In fact, Tim Russert stumped Obama just yesterday on MTP -- the good Senator refused to even rule out 150,000 troops remaining in Iraq -- so much for a Harvard law degree:

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/11/obama_endorses_changes_to_social_security_tax_cap.php#comments

The Mundane Streak Media may not pay attention to the earlier response from Edwards on this "situation".
But you know they cannot resist "black guy v White woman BS pandering..

Kudo for Obama for his response...
but watch for side by side pics of Obama and Clinton...
...and no just on Fox...

"You know it's gonna get stranger, so let's get on with the show...let's go"
Grateful Dead
song for the day
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqWnWYzpimw

And to answer Jake D, a third time, assuming he's looking for an utterly pedantic answer, he said the majority of them would be withdrawn which, even taken with absurdly extreme literalism, would be less than 150,000 now wouldn't it?

Obama: My Campaign Doesn't Plant Questions

Until we find out that his campaign does plant questions. Was it Hart who'd dared the press to unconver evidence that he'd ever been unfaithful and was obliged? It killed his campaign.

Those are "absolutes" ("read my lips...") that should always be avoided in the fluid world of politics... You can bet that there is "oppo" research going on now to find just one instance that would dispute Obama's "read my lips" claim...

The media is really piling on the reports of Hillary Clinton's campaign planting questions at her events...

Is this meant to include Election Central? If not, how is it "piling on" when other media outlets cover this legitimate story, but not when Election Central posts on it?

Also, I'd like to point out that when EC first posted on this story many comments suggested that all campaigns plant questions. It seems only natural that the media would look into that allegation given that it has been offered as a defense of Hillary's campaign.

Frankly, I think Hillary will find this plays extremely badly in Iowa. Don't mess with the town hall!

That said, I've also noticed that Obama tends to take very few questions at his events IME, and mainly ones from questioners who make it obvious what they're going to ask (sensible Iowans in bright yellow T-shirts, students in PIRG T-shirts, etc.).

Not to equate the two, of course.

Here's Obamas answer:

The only troops I would have in Iraq would have a very limited mission. Number one, to protect our embassy and our civilian, diplomatic corps. I don’t want Blackwater to be providing that security; I want our U.S. military to providing—to provide that security. I’m very skeptical about the use of private contractors when it comes to our national security. The only other mission, and this is a very narrow one, would be to engage in counterterrorism activity. If al-Qaeda in Iraq is reforming bases there, we should have the capacity to strike them. That would be it. Those would be the only troops that we would deploy.

He then said he'd leave specific troop levels up to "commanders on the ground" given those specific and limited missions. When pressed, he answered: "We will have the vast majority of the troops who are there gone. This war will be over; there will be no permanent bases."

As far as I understand it, that's how it works: the President sets the missions, the commanders tell him how many troops they will require.

I really don't think you'll be able to find a commander out there who would argue those two missions would require 150,000 troops.

Dave, don't bother. He's been provided with the transcript with the relevant passages bolded. Apparently not giving an exact number is non-responsive in Jake D's world.

Jake D:

I'm an independent; you my friend are borderline insane.

As I said, Anonymous, at least I use my real name ; )

Thank you.

After months of preparing for the coronation, now Sgt Kleefeld is whining about how the media is "piling on" poor ole Billary.

Boo hoo

You ain't seen nothin yet Eric because when an Inevitablity Campaign is good, it is very very very good but when she has to run an election race, she's horrid

That's what I thought. When confronted with the myriad of moving factors, you recognize that any fixed answer on troop numbers (at this point) would be the same as a monkey throwing a dart at a dart board--random and worthless.

There is one thing that I think separates the Clinton campaign from most others: their unwillingness to throw low-level staffers under the bus. Most campaigns blame an overzealous staffer (who probably already feels bad enough) and moves on. One thing I've noticed from the Hillary campaign is that they really treat their volunteers like royalty compared to most campaigns I've witnessed.

Granted, I'm supporting Hillary, but I find it telling that she didn't scapegoat anyone when that is the usual trend.

Oh, I knew that YOU thought it was sarcasm -- it was, unfortunately for you, missing the required element of irony -- may I suggest you review Shakespeare who regularly used sarcasm as a literary tool to emphasize a point or joke.

Look . . . I'm nonplused that Obama did not take a week to issue a watered down version of what Edwards issued this morning . . . AND that his message did not point out that his vote on this subject was useless and therefore he wasn't going to do anything about propoganda in campaigning.

BTW: He may not plant questions . . . But Red T-shirts are a totally different thing . . . Aren't they . . .

Meet The Press, November 11, 2007:

MR. RUSSERT: I had asked you in one of the debates whether you'd make a commitment to have all American troops out of Iraq by the end of your first term, and you said you couldn't do that. You said you had to fight al-Qaeda, had to make sure there was not genocide, try to secure the country. How, how many troops do you envision would have to remain in Iraq for some time to come?

SEN. OBAMA: Here's what I'd do as president: We can get one to two brigades out per month safely. At that pace, we would have all our combat troops out in about 16 months from the time we initiate it. [1 brigade = approx. 3500 x 2 = 7000 x 16 = 112,000] I would like to see it start now. It is not clear that that's possible, given George Bush's posture. But 16 months from the time we initiate it, we could have our combat troops out.

The only troops I would have in Iraq would have a very limited mission. Number one, to protect our embassy and our civilian, diplomatic corps. I don't want Blackwater to be providing that security; I want our U.S. military to providing--to provide that security. I'm very skeptical about the use of private contractors when it comes to our national security. The only other mission, and this is a very narrow one, would be to engage in counterterrorism activity. If al-Qaeda in Iraq is reforming bases there, we should have the capacity to strike them. That would be it. Those would be the only troops that we would deploy.

MR. RUSSERT: How many would that be?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, you know, I'm going to leave that up to the, the commanders on the ground, because my job is to set a clear mission for them. Their job is to then tell me, "This is what we need to achieve that mission."

MR. RUSSERT: But, but--yeah, but we have 165,000 there now. Are we talking 150,000?

SEN. OBAMA: There, there--here's what I'll say, Tim. We will have the vast majority of the troops who are there gone. This war will be over; there will be no permanent bases. So when I hear, for example, others say, "I will have all troops out," well, the fact of the matter is who's going to protect our embassy? Who's going to protect our civilian forces? Are these folks suggesting that we're just going to leave them to wander around the streets and rely on the Iraqi military to do that? Obviously not.

Shorter.

Obama: 2 brigades per month = approximately 7,000 troops per month over 16 months = 112,000.

Russert: But how many does that leave? 165,000? 150,000?

In addition, U.S. Army "brigades" are smaller than a division and roughly equal to or a little larger than a regiment -- strength typically varies from 1,500 to 3,500 personnel -- Army brigades formerly contained two or more, and typically five regiments, for instance during the Civil War, but this structure is now considered obsolete.

U.S.M.C. "brigades" are only formed for certain missions -- unlike the Army, the Marines have intact regimental structures -- a Marine brigade is formed only for special expeditionary duty, for which it is outfitted like a smaller Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF). For example, TF TARAWA (2d MEB) during the Operation Iraqi Freedom campaign.

Jake D: In addition, U.S. Army "brigades" are smaller than a division and roughly equal to or a little larger than a regiment -- strength typically varies from 1,500 to 3,500 personnel -- Army brigades formerly contained two or more, and typically five regiments, for instance during the Civil War, but this structure is now considered obsolete.

US Department of Defense American Forces Press Service: WASHINGTON, Oct. 9, 2007 – Defense Department officials announced today that 4th Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, will deploy to Iraq in summer 2008. The deployment of the Fort Hood, Texas, unit is part of the normal rotation of forces, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said. There are about 3,500 soldiers in the brigade.

Didn't I say just that "brigades" range from 1,500 to 3,500 -- that would include the 4th Brigade -- unless that's "fuzzy math" to you?

Jake D: Army brigades formerly contained two or more, and typically five regiments, for instance during the Civil War, but this structure is now considered obsolete.

Repeat: Jake D LOVES fiction

Apology accepted.

May I suggest people stop feeding the troll? Just ignore him and eventually he will disappear.

Well Daniel..don't take HRClinton's word, beacuse she HAS done this before. Seems like it is SOP for her campaigns.

her Senate run in 1999, MSNBC reported that "responding to a planted question at a Teachers Union event [Clinton] made it clear she is in the race for the US Senate."

Clinton's aides reacted to the news of the most recent rigged question by saying "this is not standard policy and will not be repeated again."

Below is the transcript from the 1999 broadcast:

ANNOUNCER: From NBC News, this is THE NEWS WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS.
WILLIAMS: Good evening.

We have a lot to tell you about tonight, beginning with what had become a whisper campaign of late, and it went like this: After what turned into a somewhat disastrous trip to the Middle East and with polls showing she should not run, Hillary Rodham Clinton just might pull out of the race for Senate from New York. Well, today, the first lady, responding to a planted question at a Teachers Union event made it clear she is in the race for the US Senate.

The aggressive Yale-educated lawyer is most certainly in for the fight of her life. But today was about looking ahead to all that she says she plans to do for New York and its residents. Part of today's announcement, however, was somewhat overlooked and that is, the first lady will soon begin living apart from the president. The White House will be without a first lady, while the president's wife moves to New York and runs for office. She does so without the blessing of some New York Democrats. We'll hear from one in just a moment.

First here tonight, NBC News correspondent Andrea Mitchell on the woman who says she's in it to win it.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ANDREA MITCHELL, NBC CORRESPONDENT (on-camera): Brian, today's events were as carefully choreographed as the New York City Ballet.

(voice-over): Under pressure to either get in or get out, Hillary Clinton finally makes it official by answering a prearranged question from a friendly union leader.

QUESTION: So, is it yes, or is it no?

HILLARY CLINTON, FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES: I believe that if we work together, we really can make a difference for the children and families of New York. So the answer is yes, I intend to run.

-MSNBC, November 23, 1999, THE NEWS WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS