Both Edwards and Clinton well-understood the premise and parameters of the You Tube question, even as those details escaped Obama.

Unfortunately for Obama, there were other details that escaped him as well.

In his effort to promote himself as the new Reagan, Obama casts Reagan diplomacy in a factually inaccurate way.

Reagan did not meet with Gorbachev within the first year of his Presidency, individually, and without precondition. It was not until his second term that he met with Gorbachev, prior to which was vigorous groundwork as well as predonditions. Ditto for Nixon and Mao.

For Obama to suggest othewise is historically inaccurate and contrary to the public record.

Further, to promote these factually innacurate statements while simulaneously pronouncing yourself to be the most experienced and knowledgeable in foreign policy of the entire Democratic and Republican Presidential field is just absurd.

Absurd bordering on nutty!

Edwards is giving most Americans including all those making less than 200K a tax break.

Further the increased capital gains are only for those >$250,000

back to Ronnie Regan's tax policy

Wow!

Edwards:
"If you’re looking, if you're looking for what’s wrong in Washington, why the system is broken, why the system doesn’t work, one perfect example is what's been happening over the last four days."

Can't wait for the obamavangelist attacks on Edwards. Who'd thunk a "different kind of politics" and a "different kind of campaign" meant slash and burn republican tactics.

Smart move. I've gotta say, while I thought they all did well in the debate, Edwards seemed strongest to me that night. And this is the latest in what I find a string of solid public statements. It's way early, but if Clinton and Obama aren't careful they could find themselves in a replay of Dean and Gephardt in Iowa '04, with Edwards playing Kerry. Lots of us still up for grabs...

Maybe because Richardson isn't saying much that's interesting? But I agree that most of Blogland is as preoccupied by the "frontrunners" as the MSM.

Edwards is dead wrong on this one. They're not merely attacking each other--they're attacking each others' policies. And since there's a good chance we're going to have to live with the policies of one of them for perhaps eight years following the election, I'm very happy to learn in advance how each of them plans to approach their presidency.

Nice try, John, but people are still talking about Clinton and Obama.

By the way, I thought Hillary's comment about how she didn't "want to see the power and prestige of the United States president put at risk by rushing into meetings with the likes of Chavez and Castro and Ahmadinejad" was very telling.

If a year is "rushing" in Hillary's book I'm guessing her four years in office would offer very little in the way of change.

You're right! The first reference was originally USSR, the second Gorbachev. The former was changed inadvertantly during my spellcheck.

Good catch.

Chris Bowers has a great post discussing this, btw...the way the media is driving the issue. Read the whole thing, its worth it, and some good comments in the discussion section.

The conclusion:

Let's recap, with the word "they" in the next two sentences defined as MSNBC. They have set the roles in advance (Obama vs. Clinton), they define everything else in the campaign as lesser forms of news (Obama vs. Clinton is news no matter the substance, and then they write about it ten times in two days), they admit they are begging the candidates to play the parts (their producers tried to get Clinton to criticize Obama on camera), they get angry when the campaigns talk to lower forms of media life like the Quad City times, they get angry when other reporters like Anderson Cooper don't assist in making the candidates play the roles, and then they state that if the campaign doesn't happen on camera, then it doesn't really exist. To top it off, they then talk about the fight again later on in the same post, and close the day with a BREAKING NEWS piece from Andrea Mitchell that Obama has "escalated" or something. This is not journalism. This is a staged script they are trying to get everyone else to follow

open left

You don't leave your positions undefined unless you are doing it on purpose as part of your strategy. I think she is hiding the ball here.

Greg, why don't you ask her campaign a few detailed questions about her position and see whether they respond? It would be easy to frame a question using Iran or North Korea as an example.

Ohiomeister, I agree. This is her strategy. She does not take positions.

Hillary's judgment is so flawed she errors when she takes a stand. This happened with healthcare. This happened with kissing Arafats wife. This happened with the war vote.

Hillary leads on nothing. She lacks the judgment to do so.  This is why she simply mirrors the other candidates. We have to keep in mind that Hillary never intended to have run against anyone in the primaries. She built her strategy on the 'inevitability' of her candidacy based on her fundraising prowess.

The only statements she makes are against Bush's policies. Her platform is based on the general election and she never thought she would have to woo the Democratic base. As usual, her judgment was wrong.

Hillary has been in 3 debates and not once told us what she stands for and on the 2 most important issues to Democats, universal health care and the war, she has no plan and no regret for her vote.

She feels no need to woo the Democratic base. I hope Obama's grassroot campaign wipes up the floor with her arrogance of not even deigning to appeal to her own base...right down to her denouncing be ing a Liberal in the last debate.

Liberals fought for equal rights for workers, women and the poor along with civil rights. Being a liberal stood for something, a mantle Hillary simply cast aside. Yet, Democrats aresuppose to believe she is the best candidate.

Only folks who don't plan think so.

You got me.

I really didn't think the hardcore doesn't matter what he does Obama supporters would agree with Edwards that Obama is "why the system is broken, why the system doesn’t work" and that Obama is "one perfect example is what's been happening over the last four days."

There you go even hardcore obamavangelist whiterosebuddy agrees with Edwards. But I'm betting your support for the candidate that you both agree is "why the system is broken, why the system doesn’t work" is undiminished.