"What better way to celebrate the legacy of Dr. King than to look at this stage, right here tonight."

What a horrid, horrid thing for Hillary to say!

She's absolutely demeaned everything that MLK stood for and insulted Obama at the same time!

How can people support such a divisive and racist woman!

And I bet Bill whispered it to her in an earpiece, because she can't possibly think for herself, being a woman and all!

See her wretched performance in the prior post and judge for yourselves.

cmon John. they're all impressive and formidable figures. whatever your argument with each, there's no denying that.

You think it's bad now...Just wait. The Battling Billaries have just begun to slime

My only question is ..which one are they asking us to vote for again?

I liked Obama coming out & swinging. But I am a fan.

I do think we are lucky to have three great candidates that will kick some Republican butt in November.

Sorry Greg. Trope. She was formidable and impressive alright. But I watched that prior post video, and I don't think I was "impressed" in quite the same way you seem to be, and neither were other Obama supporters I suspect.

Therein lies the problem - the problem of the Clintons - the formidable and impressive danger they both pose to the Democratic Party in 2008

what the heck is the matter with you people? have you forgotten what previous Dem primaries were like? c'mon. get real. this is the best set of choices you've had -- and are likely to have -- in a long time.

john mccutchen .....stay home....don't vote....vote indy....vote Repub. who cares. WE WILL WIN WITHOUT YOU.

This goes for all the Obamaites who will lose and don't want to support the party
and goe home and suck thumbs. Stay home.
We won twice before and with the women vote we will win again and have a workin majority.

john mccutchen: "Therein lies the problem - the problem of the Clintons - the formidable and impressive danger they both pose to the Democratic Party in 2008."

More "axis of evil" talk from Obama supporters, making their claim that they would be a change from the Bush administration's political tactics absolutely hillarious!

Are you really so sure that "we'll be sorry when it's over?" Speak for yourself, pal. I can't WAIT for this primary to be over. The old cliches about the Democratic circular firing squad have never rung so true.

All that said, Prof. Obama needed to show both fire AND cool under fire. He showed both tonight.

Seriously, I'm watching the replay and she really did herself a disjustice by trying to force this "ideas" issue. She was lying and trying to pretend that she wasn't.

It demonstrates that she cannot recognize that she could in fact be wrong.

Anonymous: "What a surprise."

No surprise that Obama supporters, like Bush supporters, keep trying to lie about and rewrite the stupid things their heroes say.

Obama said what he said and there is a record of it that he can't run away from.

". . . repetition of demonstrably false Republican talking points . . ."

Nobody does this better than Obama and his supporters, time and again repeating the same talking points about Clinton that the GOP has.

They ALL lied through their teeth tonight. Hillary came off bad with the attacks. John came off well there. Hillary did well on health care (though I wish Michael Moore would have been given a rebuttal about who her plan actually benefits) Barack came off well on the war. Though Kucinich hasn't a chance, it'd been nice if a real progressive would have been involved in the conversation for a fresh perspective.

I've frequently thought that we'll be happy when it's over. But I predict that we'll actually be sorry about it...

We'll be sorry, all right ... especially the day after the election of Saint John the Good.

TexMod,
all i can say is you need to get your head out of Hillary's butt

It was a wonderful to see the debate, which was indeed historic, and I loved it. Obama is a bit of a windbag and I don't think he knows who he is. I thought Hillary was mean but not entirely dishonest. Edwards did better tonight than he has for a while. They are all gifted, serious people and we ought to be very proud of the Democrats tonight.

Jamois,
i agree with you...tonight was the best debate...all 3 candidates got their shots in....

Kefa wrote on January 21, 2008 10:10 PM:

Smell that Obama toast.

you've posted that in 2 different threads on this site. it wasn't witty or clever once, it's juvenile and borderline offensive twice.

The unfortunate thing is that Hillary Clinton is campaigning less as the possible first woman president than as the second Clinton president.

That's doubly unfortunate, both because that seems to mean the vicious and dishonest politics of 1995-2001 Clinton and because an alternate Hillary campaign--in which she might have stuck to the issues that she knows better than anyone rather than indulged her near-Nixonian penchant for dishonesty and vindictiveness--might have won over many of us who, in this reality, would sooner sit out the election than support someone so totally without decency.

The worst thing about all of this for me might be that after fighting to cover Bill Clinton's ass through his self-inflicted wounds ten years ago, coming to the realization that his opponents, though vile, were at least partly correct in how they characterized him.

Yes, Keith, because when people use the phrase "party of ideas" they almost invariably mean "the party of [bad] ideas."

You're spinning like a washing machine and it ain't working.

The customary intent of such phrasing is to indicate approval, not disapproval, and if Obama meant something different, being the great orator he is, then he should have said what he meant, but like Bush supporters, you have to continually insist that Obama meant something vastly different than what normal grammar and phrasing are taken to mean.

Your butt is so far up Obama's you could be speaking with his tongue.

Lie all you want, but "party of ideas" is a positive concept and no intelligent person would read that as "party of [bad] ideas," particularly in the context it occurred.

But it is just like Obama worshippers, uh supporters, to insist their candidate is a god-like figure who is above reproach and just like any religious orthodoxy, they are perfectly willing to lie for him.

Hillbot:

...can you elaborate for us just what are those formidable and impressive dangers that the Clintons pose to the Democratic Party in 2008, keeping in mind that Bill Clinton was the only Dem to win the presidency, twice, in nearly 3 decades and that during his administration...

blah blah blah.

I think he means this idjit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Revolution

The bottom line is that Obama was trying to appeal to Reagan Democrats and Reagan-loving moderate Republicans and he was too clever by half, it bit him in the ass, and then he lied to cover his ass, like any politician does, which doesn't make him bad, but which does show that his claim to be a new kind of politician is crap and his supporters claim he's more honest than the other politicians delusional.

TexModDem:

I didnt spin anything. I just posted the statements. Spinning requires trying to explain or justify away the plain meaning of words.

A good example is your post--trying to impute your explaination of his words in place of the plain meaning of his words. If what you say is true, then why didn't she just quote him accurately? I mean if EVERYONE knows that the "party of ideas" means "good ideas", then there wouldn't be a need to mischaracterize his words.

Keith: "I mean if EVERYONE knows that the "party of ideas" means "good ideas", then there wouldn't be a need to mischaracterize his words."

You are right, and they didn't.

Clinton characterized them exactly right.

Franklyn:

They are capable of breaking out of the race mold. It's driving ratings and in essence driving the narrative. Very unfortunate indeed.

I thought Obama answered a lot of questions about his toughness tonight. It was the first time, that I recall, that he really pivoted very well. And he pwned the second half of the debate--especially on the foreign policy smack down.

We'll see how this plays out in the blogsphere and with the pundits. CNN is doing TERRIBLE analysis. Even if Tweety is nuts, MSNBC has FAR better analysis.

Greg Sargent: "we'll be sorry when its over".

I'll only be sorry if hillary wins.

Obama on Monday: "It is a company of ideas."

Obama on Tuesday: "I meant that 'they are a company of BAD ideas,' but I was trying to appeal to the stockholders at the time and it would have been inconvenient to insert 'bad.'"

One thing to note: Obamaites (call them "neo-progressives" or "naderites") constant harping on how bad the Democratic Congress is has taken it's toll and reduced the Democratic lead from well into the double digits to only 5 percentage points.

Thanks progressives.

In your quest for puritanical political orthodoxy that demands strict adherence to your every whim, you've greatly reduced the chances of Democrats expanding their control of Congress, or even possibly losing it, just like you tanked Gore in 2000.

Yet one more reason to despise the Obama campaign and its supporters, as if their arrogance and self-righteousness and mendacity weren't already enough.

Clinton was really good on the parts just describing policy, I always really like her in those segments. I do not necessarily agree with everything, but she definitely knows and likes her stuff.

Edwards did very nicely and was able to not just participate but steer a bit too. While he was still talking about his main issues, poverty and corporate power, he managed to make it more relevant and foray into other areas too. Previously I have felt that he just gives the same talking point over and over at times regardless of what the topic is (and how many times can you listen to the mill his dad worked at?) He seemed to be much more versatile, more "presidential" in the sense you feel he has interest in foreign policy etc. too. Good showing, I just think too late.

Obama did well. I do not like it when he is stern, but he had to be and he did it appropriately, without a hint of being the "angry candidate," just firm and somber. He is clearly uncomfortable with "zingers" although I must admit I do not count that as a terrible failing. He presented his vision, his approach to policy very clearly. There was a good sense of integrity and straightforwardness as opposed to politics as usual about him again.

The best "moment?" I really appreciated what I feel is exactly right analysis of King by Obama in that last question. That was just awesome and deflated the other two completely for an instant.

I am not certain whether the act of going directly against Bill Clinton does anything for either Obama or Clinton's stature one way or another but I think it may help with the MSM fact-checking Clinton allegations a bit more carefully which should be good for the overall race, concentrating on issues and so on.

Where Clinton loses out to me is that it just seems that she has ironically internalised the Republican idea of necessary political tactics, of 50 + 1, of only victory mattering however you can get there, of muddying any issue so that it becomes about sifting the mud, not about the issue. Unfortunately that was on display tonight too. (Looks like Josh is on the same lines there too over on TPM.)

I think I would view her much more favourably if she got rid of Penn, Wolfson and the rest of the amoral band of electioneers. The coming weeks will be crucial because unlike some, I do not care about The Party. I only care about the leftist agenda.

Wow, Tex. I don't usually get into it with the Hillary apologists, but do you honestly blame the Obama supporters for Congress's low ratings?

How about maybe the fact that they haven't ended the war? Or gotten much significant legislation passed? Or censored Bush in any meaningful way? Or done anything about fuel prices, or the coming/current recession?

Also, if you think Congressional Democrats would be well served by nominating for president Hillary Clinton--who certainly distorts and lies, and frequently votes, like a Republican, but who is perceived in the country at large as the leftiest of the left--I think Sens. McCaskill and Johnson, Gov. Napolitano and pretty much every other red-state Democrat in the country would appreciate a word. Guess they're all "Naderites" too though, right?

What makes you think that you made it to the present but the Clintons did not?

------------------

the tactics and tone of her campaign.

She is presently a sitting US Senator, with more time in the US Senator than her major opponents, what then makes them more qualified to deal with "today's politics, American and global"?

----------------

she's spent 4 more years in the Senate than Obama? 4 less in elected office? wow, big differnce. their experience in terms of American politics is probably about the same. she's spent more time around the White House, while not being involved in shaping or implementing passing policy; he's spent more time as a legislator, while not being involved in the Washington bureaucracy and insider circles.

truth be told, most days i'd still argue that my candidate's experience is more suited for the Presidency in this period in American history, but i'm willing for the sake of compensation to give Hillary equal credit in the experience category. so fine, they are equally experienced in terms of government and governing.

its on every other vital facet, like judgement and approach and vision (in short, the exact qualities you want in a President), that Obama stands a head above.

TexModDem,

you are a troll. please be productive or stop commenting.

by now, Edwards has been relegated to a sort of semi-moderator role, which is weird. I mean, there's only 3 of them, it would be easy to give them all equal time.

in that sense, I don't see Edwards' staying above the fray as 'winning', because there's a race on and people are fighting over important things. everything he says is so sappy though. shortly after the debate ends, CNN cuts to an interview with him where he's saying "I don't think these petty arguments are going to get our children healthcare..." and I just want to be like "shup up dude! nobody has deluded themselves into thinking this debate will itself provide health care for children! every single god damn think according to Edwards is "for our children". take it down a notch! we know you're a good guy.

since this was a fight, as knowledgeable voter, I have to give it 70/30 to Obama, because he either parried (according to my sense) Clinton's attacks, dug into her strategy and openly called their tactics into question, whereas her attempt to do the same drew loud 'boos'. Obama stumbled on the credit card interest rate answer, although he was half in the right. he should more actively argue about the 'present' votes, which people won't immediately understand that all, but he could easily point out that he's a Constitutional law scholar who sometimes withholds a positive vote based on the ability of the courts to strike down a law, even if you agree with it. but not really something that's going to dog him, and its annoyingly disingenuous for Clinton to act like she doesn't understand the issue or where he's coming from. you'll notice she withheld her accusation that he's soft on choice, which her campaign had been pushing, totally dishonestly, in New Hampshire.

the way I saw it, she landed a few. he defended more than got through to him. he landed more than her. so Obama wins. Obama is not a good debater. great orator, but not good usually. i thought this was his best performance on the whole, and the previous one was his second best.

blackstar, you are a bigger troll with nothing better to write than slimy and maliciously false anti-Hillary talking points from the GOP and gushing koolaid drinking praise for Obama; please be productive or stop commenting.

If it weren't for his supporters, I'd be willing to vote for Obama, but since they are no better than the arrogant mendacious orthodox cretins serving Bush, I won't be able to bring myself to do it.

Kefa--it's pretty arrogant to think dividing the democratic party and writing off the newfound enthusiasm that has given more life to this party and process than I have so far seen in my lifetime (which, admittedly, is only 27 years, but still...) is a sound strategy come November. Though I have been an Obama supporter for several years, I am far from a Hillary-hater, but that sentiment becomes increasingly difficult to maintain.

blackstar--that was funny, nice troll reference...

Obama again made me proud to be a supporter. He stood up to the Clintons' lies and didn't forget that what real people want are answers to their problems, not games from Washington politicians.

Clinton again makes me question why I ever thought she was a person with integrity.

You could not possibly prove any of that unless you told us more "fairy tales"...

-------------------

and if these "fairy tales" were as demonstrably true as Obama's opposition to the war from before its beginning, the original target of Fmr. President Clinton's remarks, rationally-thinking people would be quite convinced by my conclusion.

and if these "fairy tales" were as demonstrably true as Obama's opposition to the war from before its beginning, the original target of Fmr. President Clinton's remarks, rationally-thinking people would be quite convinced by my conclusion.

The notion of Obama's purported early "opposition" to the war was shot full of holes and tossed into a dustbin as damaged good...well, as "fairy tale." I'll be surprised if they ever bring it up again because it would now be forever associated with Clinton's "fairy tale" comment and I am not sure that is desirable...

"The notion of Obama's purported early "opposition" to the war was shot full of holes and tossed into a dustbin as damaged good...well, as "fairy tale.""

It's not a notion, and it's not purpoted. It's a fact.

I find it hilarious that the Clintons and their supporters are relying on the argument that Obama's failure to stand up against the war when in the Senate (which makes him exactly like, I don't know, EVERY OTHER FUCKING SENATOR) is just as bad as voting to start this mistake of historic proportions. Only in the bizarro world of the media circus and Hillaryworld are these things equivalent.

This accusation that Obama is a massive heretic who is guilty of the unpardonable sin of favoring Reagan over Bill Clinton (which I personally do think is an inpardonable sin) seems to me to be fundamentally dishonest. If Barack Obama is such a Reagan lover, wouldn't he be running in Republican circles, where he'd be their wet dream of the great black hope?! I mean come on, does anybody in the Democratic electorate really believe that Barack Obama is a closet Reaganite?! How is it that he is the most popular elected official in Chicago and Cook County, home to the most liberal/Democratic voting districts in America? The absurdity of this accusation should be evidence enough that the Clintonistas are willing to be intellectually dishonest to any extent needed to win.

This is in response to the comments about Hillary Clinton's critique of Barack Obama's Iraq position. I actually think it's a persuasive critique. I think her point is that Obama, Edwards and Clinton are for the most part offering fairly similar plans at the moment on getting out of Iraq. There isn't much difference between them going forward. Sen. Obama has tried to claim that the central reason he should be President is because he courageously opposed the Iraq war throughout his career (given his relatively short time on the national scene). However, the truth is Sen. Obama gave a speech opposed to the war when he was a nobody state Senator in a ultra liberal district (with few repercussions), but I read that he later admitted that had he been a Senator (with access to full Intelligence briefings) during the vote on the War Resolution he didn't know how he would have voted on that resolution. He also didn't seem to have a problem with Sen. Kerry or any of the other Democrats who voted for the measure when he campaigned in 2004. And truthfully, many Democrats and a few Republicans voted for the so called war Resolution to pressure Sadaam and get the inspectors to continue WMD efforts as Chuck Hagel and Hillary Clinton have stated. Had the inspectors been allowed to continue, they would have found no weapons and there would have been no war. Instead, Bush/Cheney lied to Congress and rushed to war. This is a Bush/Republican war, not a Democratic war.

While in the Senate, Obama has voted for all the war funding, just like most everybody else (because it's controversial not to). The point is and it's a fair one--that Obama has been pretty much the same as Clinton and Edwards in practice on Iraq despite his rhetoric.

If real Iraq opposition is your big issue, one should probably go with Kucinich. I was against the Iraq war as were most Decmocrats I know. But some of these people are against every war and I would not trust most of them to run anything having to do with national security. To me Obama is somewhat of a one note candidate. He has doesn't have much of a national record yet, so he keeps bragging up his Iraq stance. I don't think one speech is enough to be President, particularly when the reality is his position isn't much different from Edwards or Clinton. I fear the ultra experienced McCain or Giuliani will crush him in a general election. I have doubts about Hillary too, but she is a figher and has a much longer national record to talk about against McCain or Giuliani than Obama or even Edwards (who I like as well).

"I suppose you would be knocking the White House door down to demand that Hillary be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for her 'yea' vote on the AUMF bill, had GWB, by some miracle, managed to wage the war competently and peace had broken out all around the Middle East, would you?"

I don't see how you get that out of my comments at all. The time to oppose this war was before it started, not to wait until it crashed and burned. Obama's ability to legislatively oppose this war was irrevocably compromised by Hillary's (and others, including Edwards) vote to start it in the first place.

The reason Hillary's vote has not hurt her is because the spineless mainstream Dems would rather support a presumed winner in the general election than to stand on principle. Just like with Kerry in 2004, that original sin of strong bipartisan support of the war in 2002 has weakened any traction Democrats might have gained in opposing it now.

I, for one, hold that the war vote is the most important issue in determining who to vote for. That is why Krugman's jihad against Obama falls on deaf ears here, as the Krug has admitted foreign policy is not a factor in his decision whom to support.

Hopefully, this has made things a little clearer for you. Of course, after reading dozens of your posts on TPMEC, I question your ability to comprehend anything that stands as a principled argument against your beloved Hillary.

May I ask a serious question here?

I've heard an awful lot about how much these candidates have done for blacks, hispanics, the poor...

Can someone please explain to me WHAT they have actually done?

Or has it all been lip service?

Greg,

Let me take a bit of issue with your claim:

"whatever the outcome, this contest is likely to be the most riveting and historically significant of our generation, and we'll be sorry when it's over."

Clearly the implication is that we will have either the first woman or the first black President. First off, I don't think that is in any way certain at this point.

Like many a hopeful Democrat, you seem to be forgetting the astounding ability of Democrats to lose Presidential elections. The weaknesses inherent in both the Clinton and Obama candidacies hardly need to be detailed. Suffice it to say that those weaknesses are substantial enough to "keep hope alive" (to paraphrase Jessie Jackson) for Republicans and all their right wing lunatic voters everywhere. I don't think any sober Democrat has an excuse for overlooking the obvious threat to victory these weaknesses present. They are real, they will be exploited to the full and they promise to make what ought to be a landslide year for Democrats into a nailbiter. Not exactly the smartest move on the part of all these very smart Democrats backing the two candidates whose vulnerabilities are gigantic. Clinton claims she can handle it and Obama and his camp think he's bulletproof. Neither is proven. Both claims are weak. But when caught up in the idea of "making history" who has time for such details eh?

Over and above those obvious considerations, your comment may well be prophetic in that we will indeed be sorry when it's over if we do elect either Clinton or Obama President of the United States. Here's why...

Nothing either of those two is saying today or that either of them have foreshadowed in their performance in public office holds any promise of accomplishing even one of the major goals Democratic voters have such high hopes for in 2008. Both are cut from the very same cloth as Rahm Emmanuel, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Both are completely creatures of Washington DC's capitulationist Democratic crowd. Both have a history of cooperation and compliance with the wishes of corporate interests which are the very interests blocking progress on health care, education, public financing of elections, re-establishing progressive tax policies, you name it. Why does anyone think they will bite the hand that feeds them? Let me assure you, they won't bite that hand. Far from it. What they will do is come to us, once in office and after they have failed to accomplish any of the goals they said they wanted to accomplish and ask for more patience, more understanding and more hardship. Now that's something to look forward to isn't it?

The long term historical significance of electing either Clinton or Obama will be symbolic only and will bring about no changes of any substantial nature in the way government operates or the completely unfair conditions most American families find themselves dealing with on a day to day basis.

The self indulgent nature of liberal Democratic voters' desire to elect a woman or a black President (laudable as those desires are) who drive this process is breathtakingly shallow and shortsighted.

It is an undending curiosity to me to see so many otherwise intelligent people behaving so foolishly and blinding themselves to the reality these two candidates present to us. The reality is no more complicated than "meet the new boss... same as the old boss." The last two people the American voter can go to with the expectation of "changing" the system are Clinton and Obama, who in their insatiable desire to get elected have utterly whored themselves to the very special interests they claim to want to stop. Meanwhile, the average American continues to get screwed and all the people howling and cheering about "making history" with Obama or Clinton with such enthusiasm will regret having fallen for the symbol instead of demanding substance. It's a crying shame.

So, I hope everyone enjoys their "historically significant" election because it's gonna be very, very costly and painful for the American people in the long run.

gdghdS cool site!!! [url=http://madows1.com]cool site!!![/url] http://madows2.com hjhdhl

I thought this debate tonight clearly showed the difference in the Hillary v Obama approach to governing. Hillary, in rhetoric, takes swings at the republicans, which the base likes to hear and Obama is trying to build a larger base of support to include independents and some republicans. He feels this will be a better and more effective way to govern. There is a clear difference, as displayed tonight, in what their style of governing would look like. I, for one, look forward to an Obama Administration. Red and swing state Senators want this too, as evidenced by my Senator, Claire McCaskill, endorsing Obama. I think Obamas approach is the best way to advance a progressive agenda. I also liked his responses to national security issues.

oryrtwugh cool site!!! [url=http://nefort1.com]cool site!!![/url] http://nefort2.com tyrwu4562

What better way to celebrate the legacy of Dr. King than to look at this stage, right here tonight.

so said the goldwater girl.

From the debate, needs more media/blog attention, is not just about the presidential race:

BLITZER: Senator Clinton, do you want to respond to Senator Edwards asking you whether you're ready to commit to all combat troops being out of Iraq within a year?

CLINTON: What I have said is that I will move as quickly as possible. I hope to have nearly all out within a year.

We don't know what we're going to inherent from President Bush, but there is a big problem looming on the horizon that we had better pay attention to, and that is President Bush is intent upon negotiating a long-term agreement with Iraq which would have permanent bases, permanent troop presence. And he claims he does not need to come to the United States Congress to get permission, he only needs to go to the Iraqi parliament.

That is his stated public position. He was recently in the region, and it is clear that he intends to push forward on this to try to bind the United States government and his successor to his failed policy.

I have been strongly opposed to that. We should not be planning permanent bases and long-term troop commitments.

Obviously, we've got to rein in...

(APPLAUSE)

... President Bush. And I've proposed legislation and I know that members of the Congressional Black Caucus are looking at this, as well. We need legislation in a hurry which says, "No, Mr. Bush, you are the president of the United States of America. You cannot bind our country without coming to the United States Congress." This is a treaty....

(APPLAUSE)

... that would have to be presented and approved, and it will not be.

from the CNN transcript.

Anonymous.....just for good luck.....more toast.....when she spoke of Reszo he shut his mouth up like a trained seal. He does not want that can of worms opened. Mr. Clean my ass.

Kefa, once again, if you actually watched the debate, you would have seen as soon as she mentioned Rezko she got booed, he started to respond, but the MODERATOR said Edwards needed his turn, not Hillary. I love you Hillbots, you can't even get a simple thing like that right. You have to spin everything, you have to lie about everything, you have to make everything good for Hillary and terrible for Obama. A perfect and simple example of Hillbots' inability to tell the truth.

And Rezko has responded to the Rezko thing already. He acknowledges it was a mistake to have anything to do with the guy, but next to the Clintons he is squeaky clean. Obama had her against the ropes and she blurted that out as a last resort. I think she had been smart enough before that not to try to hype that up because she knew that playing the "which one of us has more sketchy dealings in our past" game is NOT one that she wants to play with Obama or any other candidate on either side of the aisle. I love that you hypocrite Hillbots will try to hype up crap like the Rezko thing, when your own candidate and her husband have decades of dirt all over their financial dealings, from illegal campaign contributions raised by a felon (Hsu), to secrecy and questions surrounding donations to the Clinton library, to Bill giving up presidential pardons to felons for cash, to sketchy real estate dealings, etc etc etc...do you hypocrites really want to throw stones from that glass house? What idiots.

You people disgust me. This whole thread is full of ignorant Hillbot spew. Actually, I think it is a decent mix of lying disingenuous spew that you know isn't true but you lie about it anyway, and then a good portion of ignorance where you show that you don't know any better, but it is a fine line...we can never know at any given time if you are really that deceitful and low, or if you are really that embarrassingly ignorant and just don't know any better.

Eat your own toast.

Interesting to watch this site and the comments that come through it. My title above suggests my disaffection with how the two-party system has hurt us, and how the battles within the Democratic Party (the one I lean to most of the time) year in and year out result in getting us nowhere.

Every presidential election, it seems, the Dems square off between party regulars/the Establishment and those from outside the Establishment. This year Hillary is the former, and Obama the latter. And every time the Establishment candidate makes the case that he/she is "fighting" for what the party regulars have come to believe is theirs, while the outsider runs on broadening the base, attracting the disaffected, and bridging to independents and even Republicans. And every time the Establishment candidate wins, because he/she makes the party regulars fearful that somehow they're going to lose the little they have because of some reformer. And every time that candidate loses (see Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry), because he/she treats voters as demographic groups that need to be catered to while the disaffected don't show up in November. Nothing is any different this year. Hillary is the Establishment candidate, with virtually every arm of the Democratic infrastructure behind her, and she will win. In her case, in addition to playing to the base, her negative characterizations of Obama will turn off the disaffected, resulting in suppressing their turnout. Also, being a Clinton, she will simply go to any length to win. She will get the nomination, but be seriously challenged in the fall, because nothing will align Republicans like her. And if she is the nominee, she will likely have Michael Bloomberg to contend with, which means no big Democratic state is safe - not New York, not Illinois, probably not California. In a matchup with John McCain, who I believe is wrong on the war, the issue of integrity and character will leave her looking up. And because the campaign she is running is not oriented toward "growing" new voters but consolidating her base, it will be very difficult to bring in those independents and new voters, because they will have been turned off by how she dispatched with Obama. When you go into a national campaign with negatives approaching 50 percent, that's awfully difficult to overcome.

A note on Obama. I too have questions about his practical record as a "reformer" (I live in Chicago, so I know a little about this), especially in Illinois. But if you look at his record in the Senate, you'll notice that on bills he's passed (his legislative record, by the way, is easily comparable to Hillary's in four fewer years on the job) he's done so in partnership with not just Republicans, but the most conservative of them (like Tom Coburn on the ethics reform). That's impressive to me. He does seem to be able to cross over and break down boundaries to get things done and build one-off coalitions in doing so. In today's environment, it seems to me, that is critical. Also, on healthcare (I'm a marketing and communications consultant in that industry), his plan is much more practical and workable. The "universal care" mandate is sexier and hits your heart, but Hillary (and Edwards) don't seem to understand the cost side of the equation, just as the Republicans don't get the access side of it. Obama's is more workable but not necessarily what people want to hear in a Democratic primary. I'm surprised he hasn't hit Hillary with the argument that she messed it up 15 years ago when she had a real chance (and she did, exactly by not doing the same stuff Obama does - working across the aisle and incorporating the views of people with whom you don't necessarily agree). Her management of the healthcare plan in 1993-94 was similar to Cheney's with the energy plan eight years later. In short, I think Hillary is extremely bright and competent and knows her stuff, but that the campaign she's running to win the primary will be her undoing in the fall.

It was striking that Obama refused to deal with all the Rezco business or to effectively explain the contradictions between his initial antiwar speech and all his votes since.
This is not to say that he hasn't sound rationales but he largely failed to explain them. This made him look evasive.
And I'm sorry but his "I didn't say they had good ideas" is as bad as "is is". Doesn't pass the smell test.

I thought that his worst moment came when he complained about critics picking on one or two votes and Edwards quite rightly called him out on the same thing.
I say worst because Obama does have a habit of complaining, some might say whining, about the fire directed at him rather than offering a cogent response. And his total nonresponse to Edwards showed that.

And Greg, the fact that voting "present" is sometimes used positively in the Illinois legislature does not mean it isn't also sometimes used to duck difficult issues. Indeed, it is exactly the sort of thing one would expect politicians to devise in order to cover their asses. I have no doubt that Obama used his "present" votes for a variety of purposes, sometimes self serving. It is not like Clinton invented this or Rezco as issues; his constituency in Illinois has been on it a long time.

Poor Edwards, if only he were running for class president! He's got so many wonderful and attractive qualities but he just doesn't really inspire us to the barricades does he? Too cool by half; god I want to slap him sometimes just to get his pulse up!

Hillary is a boomer and it shows, badly if you aren't a boomer yourself. And really that is at the heart of her difficulties; a lot of the HillaryHate comments I hear from Obama fans sound like they are yelling at their parents. Like my son yelling at me.
I don't think her evil and expect hardball
politics at that level. To quote Obama (in another context) not one of them has clean hands on that point.
But for all her competence and knowledge and grasp of debating points she comes off as just too distant doesn't she? And that seems calculating. We don't really believe that she feels our pain because neither the face nor voice match the sentiment. She is so much more earnest than sincere, more learned than real world.

And once again they all three left out the gays now didn't they?
I'll vote HRC largely because Obama chooses to promote and campaign with openly homophobic "minsters". His recent Christianist push also troubles me tough I understand the context I think.
But as he himself so often tells us, actions are more important that words. Well I'm holding him to that.

In the end I'll happily and avidly support whichever wins the nomination; I think, hope, most Dems will.

The debate made one thing clear
The Bush-Clinton era of politics must be ended.

I hope everybody will vote that way.
Against sHrillary. What a loser

oryrtwugh cool site!!! [url=http://nefort1.com]cool site!!![/url] http://nefort2.com tyrwu4562

Greg, you did it again! Why do you keep saying that Edwards is less formidable and impressive than the other two? The panel that CNN assembled to rate the debate disagreed with you, it seems, since they rated Edwards as the winner. (This bit of crucial information, as far as I can tell, has dropped of the face of the earth in this mornings' coverage of the debate - leave it to CNN to continue to bring us only the information they want us to see.) Edwards is giving back the party back to it's moral center - when is the last time you heard "poverty" as an issue in a Democratic debate? What other candidate has pledged to have no lobbyists in their administration (did you notice how the other two waffled when he posed the question?). And he has pledged to end combat missions and bring the troops back in the first year of his administration (how can everyone be missing that - and the ambigous response of the other two?)

It's interesting to note (editor of Newsweek) Jon Meacham's comment on the Daily Show last night, that reporters are driven by the "conflict" elements of a story. Perusing the post-debate coverage, it is indeed clear that everyone's gotten entirely wrapped up in the conflict element of the debate, to the exclusion of the issues. The coverage Edwards continually receives (or more accurately, doesn't receive), handicaps him (and the entire Democratic party) and we may need him for the general. While I agree that we have three strong candidates, two appear to be self-imolating, and when the meltdown is done, John Edwards will be the last one standing.