*Rolls eyes*

There, another debate, happy Hillary? I'm not, I'm bored and pissed I have to watch another superfluous debate.

Hmmm...what is this? A flip-flop?

Just what we need--a President who folds at the first sign of resistance, who compromises her principles for the sake of expediency.

Hillary 2008!

I know that she needs to do this, because of the state of the campaign, but I really wish she wouldn't.

The only way the media is going to stop saying craptacular stuff is if there's a consequence for it. The Clinton campaign just demonstrated loud and clear that they'll make a lot of noise, but that things will stay the same, anyway.

I'm not outraged about the "pimp" comment. I'm just tired of the crappy coverage that cable news provides, and would like it to change.

Because if the coverage is lousy for one candidate at time A, it will be lousy for other candidates at time B, and unless you object at time A, you got nothing to say at time B.

Agree with phlipphlop - If she's going to try to make an issue of him not debating as much as she wants she has to accept MSNBC or be the butt of even more bad press.

That said, this "Obama's too chicken to debate" routine is pathetic. After 18 debates and 2 more on the way she's really looking desperate to find something/anything to knock him on.

The only people more debates helps is the networks and the pundits, because it keeps the money flowing to them. This doesn't help voters, this doesn't help Hillary, because she isn't as good as she thinks in debates, and Obama will most likely hit her again and again with the Iraq vote, which she deserves, and she will continue to refuse to admit she made a mistake, or had poor judgment, even though that is so painfully obvious at this point, and she'll just look more pathetic. So if anything it would be a boost for Obama, but we don't need a debate every week to accomplish that. One or two more is MORE than enough, especially considering the nomination is pretty much out of her hands, whats the point?

I think its in the best interest of the Democratic party for there to be more debates. New facts about Sen. Obama keep surfacing, at least in the mainstream media (like his campaigning in Kenya in 2006 for Raila Odinga, as discussed in Amb. Jospeph Wilson's article). Better to answer the questions now, rather than hope for the best when the Republicans' 527 machine gets warmed up.

True, there have been a lot of debates, but only one debate between the two of them. In previous debates, Barack could allow the other candidates to bash Hillary, so yes, I think there is a difference between the group debates and the one-on-one debates.

Also, I disagree that voters aren't influenced by the debates. I've been staunchly anti-Hillary since her Iraq vote in 2002, but she started to win me over because of her performance in the debates.

Furthermore, if Obama is too hard on her, he looks like he's gloating and being unfairly cruel when he's the front-runner. If he doesn't take her on, then yes, it still looks like he doesn't know how to be tough in a debate. If the moderators are unfairly harsh to her (and not Obama), again, that may inspire sympathy for her (i.e., New Hampshire).

I'm not trying to spin this as a victory for Hillary; I'm simply suggesting that the debate may be more helpful her more than many of you are suggesting.

I think Hillary will go very negative this time. I'm not sure what Obama will do in response. I hope he remains above it. He doesn't need to go negative on her. She is torpedoing herself.

If he does remain above the fray, look for Hillary to blast him as "not tough enough" to take on the republicans. I don't think that will work for her either, but I think that is what they are looking to do.

Maggie Williams is in the driver's seat now. Look for ambiguities left over from the internal Solis Doyle-Williams struggle to be cleaned up quickly.

We won't know if it's the right direction, but a less schizophrenic direction should be due now that we have what the Clinton people feel to be the right number of cooks for the stew.

Obama should insist on podiums. The living room format discourages a strong debate and gives Clinton an advantage.

It's worth checking out this post on (the pro-Obama) BuckeyeStateBlog about Hillary's varying comments to local Ohio affiliates.

http://www.buckeyestateblog.com/which_ohio_nbc_affiliate_did_hillary_lie_to_could_it_all_be_about_black_turnout

Obama will do fine. All has to do is pound her on her Iraq War vote, and her vote to green light Bush to go after Iran.

To this very day Hillery still claims that her vote to Authorize the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq was not a Reckless and Catastrophic mistake. George W. Bush and John McCain support her on that claim. Now, how is she going to attack McCain for being for what she was for, and still has not refuted.

If she goes back to his present votes in Illinois, he can then ask her where she was this week when Chris Dodd needed her vote.

This small sampling of Obama supporters shows that they are uneasy when Obama debates because they really don't what to hear debates and issues;

They know 2 things: he didn't vote for the war, and he represents something called change. (yawn)

They get uncomfortable when they have to watch him talk substance. That makes them think a little too much and they get a headache.

R

Oops! I meant "no lose situation."

Freudian slip. ;-)

It will be interesting and telling to see if Obama is finally asked some tough questions or if his liberal voting record is shown.

But being that it's his pal network, NBC, we all already know not to expect that do we not?

Dems will ultimately be the ones who suffer for this bend-over-backward, soft-gloved-treatment of Obama, when he is assailed in the general election (if he gets there).

It'll be almost worth seeing him get the nomination just to finally see that. But not quite... I'd rather see Hillary get the nomination for the good of the world.

R

You know the thing that really is irritating about MSNBC, is Chris Mathews gave Bush the soft treatment too and he was supporting him (secretly). He voted for Bush which we learned later. He allowed the attacks on Kerry to be brought up constantly pretending to be critical of them, while at the same time, breathing life into them constantly. And at the same time, giving Bush a pass time and time again.

Now, after so many had to die in Bush's war, and Mathews finally couldn't ignore the truth any longer that Bush and the rest all lied to go to war, Mathews gets angry at Bush and starts beating on him and putting Obama on the pedestal and gets Shuster to join him in his little cheer leading squad. This of course is after he was WRONG and after he helped to get Bush re-elected.

So what kind of judgment do these guys such as Mathews and Shuster have and why should anyone with a brain allow themselves to be swayed by their flawed and biased coverage? Yet many are.

There is no way Obama could have caught fire without MSNBC constantly promoting him 24-7. You can't buy that type of press with all the money in the world.

R

You know, the attacks on HRC's experience demonstrate real ignorance about her biography. Before she was Bill's wife, she was an amazing and accomplished woman. First student to give an address at Wellsley, garnered her a standing ovation and coverage by national media.

And what about her participation in the congressional investigation into Nixon's administration?

And her involvement in civil rights as a student?

And her work with the Children's Defense Fund?

And her position as the first female partner at her law firm in Arkansas?

And her work to reform the education system in Arkansas?

And yes, everything she did to help get her husband elected and to help formulate his policies.

To dismiss her experience as "only Bill's wife" is simply untrue and unfair.

Like when Obama was going to freeze out Fox News and then agreed to go on Bill O'Reilly?

Has any reporter asked Hillary why she skipped the FISA vote?

If she says there was a scheduling conflict, it might not bode well for her. Too important a vote.

I did note that Jim Webb voted for the FISA bill, and I certainly didn't expect that.

Any thoughts?

Obama skipped the vote on Iran because of scheduling conflicts. And that, in my opinion, was his big opportunity to put his money where his mouth is, since he is still crowing about having been against the Iraq vote back in 2002.

I'm not making excuses for Hillary not voting on FISA. I'm just saying that she shouldn't be critized more harshly than Obama for skipping a vote.

Angry Mouse:
>>Like when Obama was going to freeze out Fox News and then agreed to go on Bill O'Reilly?

Wow, I missed that -- both an 'announcement' by Obama that he was going to freeze Fox (although I do recall his refusing a debate on that channel) AND an appearance by Obama on O'Reilly's show. Do you know the date that occurred or a cite to any article about it?
Thank you.

(I'd certainly prefer to see someone debate on Fox than go on Bill O's show! Ugh.)

Well of course Obama would freeze out Fox.

He's got a great deal with MSNBC and others who throw him softballs. You won't hear a tough or critical question by anyone at MSNBC unless its in the form of giving him an opening to address something that he WANTS to address.

MSNBC has been a cheerleader for him. Fox would grill him. Clintons have appeared on Fox and took the questions that came. They knew it was hostile territory but they also know if you can't take the heat from Fox in an interview, you sure can't take the heat that's going to be comeing in the general election.

Remember Bill Clinton putting Chris Wallace in his place on Fox?

Why doesn't chicken Obama go on there?

Because he's afraid to that's why!

R

Don't "Richmond" and "Raeka" have jobs? Or,are they they troll version of the homeless guys the ticket brokers pay to stand in line for them in order to get good seats?

Really, you've been shitting all over these threads the last couple of days. Go away. Nobody takes you seriously except your own brain-addled selves.

"Don't want the hear the truth"

You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the ass. And, if you're a Hillary supporter and not just a misanthrope, the truth that she will not be the nominee already has.

Angry Mouse:

Here's a resume question for HRC: Why is Wal-Mart missing from your official resume?

For me this isn't an "anti-union" thing. It's a genuine question of why can't someone make a list and have it, well, list everything? Why is it that everything has to be spun?

Some days I wonder what HRC's answer would be to "Is the sky blue?" The equivocation from her, even normalizing for the political process, is frankly getting over the top. (And she isn't the only one this political season. The other NY'er from the GOP side had similar issues as did Romney.)

If you want to lead: show me how you will lead. Take a stand!

Take a stand, huh? Maybe she should give a really, really, really rousing speech?

Look, there are things in HRC's experience that I don't like. But my argument was that she does have accomplishments in her past that have nothing to do with being First Lady. So it's insulting to diminish those accomplishments.

I'm not saying she's perfect. I'm just saying he isn't perfect either -- a fact that seems to be lost in all the O-mania.