s get someone past a compliant Congress, then you better buckle up and guard your grill.

I also thought Clinton was really passionate when she asserted that the Congress should forbid Bush from making a deal with Iraq for permanent bases, based on the shared treaty power. I would so like for her and the Democratic Senate to really put their boot on Bush’s neck at least once before he is run out of DC.

They also should restrict the embassy to something under the size of Mall of The Americas, rather than a small country. And actually have a normal sized Marine contingent. 3-5000 troops is utterly absurd. that’s a hunker-down Alamo contingent.

I think that Edwards message of two Americas is inherently at odds with the corporatist Clintons.

If Edwards was a threat, Obama and Hillary would be beating John up with his Senate record. He ran as a no PAC money candidate and then voted for some really bad bills. I think positions changed a lot after’04; for the better.

The upside of the markets tanking is that now even the ‘experts’ will recognize that we are *fucked*

Since the rumor was that Warner was really interested in VP or running for governor again, I’ve always suspected that the Democratic powers that be told him that they wanted him to get that Senate seat, and if he didn’t go for it, they’d make sure he wouldn’t get picked for VP. But I don’t have an actual evidence.

Thanks for that. Josh makes a good point. Obama was not real swift or convincing on the defense.

I’d like to see Edwards as her running mate, although Steve AR thinks it will be Wesley Clark.

Democrats Candidates = Good.
Republican Candidates = Suck.

I thought the rumor was it would either be Vilsack or Baye

The upside of the markets tanking is that now even the ‘experts’ will recognize that we are *fucked*

And the Dems need to hang it around the neck of Reagan/Bush and the Thugs. Make Bush the 21st century Hoover.

Britt Hume will see tremendous buying opportunities.

I agree with SteveAR. Especially if McCain is the nominee. I just can’t see Edwards doing it.

Lots of excellent centrist potential in those two duds.

I’d like to see Edwards as her running mate, although Steve AR thinks it will be Wesley Clark.

Maybe I should have asked the GF to ask him when we had dinner with Wes and Gert last month.

Josh claims he hasn’t decided, but seems to me he has been anti-Hillary.

John Edwards sure picked the wrong election to be
a straight, white, male.
Strange, interesting stuff here.

Yes, but he’s also a trial lawyer and that makes all the difference. Seriously, they are all pandering to some extent or another and they’re all lawyers, but Edwards can do it better and his policies and ‘vision’ hold together. They’re coherent and consistent.

Especially since the Surge is Working and it’s safe in Bahgdad. Safe enough to go to an open air market. With a flak juacket, amrine escort and apache helicopters overhead, of course. But that’s safe enough.

What do you think the chances are that MSM “financial analysts” will lay the blame were it belongs?

I’d be surprised if Hillary doesn’t pick Wesley Clark … he’d campaign well for her in the Southern states …

Of course, I’m still hoping Gore runs …

If Edwards was a threat, Obama and Hillary would be beating John up with his Senate record. He ran as a no PAC money candidate and then voted for some really bad bills. I think positions changed a lot after’04; for the better.

Got an analysis of this? It’d be interesting. Of course, Edwards wasn’t a Senator after 2004. He didn’t run for Senate while he was running for President/VP.

But what does that say about Edward’s “influence” when he was in the Senate?

Same here. I would like not to see Wesley Clark as VP, SoS, SecDef, or anywhere else in a Democratic administration.

YES!

I wasn’t sure where to put this so I will probably put it here and as an EPU in the next thread. Re Obama’s “present” votes in the state legislature. Here is one explanation. Not saying it’s the truth:

I

n practical terms, a “present” vote is as good as a “no” vote because the law requires a bill to win the votes of a majority of the lawmakers in either body, not simply a majority of those voting.

If “present” sounds wimpy, that’s because it sometimes is. In many cases, according to Paul Green, head of Roosevelt University’s School of Public Policy and a longtime student of Illinois’ byzantine legislative process, lawmakers who anticipate a tough re-election challenge will vote “present” on a controversial bill they oppose so as not to give their prospective opponents a good club to bash them with.

Obama, however, was in a safe district and never faced a serious challenge for his legislative seat. He had no need to shy from hard-line stands on gun control and abortion rights. He actually took such stands frequently and is now highly praised by advocates for both causes.

Why would he then vote “present” instead of a resounding “no” on certain bills advanced by lawmakers opposed to abortion rights?

“To provide cover for other Democrats who were shaky on the issue in an effort to convince them not to vote `yes,’” Sutherland said. “The idea is to recruit a group to vote `present’ that includes legislators who are clearly right with the issue.”

And the link:

http://blogs.chicagotribune.co…..ent-o.html

Blame Clinton, as usual

Well, I missed the whole shebang, I haven’t read the last thread, only part of this one but I have CNN on and now I want to scream.
I think for my own sake, I am going to completely pass tonight and play a mindless game.
See ya’s tomorrow.

That meshes with what the IL bloggers I’ve met say … byzantine is right! They got very upset when he was hit on the abortion one since they said – and again I don’t know – that he was actually helping out on a Planned Parenthood strategy.

Edwards voting record really was awful, actually. I’m willing to overlook it because:

a) he admits it

b) he says he was wrong

c) he talks the talk

d) there’s no one else who had even a remote shot who was even talking the talk, let alone walking the walk.

Mack … I owe you lunch but I’m travelling so much, it’s been tricky.
When I get back from Ottawa (this week)let’s make a plan.

I’m actually for Hillary, but I hope John Edwards stays in the race. He’s a good man and clearly adds to the debate. I might even send him a few bucks. Obama stutters quite a bit, and I don’t think he appears as confident as Hillary or Edwards–but he is honorable, has such a good heart and a terrific sense of humor. Boy! That Hillary! When she gets a certain expression on her face, I KNOW someone’s gonna get their ass kicked!! And talk about smart!! But the truth is, I think all three were absolutely terrific tonight. John Edwards had such a beautiful passion in him, like I said, I hope he stays in the race. And I will happily vote for Obama in 2016, no doubt about it. I guess I’m for Hillary who is not only a SMART ass, but can kick it as well.

No, I don’t think Edwards is out of it at all. If Hillary and Obama continue to go at it, they both will seem too tendentious to become an effective executive. There are plenty of primaries ahead, and 2008 has been a unique year.

Edwards needs a first place finish somewhere. That’s all.

If people don’t realize how conservative Hillary is, then a look at the names considered for VP under her should be a clue. Emanuel, Bayh, Clark, all conservative Dems!

Ian … know what you mean. I’m just really bothered by his Iran position – and saddened that he’s not been as good a campaigner this time – though he was great tonight.

I also dislike the back and forth on Iraq …overall, I worry about him on foreign policy and think he relies too much on other’s opinions there while he’s more confident in his own economic policies.

Edward’s “influence” when he was in the Senate?

Repubs took over in ‘94 and Dems like Edwards couldn’t do much of anything. I have wondered if the Repubs saw him as a presidential threat and purposely avoided letting him achieve anything. I wonder.

We do seem to forget that she is Madame DLC eh?

And for all her “passion” about Bush plans for Iraq, her own are not much better (esp with OHanlon as her advisor!)

As soon as it ended those pernicious assholes started in with the “who scored what points on whom” bullshit. I am so disgusted with the mainstream media right now, it sometimes even distracts me from my disgust with the Republicans.

You get more this way then you will on a debate (or I do) but I watch them anyway:

The Choice Between Clinton/Obama by George Packer 1/28/08

MSM isn’t going to help you much at all, but on the upside you have a lot of tools at your disposal to get real information, and you know how to use them.

You aren’t going to get significant information from any debates. They’re designed to entertain you in a season where the well is drying up for TV programs whose content is driven by writers. For a few top rated programs, CBS has 4 new shows in the can, ABC 4 new shows, Fox a few more. They aren’t designed to inform you in depth–they’re trying to attract entertainment eyeballs from the networks whose prime time is drying up.

The main stream media aka MSM, particularly TV, is always going to be in TMZ mode. They want entertaining “3 pointer from midcourt/Manning connects a 50 yard pass” moments. Their metaphor is Superbowl/NCAA/World Series. They are catering to the public and giving them what they think that coveted 18-49 demographic wants.

What you don’t want to see, but Jay Leno and Bill Maher have already been providing it for you, is an average American adult asked to discuss the issues. It’s ugly and it’s pathetic. They aren’t spending time here–they’re focuses on any push and shove they can glean from a debate.

If you look at the content of many of the questions from Blitzer or Suzanne Malveaux
they were focused on the superficiality of extending the never ending soap opera over what Obama meant with the comments on Republican ideas which he said were bad ones, before it occurred to Clinton to say that. I was glad to see her called on Brokaw’s book and her comments. She got a little taste of what she and her husband have been spinning. That’s been the pattern the past few weeks.

Obama commercials started in some Super Tue states tonight, and I thought they were well done. They open with Lawrence Tribe from Harvard Law saying he was amazed Obama went to work representing residents of low rent housing, instead of the fiction that was represented by Senator Clinton that his represenation focused on slum lords.

This does nothing, by the way to tell you the deep, systemic inadequacies of all three of the health care plans proposed, or to let you in on the secret that the American presence in Iraq is not going to change substantively for years no matter who goes to the Oval.

Your Congress set that in concrete, and Americans yawned and it’s here to stay. The Congress is not lifting a finger to change it.

Reality for many families is now the hell that the wife of the soldier is living depicted on Nightline. People driving the war in the Bush Inner Circle botique could care less.

Their kids aren’t there; there husbands aren’t there; there wives aren’t there.

Romney kids, Bush kids–no they diunnnnt go. No they ain’t gonna go. Clinton kid–no not going.

They haven’t a clue that you want substantive drill down information that can be useful to you in predicting performance that will actually help you. It’s because they aren’t interested in that type information. They are interested in what will help their agents get more lucrative contracts for them at the next renewal period, and what will make their network the most money.

I’ll take Edwards at his word that poverty is his issue. SCOTUS doesn’t seem the best avenue to forward that agenda. President is the avenue.

Jane, I think this is the kind of debate that Republicans would be totally incapable of having.
Also, I only know what I have read about the debate, but I like it that Obama reportedly said that were MLK alive he wouldn’t be endorsing any of them but would be asking the American people to hold them accountable. I’ve been pissed at Obama lately, but that was class.

“I hope Edwards stays in the race”.
I’m not committed to any of the three at this point, but I think if I could vote in one of these primaries I would vote for John just to help keep him in the race. His voice is vital. The pundits will be acting like he has some obligation to withdraw, and we have to knock down that notion.

I have heard from some reasonably high ranking military officers (not anywhere near the Pentagon, and not even in Clark’s branch of the service), that there are some skeletons in the closet of his military record, and that these will keep him off the ballot (and kept him out of the primaries this round).

I have no idea what they concern, and I doubt the people who told me actually know anything, but this is the “rumor” within the military about his political ambitions.

Take that for what it’s worth.

re: Clark, “take that for what it’s worth”. I don’t think it’s worth much. There seems to have been a very virulent smear campaign directed at Clark along the way.

When he ran for president himself, he wasn’t worried about any skeletons.

But my brother-in-law works with someone who said she heard from a friend that {insert rumor here}.

He wasn’t the best candidate on Iraq, though he’s no worse and in my opinion slightly better than the other two. On foreign policy in general his absolute rejection of the “war on terror” was a big deal. He’s also the only one of the big 3 who didn’t want to ad 92K new troops.

He’s no Richardson, but of the top 3, to my mind, he was still clearly the best on foreing policy.

The response to the debate is interesting; s’like it was a rohrshach, so much projection. I’ll vote for Edwards in the CA primary. I think it’s reasonable to imagine if he gets enough delegates, his positions will carry some weight with Mrs. Clinton and his person will carry some weight with Mr. Obama. That is I can far more readily imagine, if Edwards were to accept the number 2 spot a second time, him being on an Obama ticket rather than a Clinton ticket. I think Mrs. Clinton hurt herself tonight, but in a way I thought there was something about gender to it. They both wasted (and have been wasting) a lot of time on bs lately, but you know it’s one thing to call down a woman about being a money grubbing lawyer for Wall Mart, and quite another for a woman to put on the strap on and take a man down for lawyering for a slum lord. Your mama on both their houses. As far as substance, I am waiting for the candidates to simply come out and bury conservatism–to advocate in a way that says–look this has been bait and switch, smoke and mirrors for decades and here is why, and lay it out there. I’ll eventually vote for whomever the Dems put up, but while Ms. Hamsher is proud of the candidates, it still looks like oh well better hell in a handcart than the bullet train we’re currently on, but that’s about it. I have fewer and fewer illusions about the front runners the longer this goes on.

Grain of salt indeed. KOS’ site has been overwhelmed by Obama’s children of hope and reconciliation, unfortunately egged on by KOS.

You must have missed the ‘76 Carter – Ford debate.

Edwards will not accept a VP spot. He’s been down that road as Kerry’s muzzled running mate.

Can you imagine having to dial yourself down 50% under orders to refrain from upstaging the consultant bogged down top of the ticket.

Mark Warner. NO. Let him run for the Senate. It will be a pick-up.

What’s with the passive voice here? You and the mainstream media may have decided to narrow your options to those three. I do not accept them. Kucinich is still running. He has my vote. Did the rest of the progressives roll over and die?

No. This old Liberal is for Edwards. And he’s still the most electable against any Republican.

What are the names on the Obams list for vp
I heard he was fighting with McCain for lieberman

Hugh@138; with her record, all Clinton CAN be is “vague about Iraq”. And if we don’t have a candidate who’s going after the goopers, hammer and tongs on that, they’ll be shaving points like the crookedest NBA team that ever tanked, and we’ll be looking at another 8 years of republican rule.

And, lest anyone thinks that Iraq isn’t still going to be THE issue:

http://www.aswataliraq.info/lo…..rSection=1

And: http://www.antiwar.com/updates/?articleid=12242

Katherine Graham Cracker@185: You have to be kidding.

Joe Lieberman OWNS Hillary Clinton.

Cal1942@184:

There you go; using the “electable” profanity. :o) Stand by for incoming from the Clinton supporters. :o)

Oliphant’s having fun with Bill. :o)

http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoo…..EakVFj7CsC

Hillary attacks for no damn reason, other than she can’t tolerate any competition. After 8 sad, horrible years of Dubya, we shouldn’t be ‘rewarded’ with a Hillary. How much more sh** can this country take?

I saw Hillary and Obama in a joint suicide bombing. John Edwards should move his chair a little farther away.

About Bill? Asleep? And the “story” is taken up by the Post? Which is owned by who?

One of the depressing features of this campaign is how little principle is driving much of the criticism of the Clintons even from their Democratic opponents. Are they beatable on policies? Sure they are. But how much easier to repeat the pap that the media, and the Republican right, has already pre-digested.

I forget which debate it was, back in September maybe, that Hill, Edwards and Obama articulated their policies on getting out of Iraq. Not a dime’s worth of difference between them. Just Richardson and Kucinich were for immediate withdrawal of all US forces. The rest hedge about what “residual” forces there might be in two or three or four years.

Perfect smear job. “There’s something wrong with his character,” said the former head of the Joint Chiefs, but we never find out what, and whatever it is, it isn’t shared by others at the Pentagon.

President Bill Clinton noding out while Dr Martin Luther King III memorializes his beloved father-hardly appropriate for the first black-eye to the Presidency of the United States of America. Reinvigorated he will resume
his unprecidented and undignified assault on another Democrat who whoever stands in his egomaniacal way.