Very sadly only Richardson makes sense on Iraq with Kucinich and Gravel thrown in perhaps.

We are the problem, not the solution.

Biden may top even Hillary as a hawk because he is so clear while she fuzzes the issues.

We are going into the ethnic cleansing business for the Iraqis? Better pray some more, Joe. You could use some guidance from above.

Best, Terry

Same thought crossed my mind listening to Biden.

But what is the world to do when a artificial nation begins to break up after its' overlord is removed?

When Yugoslavia dissolved the various peoples committed ethnic cleansing until the same result was accomplished through diplomacy.

There is an argument to be made that India and Pakistan were better off for partition although I'm not sure I believe that.

Intercessionary prayer? Not really, simply hardball politics.

Some segments of the Evangelicals do believe (as they have been taught since they were small children) that prayer will lead to miracles and that the sins of others will lead to punishment of all.

I think the effect -- and probably the purpose of the question -- was to illustrate to the GOP faithful that the Democrats are not Pat Robertson Christians and weaken the temptation for the GOP voters to desert the weak Repulican candidates.

For anyone out there who sees disasters as God's response to our behavior, I suggest they look at all the disasters which have occured since Americans elected George Bush.

The best response was Obama's -- first fix the levees.

Hey, you guys are missiong something-unlike Bliztzer, George didn't take most of the time up!

Regarding the timing, perhaps it's time that after the allotted time expires, the microphone automatically cuts off.

When Obama and Clinton get substantially more time than others to make their points and respond, it's no wonder that they will reap the greatest benefits.

Maybe we should limit the time of the moderators, especially Wolf Blitzer. I recall that Dodd had an image where Blitzer took more time up than even Obama, Clinton, or Edwards.

Actually, in that debate, both Obama and Clinton finally passed Blitzer. Here's the link:

http://chrisdodd.com/node/1377

The same happened in the SC debate:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/channel-08/2007/07/dodds_talk_clock_update.html

But today, when Obama gets 36% more time to speak about his positions than Edwards, for example, it's easy to see why people remember his performances. (In the CNN New Hampshire debate, it was 27%, and the CNN South Carolina debate, 31%.)

Yes, but if he worked in a Pavlovian catchphrase like "strength and experience"--which every Hillarybot says every time he or she is asked for a quote--he'd probably get more love from the punditariat.

Obama comes off as so much more of a human being than Sen. Clinton or (IMO) Edwards, that he's probably doomed. The process mercilessly strives to conform aspirants to its own twisted norms.

But I'm pulling for him, more and more with everything I learn about him. I hope you're right that he's reaching people.

Stephanopolous focused two big questions on criticisms of Obama (inexperience) and of Clinton (Washington establishment), giving them both a chance to respond and the other candidates a chance to weigh in too. I thought it was a pretty effective way to hightlight those leading in the polls and balance the time.

Interestingly, the early results on the ABC online (non-scientific)debate results poll shows Obama a clear leader (27 percent), Hillary (19 percent), Kucinich (15 percent), Biden (14 percent), and Edwards (11 percent).

I did not watch the debate but from the various summaries and highlights that I've seen, it seems that there isn't likely to be a big shake up as a result of today's encounter, which means that________________________ (fill in the blank with whatever your view was going into today's debate).

Amen to that, my brother. :-)

poolman, I don't know who you are, but that zero was ridiculous. This post is pretty much dead on accurate.

Slc

A few thoughts on the debate.

The moment when Hillary gave me the hibbiejeebies  was when she described that getting out of Iraq was a massive complex problem. All I could think about was how she made a complete fiasco out of universal health care which was indeed a massive complex problem she undertook. Why I asked would I think Hillary could possibly handle accepting advice on how to get out of Iraq when she refused to listen to folks on how to bring us a universal health plan.

One of the things that stood out to me in this debate is that Hillary has run out of new 30 second soundbites. She is basically now in re-run mode. Which made Obama shine even more as he continues to give well thought out reflective answers.

I was particularly impressed when he emphasized that what he said was not a hypothetical given the NIE report has stated that OBL is in those Pakistan hills, in response to Hillary once again asserting that Presidents should not speak in hypotheticals. For me this once again underscored that Hillary has not read the NIE report and therefore called the situation hypothetical. Barack said NOway this is a hypothetical. That caught Hillary off guard she was clearly rattled as George had played that clip where she basically said what Obama did about not using nukes..Hillary did not know what to say and when she fell back on her 'hypothetical' and not taking options off the table. Obama nailed her...GOOD.  Great exhange that delineated clear differences between the two as Presidential candidates..

The second thing Barack did was say that he did not beleive that there should be strategic ambiguity when it comes to the President discussing FP with the American public. Again in response to Hillary asserting that a President should not give away their 'bargaining chips' nor say they will meet with foreign leaders. Obama also added that he believe that a strong leader and a strong country should have no problem meeting with foreign leaders or our enemies.  This made Hillary sound not only weak but  afraid to meet and that she lacked the conviction to use the power that is inherent in being the President of the UNITED States of America. She sounded even more weak and  afraid when Richardson chimed in that he has ALREADY MET with these foreign leaders that are such 'bad guys.  That made Hillary sound like she lacked the testicular fortitude to meet with the foreign heads of state who America has to contend with.  I found that exchange  one in which Obama sounded and looked exceptionally Presidential.

I see why the focus groups were much more impressed with Obama in this debate. I think he was much more relaxed and he has learned to make more concise statements that remain as impactful nevertheless. He is beginning to demonstrate the strength and wisdom that has brought him to this point. It is now coming through in the format of these forums with 8 folks. Hillary should be glad there were not just two of them debating. It is clear Obama will trounce her in a two person debate.

Edwards did a good job as well boxing Hillary in on the lobbyist question once again. Hillary's response came across as a scripted non-answer and that babbling about fighting the GOP was just pathetic after she was established as the  candidate most driven by special interest goups.

I was quite pleased with how Stephanopoulous, overall, made them focus on the very pointed issues of Hillary being polarizing and backing up their claims of Obama being 'inexperienced'.  I really liked how Obama said he was the best person to bring this country together.

I think he should go ride bumper cars with his girls before every debate!!!...LOL

Yeah, but... For me, it wasn't entirely a waste of time. In the current climate, where the candidates often seem to try and out-smarm one another in their religiosity, it was reassuring to hear Edwards state unequivocally that intercessionary prayer is but so much BS.

Sure, I'd love to hear someone say "don't ask me, I'm an atheist" but, since that's not likely to happen, such statements are a crumb of comfort.

Clearly, Biden and Clinton are the only two Democrats who fully understand the enormous complexity of the Iraq debacle.

Like Bush and Cheney you think?

This misbegotten adventure is lost, lost, lost.

We can't "stabilize" a failed state. We can't prevent an ongoing chaotic war. We haven't the knowledge or wisdom to separate the parties. We don't even have any real knowledge of the factions involved. The latest monster carnage created in the north was done to a small secretive sect that is not even Muslim. Currently we are overjoyed by Sunnis fighting Sunnis and sending in some more guns that could well again be used against us as happens regularly.

Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton understand all this you think?

Like hell they do.

Best, Terry

I am for fighting the Right who are very wrong.

Super.

Hillary is the right. Fight, fight, fight.

Best, Terry

I certainly hope that Hillary has begun to peak. Every week, she angers me more. Her decision to run as if she's already won the primary maddens me. In so many of her speeches, one would think Bush 43 were up for re-election. It's time to move on and state what she'd do to FIX the morass he's leaving behind. Each time she say's "No" to hypotheticals, I'm reminded of the last candidate who refused to do so - George W. Bush. Perhaps if he'd answered some of those questions, it would have had a different ending.

It will be interesting to see the fallout from Obama's decision to cut back on debates. With the increasingly accelerated primary schedule, it's a smart idea. He's far better off visiting the voters - not fundraising and pseudo-debating.

As for the first 15 minutes today, can you imagine if Clinton had been the focus instead of Obama??? Would her steely reserve finally exploded?

Thanks for letting me vent... That lady just gets under my skin.

I like Obama too, but if Hillary had made the first boxed statement it would be considered cant. If she believed that the country is split between red and blue she'd really be naive. So your first quote is hardly in the JFK tradition for eloquence or seriousness of thought. The second quote is statesmanlike. But I can hear George W. Bush using that line in 2000.

I'm with you in your desire for real positive change, as are most thinking Democrats, Independents and a great many Republicans. But "if you want a revolution ... We'd all love to hear your plan." All you need to do is convince enough thinking voters of the rightness of your plan to turn the trick. If Obama can do it then he wins.

The problem is that most of us have slightly different plans from the rest of us, hence the perception of a divided country.

The Clintons have participated in the partisan and intra-party battles of the last twenty years and more. Let's see how Obama comes off at sixty, if he stays in the game. I certainly wish him the best. But if participation in the top tier is a black mark against a person's character as your last paragraph suggests then heaven help us all. Read Hillry's letters from when she was a student. She was as idealistic, self-critical and introspective as Barack describes himself to have been.

As to how many "thinking Democrats, progressives and independents" vote for the Democratic nominee, if it turns out to be Hillary, I hope that your estimate is wrong, for all our sakes.

Anyway, if you find comfort in your belief then so much the better for you.

Disclaimer: all implicit or explicit religious references are meant to be ironic.

As for the first 15 minutes today, can you imagine if Clinton had been the focus instead of Obama??? Would her steely reserve finally exploded?

 I think it might have as she was clearly rattled when Stephanopoulous showed that clip of her advocating no use of nukes, which contradicted her attacking opposition to Obama this past week for saying the exact same thing.

It was the best moment of the debate. It knocked her clear off message. More importantly it was one of the first times ever that she has been confronted with her flip-flps that she uses in her attack mode. 

All Hillary could do was babble some nonsense about context and not using Hypotheticals...when speaking about countries and adversaries. That was when Barack nailed her with...what he said was not hypothetical, but in the most recent NIE report that OBL was in Pakistan's hills. Zinged her good. Also reminded folks that once again she is not reading NIE reports and underscores how weak she is when it comes to national security.

I wish ABC had done a split screen like they did when Clinton was given the opportunity to bash Obama with her remarks on his being inexperienced. They put up a split screen for us to watch Barack, no such luck when Barack skewered Hillary though.

Her soundbites have gotten old and many people can see through them now for the lack of substance they have when they hear Barack's position stated far more clearly and in-depth. Clinton is coming across as the well-scripted candidate vs. the well-prepared. There is no script for the Presidency nor will they be able to take polls to determine which way Hillary should position herself prior to making a decision. Which is why Barack is the far better candidate.

I think you could be right that Hillary has peaked.

puissant is right, the link posted above answers your question directly.

I'll reply more in depth later, when I've finished some work I need to get done, but I just had to point out your question has already been answered. ;)

I'm with you in your desire for real positive change, as are most thinking Democrats, Independents and a great many Republicans. But "if you want a revolution ... We'd all love to hear your plan." All you need to do is convince enough thinking voters of the rightness of your plan to turn the trick. If Obama can do it then he wins.

Like I explained in my post last night that can't be done in 90 second debate responses. If you want to find the best candidate, find their Youtube townhall forums. They've been doing them all over Iowa and NH. I'm an Obama guy. I think anybody who compares Obama to any of the rest of them will be impressed. This guy is smart, persuasive and watching him actually having the time to answer a question completely makes you realize just how
determined he is bring us all together to break the influence of the big money interests that George Bush has sold our country to.

I wonder what teachers thought of this exchange:

YEPSEN: Senator Obama, performance-based pay. How would you do
that without alienating the teacher's unions?

OBAMA: Well, I've had a lot of discussions with teachers all
throughout Iowa. And they feel betrayed and frustrated by No Child
Left Behind. And Chris is right: We shouldn't reauthorize it without
changing it fundamentally.

We left the money behind for No Child Left Behind, and so there
are school districts all across the state and all across the country
that are having a difficult time implementing No Child Left Behind.
And teachers are extraordinarily frustrated about how their
performance is assessed.

And not just their own performance, but the school's performance
generally. So they're teaching to the tests all the time. What I
have said is that we should be able to get buy-in from teachers in
terms of how to measure progress

I would applaud what Obama said.

It would not be fair to say Clinton said nothing---her first sentence says a lot. The rest of it does not seem to matter much. I would not applaud it---but I was a teacher from 1968-1991---Ashcroft was my governor when i was inspired to stop being a teacher.

CLINTON: Well, I have long supported incentive pay for school
wide performance. You know, what we're trying to do is to change the
culture within schools and to provide the resources, the training and
the support that teachers need to do the job they do want to do.

And particularly focusing on kids who come from disadvantaged
backgrounds, I think you have to start with preschool, even before
pre-kindergarten.

CLINTON: I've advocated universal pre-kindergarten. I think you
have to start even earlier to try to help the family be the best
school and teaching opportunity for their own children.

You have to reform No Child Left Behind. We're going to try to
do that and begin to make it much more in line with the reality of
teaching.

Wow. I think I am now beginning to understand your screen name. What you say is only logical if you are a politician. Your first posts says that Rove would be attacking Obama if he thought he was the candidate he needed to beat, despite the reality of him actually attacking Hillary. You imply that Rove knows Hillary is the candidate to beat.

Then when that 'logic' is shown to be inconsistent with Rove's own statements on how he uses reverse psychology tactically, now you switch to that tactic not only not being a 'winning strategy' but since it  obviously demonstrates that Hillary is the weakest opponent you also claim that the Dems were not swayed by Rove's tactics despite them indeed nominating Kerry in response to Rove's attacks.

Sorry but you cannot have your cake and eat it too. The overarching point here is that Rove is being consistent. He says that no other candidate in the history of the nation has been called a frontrunner with negatives as high as Hillary yet you somehow beleive that the GOP thinks Hillary will be hard to beat. No they don;t.  They simply hope that Dems are stupid and naive enough to nominate the underdog again. Rove is hoping that Dems and women rally to Hillary being 'victimized' once again and try to sell her 'polarization' as just a right wing attack. Her polls alone tell us she is the least electable candidate in the primaries for both Dems and GOPs.

Geeeez, get real.  Obama is THE candidate, Obama is the one who unites this country and galvanizes crowds of over 20K to come out to hear him speech. The man is rock solid. He is intelligent, a grassroots organizer, he knows the constitution and he understands how to meld a consensus to be effective. He is a leader with the judgment to bring into the Democratic fold progressives, young people, independents, even the religious folks like Obama.

Maybe you need to think harder and be less political.

Even RayCharles can see that Obama is the opponent to beat. That is why Hillary is attacking him relentlessly despite her being the frontrunner in the polls. She knows she can't go toe to toe with Barack she doesn't have the savvy nor the charisma. He is like a bright sun that casts a huge shadow over her, just like Bill does.

Rove has already influenced this years primaries if you think Hillary is the opponent the GOP can't beat!!

Obama's political ascent epitomizes this Ghandi saying:

First of all, what's important is that my statements are consistent with themselves, not Rove's. There is no self-contradiction. Secondly, so what if my statements do not fit with Rove's 2004 game plan? Why can't he change his strategy? What if he is using reverse-reverse-psychology -- making people think he is following the 2004 paradigm? As the post following yours alludes to: The only thing consistent about Rove is that he will try to deceive you whenever it suits him and he can get away with it.

My point in bringing this up is to counter the arguments by Obama supporters that Rove is attacking Hillary because the Republicans are afraid of Obama. I am saying that Rove is more afraid of Hillary AND Bill Clinton.

Political ilLogic earns the moniker again.

Rovian strategy is to mean the opposite of what you say. His attacks on Hillary are to rally her base to help her win the nomination. Rove has dreamed of a chance run a campaign against the Clintons and has researched the dirt for years. He will be one sad little puppy in Texas if she isn't the nominee.

The Republicans had their shot at the Clintons during the Whitewater and impeachment episodes. You can bet the Clintons will fight fire with fire. Obama is simply untested and unvetted. Buyer beware. Rove isn't God. No serious presidential candidate will employ Rove.

"Many of the people at the Focus group came in as Hillary supporters...they switched to Obama."
not down?
I've heard this before previous debates, but somehow her poll numbers went up not down.

We do not need to engage Rove's treasure trove of Clinton baggage and negative attacks if we nominate Obama. That's the point. Why even incur this type of cesspool, knockdown, drag out political brawling on the national level again?

We can pick a winner and take back the WH without the Clintons and their so called firepower.

We need rock solid power, can do power;  not attack, attack attack.

Rove and no one else needs to be God to read the polls. Hillary has been on the national scene 16 years and her negatives are simply insurmountable. They ahve not budged. She will not be able to sway people to her side.

Even when she ran in NY, the repubs stayed home and wouldn't vote for her.

Democrats cannot win back the WH without independents votes. Hillary is a loser as the Democratic Nominee....Guiliani or Romney will win if she is our nominee.

What's your point?  The folks who were speaking in the focus group were not Frank Luntz. Are you suggesting those people were reading from some script Luntz wrote?

Besides Brock at Media Matters is another one of Hillary's "boys" like Wolfson. Brock is part of the Clinton machine. Hillary has set up a network of the vast left wing conspiracy analogous to the VRWC...she is backed by Soros money.

, Hillary Clinton told Matt Bai of The New York Times Magazine on October 12, 2003, "We need some new intellectual capital. There has to be some thought given as to how we build the 21st-century policies that reflect the Democrat Party's values." She later told The Nation's Robert Dreyfuss, "We've had the challenge of filling a void on our side of the ledger for a long time, while the other side created an infrastructure that has come to dominate political discourse. The Center is a welcome effort to fill that void."

Persistent press leaks confirm that Hillary Clinton, and not Podesta, is ultimately in charge of CAP. "It's the official Hillary Clinton think tank

George Stephanopoulos is a hitman for the GOP in disguise. Everyone knew nukes and hypotheticals were going to come into the debate somehow with GS moderating by ambush.
GS hates Kucinich and everytime he is around he tries everything in his power to belittle Kucinich. He did a hit piece interview on his Sunday talk show trying everthing he could think of to make Dennis look bad but Dennis made a fool of him for even trying, with GS getting angrier and angrier with each failed attempt. Watch it and you will see it clearly.

Dennis's ratings have soared because of these debates and forums because this is the only way he can be heard and that's why GS won't give him time to talk. Kucinich is the best candidate out there voting right on all the issues and putting Rumsgeld in his place at the Tillman hearings, and also the only one who has introduced articles of impeachment on Cheney, as well as single payer not for profit national health care, so bwesides voting right on all the issues, he is DOING it and not just talking it. Also the only one who promises to end NAFTA and pull us out of the WTO.
He has been absolutely right on everything and dedicated to listening to his constituents. He so far outshines the other candidates that there really is no comparison yet he lacks their funds. Funding being equal the others wouldn't stand a chance against him. I've kept my mind open until recently but Kucinich has been right on everything. He talks the talk and walks the walk and the other candidates wish he would just disappear. We need a Kucinich administration, the only one who really speaks truth to power. an administration we can trust. Just listen to him and you'll agree...He's the one.

Ideally in a perfect world...but it is extremely naive after Bush has so completely decayed our democracy. Above all else the next president needs a large can of bug spray because the roaches are everywhere. Obama wants to speak like Robert Kennedy's dream and one day hopefully we will get there but after the last 6 1/2 years we need to focus on getting rid of the damage done and those who would continue to destroy our way of life. It's nice to be a visionary...but not when your house is in flames and you are in the upstairs bedroom and republican firemen are outside regulating the water, threatening to shut it off if you don't give them what they want. There is a sense of urgency for the matter at hand. It's hard to be bipartisan with a lynch mob screaming for money and blood. I'm sure Obama could handle it just like the other Democratic candidates could...but they need to stay focused on what is rather than what could be because necessity requires it.
Kucinich is way ahead of Obama on all the issues if only you would just listen to him.

Bull. Steph. is a GOP hitman who moderates by ambush and each question, situation came with an agenda for Republican talking points. He did everything he could think of to keep Kucinich from being heard while letting Obama and Clinton ramble on and on. He tried to smear Kucinich on his Sunday show but Dennis made a fool of him and so he purposefully kept Kucinich from being heard. If you were impressed by George then you've already made up your mind and just wanted re-enforcement. You've obviously have never really heard Kucinich speak on all the issues or you would be outraged at George's successful attempt to silence him. Kucinich so out shines the other candidates on all the issues that there is no comparison and the top tier want him to be silenced for that very reason which the phony hypocrite Stephanopoulos succeeded in doing for them.

what he said below

A few of the founders might have had a problem with Obama, Terry, despite his obvious talents. I don't think it's wise to apply their personal standards to the present situation, not just because they may be anachronistic, but because the founders disagreed on so many basic issues, even though they were members of the same class.

Obviously the Constitution that they hammered out is the standard that we can and must apply, but it is the product of compromise. My point is that those who rule out compromise are bound to be disappointed. If Barak gets the nomination he would almost certainly have my support and my vote.

Like it or not, Obama is a professional politician. A great many of the founders stayed in politics and it was a pretty rough game from the start. In spite of their idealism and stature, Adams and Jefferson provide prime examples of how bitter and Rovian it could be.

Interesting thoughts.

Of course, if Hillary was speaking Obama's words she would be heard as hypoctical because she helped invent the red and blue divid, it is now in her dna. It is the clear, direct contrast with Hillary that struck me in this debate and was the purpose of the focus of my post.

My allusion to Kennedy was less about the eloquence, although I believe Obama has that capacity, and more about the message of possibilties as a NATION, not the obstacles presented by constant battles of rival factions.

Your concluding remark:

Anyway, if you find comfort in your belief then so much the better for you

seemed condescending and dismissive. As an individual and citizen, I want to feel good about my country again and see some hope and roll up my sleeves to make it better.  Obama doesn't offer me "comfort", he seems to be ready to challenge us all with ideas, the need to sacrifice and a long missing opportunity to rediscover the collective identity of a nation again, not just one special interest trying to suppress another special interest. Laugh at that notion or belittle it, if you will. 

Yes, Richardson sometimes gives a direct answer. He has nothing to lose. How about "leading" candidates?

I personally don't think Richardson can be completely excluded as a possible nominee though he has made appalling blunders and is surely not the most eloquent speaker.

My general feeling is that Obama is quite open generally with his answers as opposed to the dissembling of Hillary.

I won't pretend for a second that Obama doesn't tailor his answers to what his pollsters tell him he should say but he sometimes proposes ideas that are as startling as any from Mike Gravel.

As witness to that, I offer you the merit pay for teachers he still hangs onto or, worse, his proposal that the building of nuclear power plants be reinstated as a source of electricity. Neither idea is likely to have many fans in these parts but it does indicate the man is willing to go against the grain of public opinion.

I am far from fond of many of Obama's ideas, such as the two just mentioned. I am hardly enchanted with his misguided ideas about Iraq. But I appreciate that he is willing to expostulate on such matters while Hillary might as well be one of those nodders one finds in novelty shops.

I have asked many times that the many fans of Hillary provide a single idea, thought, sentence, phrase that indicates Hillary is willing to depart from the past decades of ruin, divide and conquer. None can seem to find any. I expect none ever will.

Best, Terry

Hillary's experience is being Bill Clinton's wife

Hey, don't knock that. It gives her plenty of experience with war. :-)

Those who think Hillary has put her personal baggage behind her are sadly mistaken.

No, Virginia, there will not likely be any Vince Foster stories. Any fanciful tales of lesbian love affairs, say, will be relegated to like of Drudge.

But there is plenty of material to dredge up that is quite factual and quite damning.

"I am woman, hear me stonewall" may not be as effective in the general election as it is currently among Democrats.

Best, Terry

We need to find a way out of this hole.

The suggestion that the way out is to beat the Republicans because they are nasty people simply invites another round of pointless, debilitating, cyclical partisan warfare.

Democrat or Republican, you can't beat down half of the nation. The last 20 years proves it.

I would say over two centuries of American government proves you wrong. :-)

While we have broad agreement on many things, party-of-one, we do not agree here.

The root cause of our problems of recent decades is not partisan warfare but internecine warfare, which is always far more bitter. Fighting over the spoils is not the same as trying to enlarge the share for all.

Liberals have been essentially exterminated from the now ideologically pure Republican Party and relegated to a minor role in the Democratic Party.

When Hillary boasts she ain't no liberal, she is for once telling the exact truth. Republicans terrified of the future are now accusing even Bush of being a liberal.

Liberals will always be in the minority. Doesn't mean they can't get things done if there is the will to do it. After all there would be no America if a tiny sliver of the colonists was not willing to fight tyranny.

Obama's concessions to the establishment are far too accommodating in my view but surely his heart is in the right place. And maybe after all Obama will succeed brilliantly if given the chance. Sure beats most alternatives.

Best, Terry

I don't think any of them are atheists. If there was an atheist running, I'm sure s/he would say that, though. Following which, they would lose the election in a landslide.

"Kleefield characterizes Obama's opening statement as 'flippant'"

Yeah, the use of the word 'flippant' was odd. It immediately set off my "biased writer" radar.

Interesting article in the LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rove19aug19

"single idea, thought, sentence, phrase that indicates Hillary is willing to depart from the past decades of ruin, divide and conquer. "
It reminds me of
http://www.angelfire.com/ok5/pearly/htmls/onion-nightmare.html
Our long nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over".

In any case, honestly, I don't see how Obama can be elected.

Almost all of leadind republican candidates have
some bragging rights, claim to fame, perceived record of of achivements.

I've heard from Obama two claims to fame,
he lived in Indonesia and he gave a speech against Iraq war.
I just don't see how he can competete with Mitt Romney.

Hillary is not much better, but at least she has unspoken claim that she was not a traditional first lady, she was a co-president during long nightmare of peace and prosperity.
I think Hillary can beat Rudy, but I doubt she can beat Mitt Romney.

So what do you think Hrebendorf?

Do you think the Dems are getting bamboozled again or do you think they ignore the highest unfavorables ever in history for a presidential candidate at their own peril.

Is it fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me?

Will the Dems shame themselves this time and select the worse possible candidate for the general out of some misguided sense that a flawed candidate with decades of baggage can transcend the GOP attacks based on their 'strength, experience and battle scars' and lose again?

or will we select and nominate the BEST candidate and win?

George Washington... George Washington... Hmm... I don't remember seeing him at the debate. I suppose if he ran he'd do well--as long as we could go back in time to a completely different America.

"Of course he called himself a Deist rather than an atheist."

Yes. And a deist is not an atheist.

"According to Deists, God took care of God and it was up to man to do for himself.

Reasonably good definition of an atheist I think."

Reasonably crappy, actually. An atheist is an atheist. A deist is a deist.

How much time is fair time for someone with absolutely no chance of winning?

I agree with you AJM fighting for right is always good. Fighting just to fight isn't.

 Leading requires you to understand what the issues are and where the masses would like to be led, then taking up the fight there.  Leading does not mean being constantly in the attack mode such that you are so busy attacking and fighting you lose sight of the goal, as your goal becomes fighting not leading and achieving your objectives...but simply fighting...for cheap politicalpoints. Like Mission Accomplished and 'ifIknewthenwhatweknownow'.

Hillary found that out in the debate when Stephanopoulous showed that clip. It proved that she had been fighting and criticizing an individual for the exact same position she held. It highlighted that she will smear an opponent for political points not on issues of substance but just to make the rival 'look bad'.  That is what was exposed by GeorgeS showing that clip. Hillary had egg all over her face and the audience knew it. Nothing she said could spin her own words. That clip unmasked her for what she is. An opponent with a lot of smarts who knows how to fight dirty that's the lesson of all her battle scars she touts...fight dirty to win. Clearly showing she is not  really  a winner in terms of who and what she is, but because she wins by fighting dirty. Winners do not need to fight dirty to win. They need to fight but not fight dirty.

People and especially men understood, she is a cheater. She is the boxer who will hit below the belt to win as she can't beat her opponent on strength and skill...so she cheats. That's what the clip showed. A lying cheater.

Most folks also know that cheaters NEVER win...because they are losers to begin with. So even while it looks like they are winning they are losing...they win the battle only to lose the war. Just like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Gonzales. Dirty fighters all.

Which is what  that clip demonstrated...Hillary won the media battle to smear Barack and her little minions Dodd and Biden went along with the bashing...but when it came time to get to the substance of the issue...they all were found lacking. Barack had been right all along and now the entire world could see it. Which is the type of President Hillary will be, dragging us into global confrontations for cheap political points.

That is what I found so refreshing about how GeorgeS decided to roll out this debate format. Typically, what is said in the debate is left at the debate but  'smart, tough and experienced' Hillary decided to take the battle outside the debate and keep it going in the press to attack 'naive, inexperienced and youngupstart' Barack. She felt she had the advantage. She unleashed the full force of her political machine. But low and below GeorgeS flipped the script.  While usually she would have won the battle in the media  due to lack of follow-up and the pundits touting her 'experience' GeorgeS ...brought us right back to her snide, petty and vicisious attacks and allowed everyone to see how she was wrong and so were her echo chambers Biden and Dodd. They all had egg on their faces. None of them could back up their statements. We got to see just how petty and politically craven they were in their attacks.

So kudos to GeorgeS for continuing the battle of words on a level playing field and exposing all that  foreign policy experience for what it is poor judgment that should NOT be relied on if that experience results in what we have today. Letting all their poor judgement be displayed for what it is the type that has lead us into the worst foreign policy in the history of the country.

Barack won that round decisively while displaying the judgment and excellent statesmanship his character will bring to the Presidency. He took the right fight to them and he was right and they were wrong. Thank you GeorgeS.

Obama knows how to fight for what is right while exhibiting the leadership it will take to move this country forward.

He even had the judgment to know that he could relax with his girls and ride bumper cars the night before in order to be best prepared and self assured in his remarks rather than defensive.

Go Obama...you are fighting the right fight! The right way!  Restore America's pride and dignity within the nation and abroad with the power and confident strength that has always been America's mantle.

I think Hillary would win if she got the nomination. But I also think it would be a nail-biter right down to the wire. I think, as soon as she got the nomination, her supporters would be shocked and crestfallen at the ferocity and accuracy and deadliness of the Republican attacks. I have no doubt the Republicans have been planning for her candidacy for years and that they're coming into it well-armed. They already know exactly how they're going to run against her, and consequently, they want her to get the nomination. Unlike the Iraq invasion, they don't need to plan for the peace following the election--they just need to wipe Hillary out. It's going to be Shock and Awe all the way. And make no mistake about it--they haven't even hinted at what they have in store for her, but they're more than ready. If Hillary gets the nomination, get ready for an unbelievable broadside right after the primaries. And look for it to get worse after that. The 2008 election is going to be pure bloodsport.

If I were a Republican strategist, I would have a three-phase strategy for 2008:

1). Plan for a Clinton candidacy.
2). Do everything possible to help her get the nomination and nothing to tip people off as to what's coming next.
3). Destroy her.

I just hope Hillary's supporters are ready for what's coming. The attacks are going to make the Swiftboating of John Kerry look like a minor event.

One other thing: I think there is only one reason Karl Rove stepped down from his position at the White House. I believe he stepped down because he plans to be very involved in the upcoming election. I believe 2008 will be Rove's swan song and that it will be very, very ugly. Imagine Karl Rove with nothing left to lose and everything to gain...

Of course, if Hillary was speaking Obama's words she would be heard as hypoctical because she helped invent the red and blue divid, it is now in her dna.

I prefer Obama, but I think it's interesting that Hillary is so often attacked for being too partisan and for being too conservative. The fact that many Republicans hated her during the Bill Clinton administration does not make her a rabid partisan. She was very effective in reaching out to Republicans in upstate NY, and she was seen by liberals as too conciliatory to the Republican majority during her first term, of which her vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq is a prime example.

As we've seen repeatedly, Hillary does what she thinks will get her the vote. She turned partisan when Bush's popularity dropped and the 2006 elections loomed. If she wins the Democratic nomination, I guarantee that she will start talking about unity in order to attract independents and center-rights.

What will she do if she becomes president? I expect more of the same, becoming partisan when it offers political advantage and becoming a compromiser/unifier when it doesn't.

Would her steely reserve finally exploded?

You know I think GeorgeS exposed something in this debate. I believe he knows precisely what will get under Hillary's skin having worked as press secretary (I think) for the Clinton administration. George probably has a real understanding of what makes her tick and what makes her flip her wig, given that HRC made it her business to have an office in the Westwing...folks in the Clinton administration had to learn her idiosyncrancies right along with Bill's.

If Obama's team taps into some of this 'experience' that is out there they may definitely cause Clinton's campaign to implode.  I certainly, think that one of the keys is whenever Bill comes out to try and clean up Hillary's position.  To me that is proof positive that she is overreaching, being obstinate (which she confuses with resolute) and not listening to the advice of her advisors since she believes her intellect and judgment is the best. She wins battles with her team all the time no doubt only to lose the political skirmish in the end having scored points  that only reinforce how polarizing she is.

Bill takes center stage and makes himself available to the press for comments when Hillary does this. Bill has made two noteworthy comments ...first is that he spoke up about the war vote and blurred the lines by trying to point to their similiar vote records in the Senate today.. (Hillary refused to apologize). Next, he spoke out about this Iraq foreign policy dust up and said that there was far more that they agreed on than to get caught up in this little differences. Bill totally downplayed the entire point while Hill was trying to slamdunk Barack.

Bill understood that Barack was 'defending' himself when Hillary called him 'naive and experienced' by saying her policies were 'BushCheneylite'...Bill knew it was time to drop it. You hit him he hit you back, is how Bill reasoned (rightly) Hillary didn't, she kept at it. I bet Bill even asked her Hill, do you really have a difference with Obama here, if so what is it, and when she didn't have one he told her to drop..but not Hill...no she seemed to think that there was blood in the water and she was a shark.

This is her achilles.

Obama needs to exploit this and he will win. Hillary cannot resist attacking to score political points she does not understand when to back down, she just keeps going, like a bull seeing red. All Obama's team needs to do is start acting like a matador and she will implode.  Hillary lacks judgment on when to fight and lord knows this is precisely the type of poor judgment we do not need in a CinC who can start world wars. Now we are suppose to elect her President?

An individual who has not held any public leadership roles because people will not follow her. She does not know how to lead. She mistakes power for leadership. Which is why she would be a disaster at the helm of the most powerful nation in the world. The Presidency requires leadership and judgement.  GWBush has shown that to us, do we really want more of the same?

Obama's team needs to expose this over and over. Hillary will go into attack mode and stay there. Letting all Americans see just who and what she is:

 A smart person who lacks good judgment picks unecessary fights, and would be a disaster as President.

Basically the type of co-worker/manager most Americans hate.

Remind the American public She did the same darn thing with the universal healthcare issue. Same thing. Only thing that has changed is the stakes! In 92 she knew she was right on healthcare and made it into a huge fiasco and in 2008 she wants to be President. Having shown poor judgment by voting to take the country to war without an exit strategy because she believed GWBush.

Obama's team needs to expose her. GeorgeS has shown them how. Start exposing her statements and contradictions and triangulations and flipflops for political points. She sees red when that happens.

Do we honestly have to have a repeat of this to understand how Hillary's character lacks the leadership and judgment, despite her intelligence, to manage complex massive issues that require due diligence, discernment and judgment to know how she is unsuited for the job of the Presidency?

Let her keep her battle scars. The country does not need them in the oval office. We need a person who will fight for what is right not just fight to fight cause they do not know how to lead and fighting is all they know.

The frantic search for polls that show her losing to Romney, then (gasp!) winning, then (gasp!) losing again! Viewership would be up! Readership would be up! The campaign ad money would be pouring in like cheap beer at a frat party! And the sad fact is, the differences between four years of President Romney and four years of President Clinton would probably be disappointingly minor. Hillary's lied her way to the left. Mitt's lied his way to the right.

"Do we honestly have to have a repeat of this to understand how Hillary's character lacks the leadership and judgment, despite her intelligence, to manage complex massive issues that require due diligence, discernment and judgment to know how she is unsuited for the job of the Presidency?"
Who is among Democrats or Republicans is suited for the job of the Presidency?
Can you point me to the records/patters of achivements in the currect and previous jobs of selected by you candidated that justified your selection?

I agree with your analysis on the GOP's strategy and on the 'cliffhanger' coverage that will breed more ratings and more ads. You and donnaG, pretty much have this one nailed to a T.

Not at all. I already said my piece about the focus group. I can assign no credibility to anything with Frank Luntz's name on it (even without a Faux News logo foating in the corner). Anything Luntz says or does must be presumed tainted unless independently proven otherwise. The man is a remorseless self confessed manipulator of public opinion. He is a champion framer who knows as well as well as any pollster that the way you ask a question determines to a large extent the kind of answers you get and better than anyone how to get the answers he wants. He makes no bones about this. He's very good at it. He's proud of that. Got anything from the Drudge Report you'd like us to look at?

oops duplicate

That's her primary strategy. We don't know what her post-primary strategy would be, but judging by her political savvy and senate campaigns, I would be very surprised if she didn't switch tactics as soon as she locked up the nomination (if she were to lock up the nomination).

That said, I agree that there's no getting around the Clinton baggage and the fact that some people just hate her.

Oh for God's sake (pardon the pun). A deist is not and atheist. It isn't something that's subject to debate or interpretation. Both words have clear definitions. It's really very simple.

• Deists believe in God


• Atheists do not believe in God

No one who does not believe in God is a Deist. No one who believes in God(s) is an Atheist. They are contradictory terms and therefore neither is a "reasonably good definition" of the other.

Deists may differ from religious believers in that they believe reason and observation of nature, not blind faith or revelation should be the basis of belief in God. But believe, they do whereas an atheist, by definition, does not. A deist looks at nature and sees God. An atheist looks at nature and sees... nature.

You can look this stuff up, you know.

 I would be very surprised if she didn't switch tactics as soon as she locked up the nomination (if she were to lock up the nomination).

You think she is going to stop her attack campaign against the vast-right-wing-conspriacy-Republican-attack-machine, after she wins the Democratic nomination and the Republicans go full throttle against her?  What?  Attack and divide is the only campaign the Clinton's know. 

After Bill's impeachment, they are itching for another grudge fight.  The fact that after such a fight, "Billary" could never govern a bitterly divided nation simply doesn't matter to them  It's about winning, period.

I do not think the GOP has to be beaten they have to be won over. Made into allies with a common goal not into opponents who need a new trick play to score points in the game. They have to come to the table as Americans not partisans. They will with the right the leadership. Hillary is not it.

I don't understand why anyone would believe this after the last 6 1/2 years, let alone the last 20. It's plain to me, at least, that the Republican party has to be isolated until such time as it regains its sanity. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for reaching out, but don't expect too many takers from that corner (Independents we will have better luck with). Probably a fraction of Republican voters-in-the-street are available, but not the movers and shakers. Not the party machinery. We can't make them into allies with a common goal because we don't have goals in common.

But good luck. To all of us.