Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Debate Roundup: The Silence of the Pack

Democratic presidential candidates
The Democratic presidential candidates on stage just prior to this morning's debate in Iowa. (Courtesy ABC)

The three Democratic candidates leading in the opinion polls dominated this morning's debate in the Hawkeye State, fielding the vast majority of questions from moderator George Stephanopoulos and dictating the tempo of the 90-minute discussion.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards generally avoided attacking one another, content in their positions in the top tier and unwilling to take any major risks that might jeopardize that standing.

"You don't have to be against anybody," Clinton said in praise of the depth of the Democratic field. "You can choose who you are for."

Edwards insisted that the differences between the candidates on stage were "very small compared to the differences between us and the Republican candidates who the best I can tell are George Bush on steroids."

"Senator Clinton and all the candidates up here are capable," said Obama.

With the Big 3 happy to play nice amongst themselves, the other candidates struggled to break through.

The exception was Bill Richardson, who was able to put himself at the center of the discussion of Iraq thanks to his plan to withdraw all American troops by the end of the year. Richardson came in for some subtle (and not so subtle) criticism for that plan from the other candidates but was able to make clear to viewers that he differs from his rivals on the most pressing issue of the race.

Aside from that moment, however, it was very tough for any candidate not named Clinton, Obama or Edwards to have his voice heard. A factor in that equation was the fact that Stephanopoulos tended to direct questions and steer the conversation to the Big 3, a strategy that allowed the leading candidates to opine on everything from agricultural policy to education to health care.

Dennis Kucinich highlighted that inequity when asked his view on the power of prayer. "I have been standing here for the last 45 minutes praying you were going to call on me," Kucinich quipped, a remark that drew applause and laughter from the crowd.

Barack Obama and John Edwards
Two of the 'Big 3' on the stage this morning in Iowa. (AP)

Writ large, the debate amounted to a sparring session for the frontrunners. No knockout blows were landed; instead, Clinton, Obama and Edwards tended to circle each other, waiting for the right moment to throw a jab or two.

Obama did this most effectively, making sure voters knew he was against the Iraq war from its outset and preaching his politics of hope. "We are going to need somebody who can break out of the political patterns we have been in the last twenty years," Obama said, offering an implicit criticism not just of the Bush administration but of the Clinton administration that preceded it.

Clinton was again steady -- emphasizing that she alone of the candidates on stage had beaten Republicans at their own game. "I have been fighting against these people for longer than anyone else up here," she said. "The idea you are going to escape the Republican attack machine and not have high negatives when they are done with you is missing what has been going on in politics for the last 20 years."

Edwards was far more conciliatory than he had been in the last few joint forums. His message, boiled down, was: Radical change with a smile. "How about a little hope and optimism?" Edwards asked after a back and forth between Clinton and Obama over the hypothetical use of nuclear weapons. His fiery rhetoric on lobbyists was also toned down, although he again asked Clinton to take a pledge not to accept lobbyist contributions; she refused.

All in all, this debate reinforced the status quo in the race. Iowa remains central to all three of the frontrunners' chances at the nomination and none of them wanted to make a major slip-up in the first debate in the state. They succeeded. Richardson seems to recognize that his best chance to move into the top tier is through distinguishing himself from his rivals on Iraq, and he did that successfully today. For everyone else in the field, the debate was a wash.

By Chris Cillizza  |  August 19, 2007; 11:24 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Inspiration Time...
Next: Sunday's Democratic Debate: Winners and Losers

Comments

pqybjuo sgevjoqbd htsp vuxzrklnj dlvqnif ykpvuzien ydgjwx [URL=http://www.rbkawxtup.ndlq.com]fker xfzip[/URL]

Posted by: bjiyezfaw srvupy | September 22, 2007 5:23 PM | Report abuse

idopjkw hzlmk zirsjlk rpotxhud nlcms prlovec mbhne rbiufysz chrnuf

Posted by: eovf nqjxlvgsi | September 22, 2007 5:21 PM | Report abuse

irflx njvrfgp fzxpvqh uwcyikqx orhjqn ekpxc vqlzgw

Posted by: kpxybtl puwls | September 22, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

2fo2nwdv7vojg3cqd http://www.107498.com/929044.html 16rm12s1do69

Posted by: 0zovlqk4wv | September 6, 2007 4:47 PM | Report abuse

I would vote for Richardson to hopefully get the medical marijuana law passed nationally. As a Multiple Sclerosis victim, I've tried just about every legal drug for this dibillitating illness with no luck except for marijuana. Since some one can grow there own, the government can't collect taxes on it, so they make it illegal. How is it, A person can go inot a bar, have a few drinks(which does more than a few hits of marijuana), get in their car, and drive? LEGALLY ??????.
Truthfully, I like Edwards and his message, but I have to give the edge to Hillary for her experience. If you had a new company, would you hire an inexperienced person to run it ? We're talking about the UNITED STATES here! The position requires more than a image, inflated by the MSM, to put this country back on the right track. It's going tobe a tough call, but it's my call, not the networks,or the spin masters(swift boat veterans). That was a joke, but people bought into it. I'm not buying anything this time! Say what you want, but Hillary is right for this country, this time in history.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2007 12:31 PM | Report abuse

What great experience does H Clinton have? Obama has been an elected public official for several years longer than her.

I thought that the Women's Movement, which she considered a pivotal event, was about women taking responsibility for their own lives, not riding their husbands' coattails. Besides, the only real job she was given in the WH--health care--she screwed up.

Posted by: the rabbit | August 20, 2007 8:40 PM | Report abuse

craig writes
"Once again Hillary was strong and steady. Her and her husband are the only ones to survive the GOP attack machine."

Is that the GOP attack machine embodied in George Stephanopolous, the former President's former spokesperson? Geez, if they've gotten to Stephanopolous, the Right Wing Conspiracy is more Vast than I thought...

Posted by: bsimon | August 20, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Governor Richardson finally came throught. This was the performance I have been waiting to see from him..if not Pres, VP for sure. America needs his experience.

Posted by: chachi | August 20, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Once again Hillary was strong and steady. Her and her husband are the only ones to survive the GOP attack machine.

Obama stuttered his way through another medicore performance.

Posted by: craig | August 20, 2007 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Shame on George Stephanopolis for being so biased in asking questions. I liked how Representative Dennis Kucinich pointed this out.

Winners - Rep Kucinich ( A+ ) and Senator Obama ( A- ).

Rep. Kucinich pointed out what legislation he has now proposed that would make our lives better. He has very good ideas and is the only candidate who has goals, is doing something now and tells it like it is. Senator Obama for trying to get the other candidates to discuss what matters to all of us. Neither Kucinich or Obama voted for the war in Iraq. I would vote for either of these two men.

Losers - Senator Gravel ( F ) and Senator Dodd ( D- ).

Both of these Senators have had many, many years to solve some of the problems that we have. I hold them responsible for the fact that we are in debt, have immigration laws that have not been enforced, are losing jobs to other countries ( eg. NAFTA )and continue to fight in the mess that George Bush created in Iraq and Afganistan. These two men would better serve the country by getting out of the race for president and resigning from the US Senate.

As for all the others - Their answers were mediocre at best. Clinton ( C ), Edwards ( C ), Richardson ( B ), Edwards ( B- ), Biden ( B- ).

Finally, I would suggest to all you readers to visit the sites of all the candidates. You will be surprise, for example, that Rep Kucinich has submitted legislation to impeach Vice President Cheney. And Congressman Ron Paul also has some very good ideas.

Posted by: J Jason | August 20, 2007 10:38 AM | Report abuse

None of them came close to my thinking about our troops in Iraq. I want them out yesterday, of course that is opposite of all thinking, but getting them out ASAP, imo, and I don't buy the idea/notion that it will take until 2009 before they can get out of there, this only costs more life and injuries to our troops and profit for the warmongers.

Posted by: lylepink | August 20, 2007 10:12 AM | Report abuse

You: Your tongued reply about US and North Korea relations are at best adolescent. The South Koreans and Japan certainly would not share your opinion. Perhaps, you missed the point with your infatuation with Donald Rumsfeld, when North Korea completely shuts down their reactors, the concern is the possible amount of fission material diverted to the black markets and used by terrorist with dirty devices thought out the world. Donald Rumsfeld has made many positive contributions but history will judge him by his last role in which he was forced to resign based on public support. It is to the credit of Stephen Hadley and team as well as the small role Richardson played on behalf of the Bush administration for the most recent progress with North Korea.

Posted by: threeriverscrossing | August 20, 2007 9:55 AM | Report abuse

You: Your tongued reply about US and North Korea relations are at best adolescent. The South Koreans and Japan certainly would not share your opinion. Perhaps, you missed the point with your infatuation with Donald Rumsfeld, when North Korea completely shuts down their reactors, the concern is the possible amount of fission material diverted to the black markets and used by terrorist with dirty devices thought out the world. Donald Rumsfeld has made many positive contributions but history will judge him by his last role in which he was forced to resign based on public support. It is to the credit of Stephen Hadley and team as well as the small role Richardson played on behalf of the Bush administration for the most recent progress with North Korea.

Posted by: threeriverscrossing | August 20, 2007 9:53 AM | Report abuse

You: Your tongued reply about US and North Korea relations are at best adolescent. The South Koreans and Japan certainly would not share your opinion. Perhaps, you missed the point with your infatuation with Donald Rumsfeld, when North Korea completely shuts down their reactors, the concern is the possible amount of fission material diverted to the black markets and used by terrorist with dirty devices thought out the world. Donald Rumsfeld has made many positive contributions but history will judge him by his last role in which he was forced to resign based on public support. It is to the credit of Stephen Hadley and team as well as the small role Richardson played on behalf of the Bush administration for the most recent progress with North Korea.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2007 9:53 AM | Report abuse

I was disappointed in the gotcha nature of the questions. I was particularly disappointed in the candidate's refusal to answer the "god" question. I was dying for one of them to say that better than praying would have been man's use of his free will to make investments in infrastructure that would have built better levees and made sure that bridge was not being forced beyond it's capactiy. But nooooo...they all pandered to the god crowd.

Having said that I think Obama is clearly getting better at the so-called debate forum but Hill gets major points for giving the women's movement credit (and her mom). Believe me, to women of a certain age that resonates. And there are more of us then there are of them. Edwards held his own and has a well developed message.

Besides anyone up there would be better than any of the empty suits the repugs are putting up. I imagine they're all hoping that the next incarnation of Reagan (equivalent in their minds to Jesus) will be able to remember his lines. (The image of Thompson riding around in a golf cart should have been reassuring for the manly men of the repug party - they are so macho, even the women.)

I can hardly wait for the dems to start hammering away at those losers: Does Romney wear magical Mormon underwear? Why did Rudy disrespect the sactity of his marriage so much that he had to bring his girlfriend (the one with the "medical" expereince who'll be sitting in on cabinet meetings) to Gracie mansion where his wife and children lived.

Remember, Rudy already chickened out once on running against Hillary.

Posted by: Liberal in Virginia | August 20, 2007 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Mark, from what I have heard/seen, it would not be possible to pull out of Iraq overnight logistically, never mind militarily. Even for Richardson, it would take months. For that reason, I think at this point, the Republicans would rather the next president have it happen on HIS watch - although I'm sure Giuliani,Romney et al would like to be able to blame Bush - without explicitly blaming him - for as long as possible.

Posted by: Bokonon | August 20, 2007 8:42 AM | Report abuse

JimD, I have LV on tape - really thought of watching it last night because I was reminded of it by the post. You are right about Stewart's age, of course, but we could suspend disbelief
easily back in our 'ute. And Lee Marvin was so over-the-top terrific as LV. I think it was a defining role for him.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 20, 2007 8:38 AM | Report abuse

Mark,

I have seen Liberty Valance several times over the years. Jimmy Stewart was much too old (mid-50's) for the role he played - young would be lawyer seeking his fortune out West. It has been a while since I saw it but I remember that Stewart's character defeated the political bad guys at the statehood convention. It was sort of Mr. Smith Goes Out West. The Stewart role was a real throwback to his 1930's characters. In most of his other post-WWII Westerns, Stewart played much edgier characters that had a lot more in common with Tom than Ransom Stoddard in Liberty Valance.

Posted by: JimD in FL | August 20, 2007 8:25 AM | Report abuse

Stephen Cassidy and justicat had very different views of BR, apparently. I thought BR finally had a good forum appearance.

I do not agree with BR's pull-the-plug approach to Iraq, but I did read the NYT op-ed by several enlisted men of the 82d Airborne and I wonder what they would think of BR's proposal. They very carefully refrained from criticizing policy or the chain of command, and, of course, cannot comment.

see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 20, 2007 8:03 AM | Report abuse

Clinton -- Stepford comment is apt.
Obama -- Good performance.
Kucinich -- Wins the prize for getting in a ref to Piaget.
Biden -- Excellent as usual-- as someone noted previously, should round on Clinton when she claims to be the experienced candidate.
Dodd -- The Fly.
Edwards -- Good performance.
Richardson -- Not a good performance.
Grav%^%^&*&((@!FDk

Posted by: justicat | August 20, 2007 6:44 AM | Report abuse

All those debates are worth "a pitcher of warm spit" as one of LBJ his cronies so aptly put it when speaking about the VP job. None of them are going to say anything important and than have to defend it for the next two months from guys who wish they had said it. That's where we are right now. I am not an Obama supporter but the man is right when he says he will no longer come to all those debates. Who is watching anyway? Not 99% of the people who will vote 15 months from now. And the other 1% will not remember what was said.

Posted by: Opa2 | August 20, 2007 3:04 AM | Report abuse

Today's debate was a preview in how the Democrats could lose in '08 by being too cautious on Iraq and out of touch with the American voter. Clinton, Obama and Edwards aren't confident enough in their judgment and lack the foreign policy expertise to order a complete withdrawal should they get elected. We saw this today again at the debate in Iowa. They'll keep forces in Iraq for years to come.

What difference then will there be on the most important issue of the campaign between the Democratic and Republican Presidential nominees? No Republican will be advocating an endless commitment to Iraq. Everyone will be critical to a degree of how Bush has prosecuted the war.

The path out of Iraq for Clinton, Obama and Edwards will be long march spread over years. That will be true as well with any Republican Presidential nominee.

I am supporting Richardson in part because he has the best plan for leaving Iraq, and the diplomatic experience to see that we leave without the region descending into further chaos. William M. Arkin who writes on National and Homeland Security for the Washington Post recently commented:

"It is on Iraq though, that Richardson really shines. "I believe that we need to withdraw all of our troops within six months," he writes. "Other than the customary Marine contingent at the embassy, I would not leave anyone behind. And if the embassy isn't safe, they're coming home too. No airbases. No troops in the Green Zone. No embedded soldiers training Iraqi forces, because we know what that means. It means our troops would still be out on patrol -- with targets on their backs.""

Posted by: Stephen Cassidy | August 20, 2007 12:39 AM | Report abuse

just kidding .

.

Posted by: ..... | August 19, 2007 11:58 PM | Report abuse

disparager.


you will eat the truth that I speak as I shape your destiny. ignore me and perish.

.

Posted by: to the | August 19, 2007 11:27 PM | Report abuse

Mrs. Watson, did one or another of the Ds make more sense to you today?

Thank you for your story. I assume you watched the education discussion with a more critical and trained ear than I and I would enjoy your take.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 19, 2007 10:14 PM | Report abuse

JimD, thanks for filling in my cultural blank.

Now, "Liberty Valance" is one of the great westerns and I know it well. John Wayne played "Tom", who actually shot Liberty from afar during Liberty's duel with Stoddard, who was played by Stewart. Everyone thought Stoddard shot Liberty, the Saddaam Hussein of the movie, and Stoddard was elected Senator.

On the way to Tom's funeral, years later, Stoddard tells the true story in flashback - "The Man who shot Liberty Valance".

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 19, 2007 10:08 PM | Report abuse

Today's debate, no matter who you are supporting in the democratic field, was so much more informative than listening to last week's republican one. It is also funny reading the posts of those supporting Fred Thompson and no one really knows what he stands for yet. It just goes to show that the rest of the republican field is nothing to write home about! Also, did anyone else notice that in the pictures of Thompson being ferried around the fair in a cart that he looks awfully thinner in the face than he usually does? Is he feeling okay?

Posted by: visitor | August 19, 2007 9:35 PM | Report abuse

I'm tired of politics as usual, and that's what I hear from Clinton and Obama. Both well-spoken and smart, they also speak in broad generalities when speaking of those issues we are all so concerned about. They are both playing it safe. The American people deserve better. We deserve to know what they will do and how they will do it. But that is not what we're getting.

We need a president who understands the workings of Washington but is not part of the party establishment, a president who will have the courage to stand up to those forces that have caused every problem we have: the insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies and the oil companies, and no longer allow them to rape our country.

Obama talks about being the candidate of change but doesn't tell us exactly what he will change or how; and Hillary has said only that she is the most experienced and knows how to fight and win against the Republicans (which, with her negatives, is highly unlikely). They are career politicians and they represent politics as usual, promises notwithstanding.

I want to see the enormous power of the Presidency in the hands of a leader who will use that power to force corporations to function with the good of the country and our people in mind. A visionary who will stop the bleeding of jobs to other countries and straighten out the inequities in our trade agreements. I want a leader who will take dramatic steps to stop climate change and damage to the environment. I want a leader who will see to it that every American has health care and every child who wants a college education will have one. And I want a leader who has the intelligence and the strength of character to face down Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda, and defeat them.

John Edwards is the one with the vision, the ideas, the strength, and the will to do for our country what it needs. And last but not least, according to General Election match-up polls, he is the most electable of all the Democrats against ALL the Republican candidates. Don't be influenced by the money, Democrats! Chose the right person for the right reasons! That man is John Edwards! He ALONE will guarantee that we have a Democrat in the White House in 2008!

Posted by: rebelfriend | August 19, 2007 9:33 PM | Report abuse

I am a eighth-grade teacher who is - I hope - generally well thought-of in my school and in my community, but I and many of my colleagues are unhappy with the way NCLB has taken a lot of the creativity out of teaching. (Before I go on, I should mention that my classes, and indeed the classes of most of the teachers in my school, scored very highly on standardized testing before NCLB was instituted.) In 1998, some colleagues and I were recognized by the state BOE for developing an innovative new lesson plan which - we thought - addressed social interaction and group learning in a new and exciting way.
Unfortunately, the School Committee in our district was largely replaced in the 2000 elections, and the new members wanted nothing more than to institute NCLB. The school year was lengthened, gym classes and recess time were either cut drastically or canceled, and each teacher saw his/her workload increase dramatically.
And the result? That first year, test scores and academic performance was markedly WORSE, and participation in extracurricular activities dropped by over 50%. Things have improved somewhat since then, but the students' understanding of the material remains far below what it was with our old curriculum and scheduling. And I can no longer be flexible with my lesson plans, devoting extra time to a topic that seems to be exciting my students... instead, I must follow the scheduled progression of material covered by the test, and emphasize what it emphasizes.
The quality of the writing I am seeing in term papers is with one or two exceptions uniformly worse than I was used to seeing in the '90s, there are only about half as many questions asked in class, discipline is more difficult, and students no longer stay after school to discuss topics with me, as they did back then. They seem to have the same look in their eyes that my dad had when he would come home from his assembly-line job in the late '50s. That's not a look our children should have to have, especially not in the eighth grade.

Posted by: Mrs. Watson | August 19, 2007 9:25 PM | Report abuse

As a movie buff, I have to comment on a couple of posts -

Mark - the Stepford reference harkens back to a 1975 movie "The Stepford Wives". The wives in this upscale suburban community were replaced by robots who were 'perfect' subservient wives. The movie was remade with Nicole Kidman in 2004. When people refer to Senator Clinton as 'Stepford' they are saying she appears too programmed and is not showing her real thoughts.

a - and Liberty Valance was played by Lee Marvin. However, Jimmy Stewart went to the statehood convention and became the political leader of the new state ending up as a long serving Senator.

Posted by: JimD in FL | August 19, 2007 9:19 PM | Report abuse

The poster who triple-spaces, conjures conspiracy theories, and uses ellipses to excess, is as annoying as "che". This poster uses many aliases, but could be called "che II" in response, if anyone chooses to respond.

Zookeepress would probably suggest that we ignore "che II".

Posted by: Anonymous | August 19, 2007 9:05 PM | Report abuse

what is with the double posting...


I think that there should be several pilot programs...

and a sifting of data.

I think teachers should be enlisted, to discuss the merits of programs and that one thing needs to be understood....


NCLB is a piece of dawg doo doo...

it's a money machine for Neil Bush, and a way to get the selective service information about graduating seniors, by law, schools are now required to forward contact information for graduating seniors to draft boards....

NCLB with the draft information was put into place, before WTC/911...


in think urban schools require a little more interaction since the family structures are often of children raising children, there needs to be an intervention there.

.pilot programs. rfp's. panel of teachers/regional meetings/discussions of merit/townhalls.

.

Posted by: hey | August 19, 2007 8:28 PM | Report abuse

Ladies,

I agree it's high time that we turned over the reins of our nation to a woman, particularly in the wake of a rule by a Decider on Steroids. A woman, a negotiator, may be just what we need to finally point us toward global peace, and global sustainability.

But Hillary is not the one. She comes with baggage so heavy and personal that more than half of the American people, many of them women, do not like her.

She is the only woman in the race, but she is unelectable, in my view. We would be better served to find another negotiator in this field, someone who will bring women into the process, and into decision-making roles. Someone with vision and conviction.

John Edwards is the One Democrat who can both win the election and guide our democratic nation to peace and prosperity.

Posted by: zinger1 | August 19, 2007 8:25 PM | Report abuse

ATTENTION TEACHERS!!!!!!

I have not been in the classroom since 1991---let's see if my antenna is still working. I DETECT A HUGE DIFFERENCE IN ATTITUDE. If you respond---please tell whether you are or are not a teacher. Here are quotes from Obama and Clinton on education from the debate:


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.

YEPSEN: Senator Clinton?

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.

Posted by: kjoeccmo | August 19, 2007 8:10 PM | Report abuse

ATTENTION TEACHERS!!!!!!

I have not been in the classroom since 1991---let's see if my antenna is still working. I DETECT A HUGE DIFFERENCE IN ATTITUDE. If you respond---please tell whether you are or are not a teacher. Here are quotes from Obama and Clinton on education from the debate:


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.

YEPSEN: Senator Clinton?

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.

Posted by: kjoeccmo | August 19, 2007 8:10 PM | Report abuse

like Biden okay, he certainl y was one of the few who stood up to the

ugliness and corruption of the

bushCO & CRONYs crewe...


certainly worth a look, and not someone easily led.


.

Posted by: I | August 19, 2007 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Why did everyone ignore Joe Biden? I like them all, but I think he is the best one on foreign policy. His responses have become downright crisp, and it's certainly not too late for him to be an alternative to Hillary and/or Barrack if people start looking for one.

Posted by: claire | August 19, 2007 7:27 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes: You are the type repub us Hillary supporters just love. I can't see you changing your registration or giving $$ to a dem. About all you can do is imply/suggest you are fearfuly of someone else, when I KNOW the opposite is true. My ESP is working again.

Posted by: lylepink | August 19, 2007 7:13 PM | Report abuse

are worried about North Korea?


are you just stupid? or haven't noticed that


Donald Rumsfeld sold the Korean elvis look alike the nuclear reactors that he used to cobble a couple of bombs out of?


you think Donald did that because he wanted Kim Il whatever his name is to have Nook lear power or do you think he just needed to point at a harmless threat who had been talked to like this:


"Make a bomb and put it on a rocket and the United States will respect you." "Here, take these reactors and these plans, build it and the United States will invite your country to be part of civilization...."


love Donald.


same thing happened to Noriega, Saddam, Idi Amin...


dummy monsters...

.

Posted by: you | August 19, 2007 6:49 PM | Report abuse

I forgot to pick a landslide in the general election when Hillary wins the primaries...it'll be pretty fun to watch!

Posted by: The winner! | August 19, 2007 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is gonna be a great general election candidate and although I doubt she picks Obama what a great 1-2 punch that would be for the country. Let's hope she gets through this fluff primary so she can concentrate on defeating the Bush Republican's.

I can't wait to see what happens...

Posted by: The winner! | August 19, 2007 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Governor Richardson's point and statement about the importance of an international treaty to secure loose nuclear material is paramount and is in the best interest of our country for oblivious reasons and the point should be taken seriously. When the North Koreans come calling, they know who to contact based on professionalism and experience. Governor Richardson has already made significant contributions then any other candidates running in 2008 with US and North Korean relations. Richardson helped the United States and the Bush administration with communications and protocal which resulted in getting the North Koreans this far along towards denuclearization. Apparently Richardson is holding some cards back on his Iraq plan, perhaps he is keeping his powder dry for now. Military options always invoice the taxpayer at a higher rate than effective diplomacy.

Posted by: threeriverscrossing | August 19, 2007 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Governor Richardson's point and statement about the importance of an international treaty to secure loose nuclear material is paramount and is in the best interest of our country for oblivious reasons, and the point should be taken seriously. When the North Koreans come calling, they know who to contact based on professionalism and experience. Governor Richardson has already made significant contributions then any other candidates running in 2008 with US and North Korean relations. Richardson helped the United States and the Bush administration with communications and protocal which resulted in getting the North Koreans this far along towards denuclearization. Apparently Richardson is holding some cards back on his Iraq plan, perhaps he is keeping his powder dry for now. Military options always invoice the taxpayer at a higher rate than effective diplomacy.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 19, 2007 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Richard "Dick" Cheney....


knows how to butcher....


Hamilton and Iran-Contra


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

"......former Congressman Lee Hamilton, chairman of the House select committee investigating the Iran-contra affair, was shown ample evidence against Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, but he did not probe their wrongdoing. Why did Hamilton choose not to investigate? In a late 1980s interview aired on PBS 'Frontline,' Hamilton said that he did not think it would have been 'good for the country' to put the public through another impeachment trial. In Lee Hamilton's view, it was better to keep the public in the dark than to bring to light another Watergate, with all the implied ramifications. When Hamilton was chairman of the House committee investigating Iran-contra, he took the word of senior Reagan administration officials when they claimed Bush and Reagan were 'out of the loop.' Independent counsel Lawrence Walsh and White House records later proved that Reagan and Bush had been very much in the loop. If Hamilton had looked into the matter instead of accepting the Reagan administration's word, the congressional investigation would have shown the public the truth. Hamilton later said he should not have believed the Reagan officials. However, today, George W. Bush is considering appointing Hamilton UN ambassador."
Uncovering the Florida cover-up: The good fight continues
A Past Look, 25 December, 2000

"One of the key congressional Republicans fighting this rear-guard action was Rep. Dick Cheney of Wyoming, who became the ranking House Republican on the Iran-contra investigation. Cheney already enjoyed a favorable reputation in Washington as a steady conservative hand. Cheney smartly exploited his relationship with Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., who was chairman of the Iran-contra panel. Hamilton cared deeply about his reputation for bipartisanship and the Republicans quickly exploited this fact. A senior committee source said one of Cheney's top priorities was to block Democrats from deposing Vice President Bush about his Iran-contra knowledge. Cheney 'kept trying to intimidate Hamilton,' the source said. 'He kept saying if we go down that road, we won't have bipartisanship.' So, Hamilton gave Bush a pass. The limited investigation also gave little attention to other sensitive areas, such as contra-drug trafficking and the public diplomacy operation. They were pared down or tossed out altogether. Despite surrendering to Cheney's demands time and again, Hamilton failed, in the end, to get a single House Republican to sign the final report. Only three moderate Republicans on the Senate side - Warren Rudman, William Cohen and Paul Trible - agreed to sign the report, after extracting more concessions. Cheney and the other Republicans submitted a minority report that denied that any significant wrongdoing had occurred."
Covering Up Iran-Contra - Robert Parry
Consortium News, 5 November 2000
Robert Parry is an investigative reporter who broke many of the Iran-contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek

"[November 13, 1987] The designated congressional committees filed their joint report on the Iran-Contra affair. Wyoming Representative Richard Cheney, the senior Republican member of the House Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions with Iran, helped steer the joint committees to an impotent result. George Bush was totally exonerated, and was hardly mentioned. George Bush, when President, rewarded Dick Cheney by appointing him U.S. Secretary of Defense, after the Senate refused to confirm John Tower."
Chapter -XVIII- Iran- Contra
'George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography'
by Webster G. Tarpley & Anton Chaitkin

Bush and the Iran-Contra arms and drugs scandal - click here
Bush, Harken, BCCI and the Contras - click here
Bush, Harken, BCCI and Bin Laden - click here

Drugs And The Bogus 'War Against Terrorism'

"Around the same time as the destruction of the Project X records, President Bush was completing the long-running cover-up of the Iran-contra scandal. On Christmas Eve 1992, he issued pardons to former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and five other Iran-contra defendants. The pardons effectively ended the Iran-contra investigation and spared leading Republicans, including Gen. Colin Powell, the embarrassment of having to testify at the Weinberger trial about their earlier deceptions. After leaving office, Bush himself refused to submit to an interview with Walsh that might have established what Bush and his aides actually did during the Iran-contra operation."
Covering Up Iran-Contra - Robert Parry
Consortium News, 5 November 2000
Robert Parry is an investigative reporter who broke many of the Iran-contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek

Posted by: let me show you | August 19, 2007 6:00 PM | Report abuse

small example...


perhaps some of you old people saw a movie with John Wayne and Jimmie Stewart in it...


the Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.

Obama is Jimmy Stewart, and will be just as successful as Jimmy Stewart was at running the town without John Wayne...

nice guys get bled to death, if they can't butcher...


that is just the way it is.

.

Posted by: a | August 19, 2007 5:45 PM | Report abuse

he is leaving the country.


you won't know where he is, but it won't be in the United States...

.

.

.

Posted by: karl rove? | August 19, 2007 5:42 PM | Report abuse

I saw the entire debate and I must say that Obama will be the next president of the United States of America. Go Obama!!!!

Posted by: Asmaa | August 19, 2007 5:40 PM | Report abuse

small example of my statement that graft is ineffective, because it buys nothing:


the example is provided by a poster named harried:

first the comment that he responds to:

"acindc007 wrote:
There is nothing wrong with interest only mortgages as it frees up principal to invest in other areas rather than sit and collect dust. The problem is, is far too many fools spent the money rather than paying down debt, investing it, or simply building savings.

----------------------------------------------------------
harried responds to acindc007's comment directly above :

Spent money? MONEY?????? No friend, the sub-par and the prime AAA homeowner were played against each other. No one spent money, they spent "EQUITY"!
Illustration:

Bush: How can we get that Prime AAA Mortgagee's money?

The Boys: Well how's about we inflate the value of his home and give him a loan at his mortgage rate for the difference between the inflated and true value--we'll call the difference "EQUITY" and the loan an "Equity Loan".

Bush: I like it,,"EQUITY",,got that sound of something real. But how do we inflate the value of his home?

The Boys: Well, we book "NO CASH, NO INCOME, NO PAY TODAY" loans for "FIRST TIME SUCKERS" who want a home, the "DEMAND" side for homes will go up and the "SUPPLY" side will get costlier. Viola' "EQUITY"!

Bush: Wow!---but........

The Boys: Look NUMBNUTS, any homes these "SUB-PAR" live in before we forclose for payment belong to us, and we got them for the rest of thier lives(all we'll do is change the bankruptcy laws ). They did not have any income anyway so screw them. The guys we are really after are the "PRIME" guys who spent "HOME EQUITY" loans to buy the "Gold Bidet". They got "ASSETS" that will become ours when the "SUB-PRIMES" default and the home "SUPPLY" becomes greater than the "DEMAND".


Bush: Is this legal?

The Boys: No one ever got rich by working. You are born with it because you had a successful thief in your ancestory, are you steal it yourself, or BOTH!


[shades of NEIL BUSH, POPPY BUSH and SIVERADO SAVINGS AND LOAN FRAUD by numbers]

Posted by: a | August 19, 2007 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Obama wins!!

See the result at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4aVFJ3FIrY

Posted by: Tommy Ates, Austin, TX | August 19, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Obama's style might be getting smoother in the debates, but one must still listen closely to what he is proposing. In the YouTube debate, Obama advocated building new nuclear power plants! That is a frightening, and Obama completely lost all hope of getting my future support because of that position. We need clean and renewable resource, not deadly radiation and plutonium for which there is no safe storage or disposal. How naive can Obama be? Nothing has changed to make the nuclear energy industry safe.

I feel that John Edwards is the only one indepenent enough and tough enough to fight battles for the American people. Furthermore, he is the only cnadidate putting out solid and specific proposals.

Posted by: lura | August 19, 2007 5:19 PM | Report abuse

How long will Clinton last once Rove starts his work? Do you think he left his post at the White House to spend more time at home. If you don't think sex tapes about Mr. Bill won't come out from some 527, or show up on Youtube where have you been for the last 8 years. They won't be true but they will work just as they did in the past.Oh yes just keep looking at the smoke........ because Rove is at home with his family.why is it that Rove keeps talking about Clinton; oh thats right he just wants whats best for the country and the "DEMOCRAT PARTY".

Posted by: Anonymous | August 19, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Hilary Clinton does not represent the 1/3 of 1 PerCENT...


she hasn't been around long enough...


both she and Bill Clinton actually worked for their positions...


Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar.


and yes, it does seem to me that no one else can make the changes...


but as I said before, an alignment with the Clintons and some serious players working together in a team is what I want most...


effectiveness and a willingness to address the AMERICAN ECONOMY AS A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE....


globalization is necessary? B.S.

parts of it are, but AMERICA doesn't really need the world...


the world will sink itself soon enough if population control is not taken seriously, starvation, and economic strife are a lot more dangerous when there is a lack of arible land... that would be AFRICA and Europe's problem...


I think the Clinton's understand the game well enough, since they have been the victims of bushCO and CRONYs to take that segment out...


graft is ineffective.

it doesn't create anything.... rich kids with no character, that know how to do anything except


take advantage of people, need to be cut off at the knees....


as a beginning... do Bill and Hilary have some money now? sure, did they come from money? no.


what were Bill Clintons dreams for AMERICA?

1. healthcare for all
2. college for all


how does that make him or her , a greedy mofo?

Posted by: a short response... | August 19, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

have to do with my last comment?


what do bushCO and CRONYISM have to do with my last comment???


you all don't have the brains to understand that bushCO and CRONYISM are not producing anything in their 8 years in office....


nor will they.

and yet they will cost the country over a TRILLION DOLLARS and a debt load owed to CHINA.......


they all are richer, they all have sold you their ideas....


the people that have supported them, some of them are richer, but most of you have been sold three unmagic beans for your cow...

whatever happens, _they_


bushCO and CRONYs will leave with a boat load of cash...


and have produced nothing.


in fact your store, AMERICA's treasure of a good economy, a good cash flow, jobs, resources, and a future will be severely depleted, because they have sold you


garbage: demagoguery as family values, theft as patriotism and genocide as supporting Israel/Christianity


and have provided nothing.


YOU CAN NOT RUN A FARM, A BUSINESS OR A COUNTRY BY SELLING OFF THE STOCK AND THE EQUIPMENT AND NOT PRODUCING ANYTHING UNLESS YOU ARE EXPECTING THE BANK TO TAKE THE FARM OR THE BANK OR THE BUSINESS...


and you are looting.


bushCO and CRONYs are looting.

they are not the right, they are using the right...who are the most stodgy and simple minded, they are not Republicans...they are using REPUBLICANS because the republicans are the most stodgy and simple minded and back theft as legitimate...as most come from old money... so they don't squawk about theft...

Posted by: what do bushCO and CRONYISM | August 19, 2007 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Why does Hillary change the 1/3 of 1%? She has already been a part of the estacblished elite. Where has she stood out from the establishment since the health care debacle? Why hasn't she proposed any universal health care plans as a senator? Why is she the "only" one who can make the change? You give opinion but nothing behind it.

My "stabs" at Hillary are my true opinions. I liked her husband as President, but its time to move on. We need new leadership, new blood in Washington. I would vote for her over any republican, but she is not in my top 5 for dems.

And do your stabs at that no one else can make change... is that your fear? what's your intent?

Posted by: vahawk | August 19, 2007 4:48 PM | Report abuse

I am not selling a candidate, and I am not selling a position.


I AM telling you how the world works, not from a jaded, old money position but from a "we are in a new position, than has ever existed for humans."


what is that "new position?" we are at our borders in every sense of the word...


and we need to manage resources....

why? because we can no longer absorb stupidity, greed, or short sightedness or incompetence.... we all depend upon each other.

from an engineering perspective:

graft / influence peddle ing / cronyism


are bad because they BUY NOTHING....


BUYING NOTHING REMOVES LIQUIDITY...

Posted by: let us talk about this for a minute... | August 19, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

I believe that Richardson is the best person for the job.
Hilarity Clinton points to "experience" (not all that much digging in the dirt) and doesn't point to her failure to reform the health care (or the money she took from the industry (see "Sicko").
Obama would make a good V.P. but he's not ready to be president.
Edwards can't be trusted.
Kucinich has some amazing ideas, but doesn't have the support to see them happen.
I like Gravel and respect his honesty, but I'm not sure of his powers to rule.
Dodd is a political hack.
Biden?
Well, good ideas and experience, but lacking the charisma to put them over.

Posted by: shelleybear | August 19, 2007 4:25 PM | Report abuse

With Bloomberg perched to run in 08 with plenty of money, unless Rudy gets the nomination, his canidancy is going to kill the dems. Where to you think his votes will come from? It will come from the highly urbanized cities and counties of America. For those who are new at following politics, urbanized votes are heavily democratic.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 19, 2007 4:24 PM | Report abuse

With Bloomberg perched to run in 08 with plenty of money, unless Rudy gets the nomination, his canidancy is going to kill the dems. Where to you think his votes will come from? It will come from the highly urbanized cities and counties of America. For those who are new at following politics, urbanized votes are heavily democratic.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 19, 2007 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Mark, I understand what you are saying - I'm for Obama, and would also be OK with Biden or Dodd, but if none of them get it, I will be choosing the least bad alternative. But I can't not vote - I think the upcoming election, more than any other in the recent past, will determine the US' path for at least the next decade. As I am dissatisfied with our current direction politically, culturally, socially etc. - that will probably mean that I vote for the Democrat, even if it's someone that would not otherwise necessarily appeal to me.

Posted by: Bokonon | August 19, 2007 4:13 PM | Report abuse

there will be no country if someone doesn't


kick some bushCO and CRONY tush,

because the government is being run for 1/3 of 1 PerCENT

and that isn't going to change if just one person changes, unless that person is a Clinton...


or the candidates work together to clean house and senate...


get me?


.the stabs at Hilary , are that your fear showing, and your bias, looking at your intent


I see DECEPTION


not honest opinion.

.

Posted by: actually, | August 19, 2007 4:07 PM | Report abuse

I'm just amazed that so many people still believe that they have any role in chosing who governs in America. The snickering on Wall Street must be nearly uncontrollable.

Posted by: DF in FL | August 19, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

It seems to me that the media types do not hear what the Americans are telling them. Its not just attack lines that they are after. People like them, but they know that they are sick of the partisinship. Hillary has two flaws in the debates. One, she never gives a direct answer. Its like watching Bush if he could actually speak coherently. And secondly, her big selling point is that she is ready to fight the right. Well, America seemingly wants someone to lead the country... not fight the right.

Posted by: vahawk | August 19, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

to FRED, DC -
Truth Hunter said:
"My take is also different than many. I thought Hillary too Stepford, Obama an accurate sniper, Edwards an effective labor advocate, Richardson rekindled, Biden a subdued Iraq guru, Dodd upstaged, Kucinich benignly neglected, and Gravel.... well, definitely one debate too far for him."

I generally agree with her, except that I do not understand the quasi-cultural reference to "Stepford", never having read/seen it, whatever it is. I do not think that HRC did poorly, but she did not shine, even given substantial time.

Hawkeye Betty's 12:03P comment struck a chord with me - I had the same reaction. In a two person debate Obama would have underscored that difference.

By choosing to run to their bases in order to survive the primaries, the candidates make it hard for those of us in the middle to identify with them. Among the Ds, Biden and Obama can gain our independent attention by talking about fashioning consensus and reaching across the aisle, while Edwards and Clinton tend to lose our attention with talk of bashing the Rs.

I think focus groups have consistently given Biden and Obama high marks while the press has favored HRC. But the press may be picking up on what the D primary voters want, rather than what the middle of the country likes. D Primary voters [inexplicably to moderates] gave us a pompous, self-congratulatory, mediocre Senator last time, apparently, because he was a war hero. Yes, he was better than GWB, but WHY was he the candidate?

I have no idea if HRC can win or be a good President, but she should fair at least as well as Kerry. The next President is very likely to be better than GWB, just on the odds, regardless of which party prevails.

I may well be voting against somebody in November '08 - again. See "Independent" at 1:12P.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 19, 2007 3:41 PM | Report abuse

sincerely doubt


that Hillary Clinton could not kick Republican behind in '08....

I doubt that they would stand a chance. With a little work the Republican party could disappear permanently...


Dennis K. needs to be included, simply to hear his ideas if nothing else. Like Ross Perot, whose ideas Bill Clinton borrowed, Dennis K., brings a deep intelligence that AMERICA needs to hear... at least give him coverage....

Dennis K., is the only one with the stones to ask for Cheney's impeachment...


HILLARY CLINTON COULD WIN EASILY...with a little help.

OBAMA, EDWARDS, GORE, DENNIS K., BIDEN, and the others need to be included more to keep the information flowing.


.do that.

.

Posted by: I | August 19, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

LYLEPINK: I want Mrs. Clinton to get the nomination. Last time I checked, 52% of americans stated they would NOT vote for her under any circumstance. No candidate can win with those high negatives. What;s even better is she will take down a lot of blue dog dems in quasi-conservative districts in the south. I hope you dems stay in denial about her chances and thank you very much in what should had been the dems year.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 19, 2007 3:25 PM | Report abuse

the fact is Hillary or Barack dont have 51 % ,that's why the neocon media push them, it would put Giuliani or Romney in,remember that 25 % of the voters like Fred "Asbestos" Thompson because " ....he is such a good actor..." and that they vote for Giuliani or Romney because:"...he looks so presidential...",so we got the dumb--- brigade selecting the next dodo ! shame !

about Giuliani, his wife Judith is the leader of ther Woman of Israel in NYC,every voter has a right to know,because as Rudy said:"...if elected my wife will be in Cabinet meetings...",so voters have a right to talk and know !

Posted by: bloogger | August 19, 2007 3:22 PM | Report abuse

case you are wondering...


I don't endorse a candidate.


I endorse America.


Obama, is a visionary.... but without any muscle...


he is Jesus facing off with the Romans... and the Romans stole Jesus' teaching and used it to their own advantage to dominate the societies that they conquered...


ask the Celts...


it's not enough to be a nice guy with a great message if you can't cut some pig meat when you need to...


the bush family has grown up on killing to get their way.


SEARCH on "bush crime family", nazis


see how much your Obama doesn't know about the INSIDER WASHINGTON that he is trying to reassure... you don't reassure javelinas by sending out a weiner dawg to reason with them...


nothing comes back.

nothing.

.grow the f*** up and start assessing reality like a grown up...


show me some skill at dismembering pigs, or back off out of here...

Posted by: and in | August 19, 2007 3:22 PM | Report abuse

the fact is Hillary or Barack dont have 51 % ,that's why the neocon media push them, it would put Giuliani or Romney in,remember that 25 % of the voters like Fred "Asbestos" Thompson because " ....he is such a good actor..." and that they vote for Giuliani or Romney because:"...he looks so presidential...",so we got the dumb--- brigade selecting the next dodo ! shame !

about Giuliani, his wife Judith is the leader of ther Woman of Israel in NYC,every voter has a right to know,because as Rudy said:"...if elected my wife will be in Cabinet meetings...",so voters have a right to talk and know !

Posted by: bloogger | August 19, 2007 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton's machine just wants the pundits to keep repeating, over and over, that she is unbeatable and will be the Dem nominee. I believe that as the early states' votes are counted, Sen. Obama will emerge as the top contender to beat the Republicans next year. So many people are beginning to really listen to him, analyze his positions (including his clear position that Bush & Co. had not made an effective case for invading Iraq BEFORE the vote to authorize it), and pick him as their choice. His poll numbers are WAY HIGHER in states where he has spent time campaigning.

So many people will never, ever vote for Hillary and will actually turn out just to vote against her, that we Democrats just cannot afford to take a chance by nominating her. I and many of my friends who are professional women, have joined the "Women for Obama" movement because we know he will make a better president for us and for our families than former first lady Clinton. Obama has more legislative experience than Clinton or Edwards (11 years total) and superior judment. He will inspire a nation. Let's get him nominated.

Posted by: Lauren | August 19, 2007 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Good job on your comments, Chris.
Obama continues to impress me with his wisdom and sincerity.
He definitely appears to be the best of the best.

Posted by: JS | August 19, 2007 3:10 PM | Report abuse

it's this kind of garbage that needs to be taken out:

a poster uses appeal_to_emotion: One has to wonder about the ethics of ABC News hiring George Steponallofus to be the host or moderator of any news program.


I reply: do they really? I thought he had been a newscaster for some time, and had shown a saavy insight to political situations....and unlike FAUX news broadcasters hadn't been obviously slanted in his viewpoints

a poster uses appeal_to_emotion: How can you not laugh at the OBVIOUS fact that these people- Gov.Richardson, George Steponallofus, and Senator Clinton- all worked together in the most incompetent and crooked Presidential administration in American history?


I reply, easily: who are you kidding buckwheat? Clinton was being guided by the same people running the current corrupt administration that is killing people for oil, putting INDUSTRIAL ROBBER BARRONS in key positions to disable environmental standards , and drug running from Colombia South AMERICA to Afghanistan to the tune of at least $700 BILLION Dollars profit selling off record drugs...and that says nothing about the cost to the United States and Europe in dollars lost to addicts/treatment


a poster uses appeal_to_emotion: How successful was having Gov Richardson find Monica Lewsinsky a job in the DOD to find Osama Bin Laden?

I reply easily: why is it that you leave out that Osama Bin Ladens brother was having breakfast with George H.W. Bush in Washington D.C. the morning of 911 or that James Baker the III, who later defended the Bin Laden family from the VICTIMS OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER DISASTER.....was watching the WTC collapse from the Bin Laden family suite of the Ritz-Carlton in downtown Washington D.C.


all these things are a matter of record...

a poster uses appeal_to_emotion: Aren't you curious George?

I reply easily: why should he be curious, everything that you have said is innuendo, garneed from sniffing your own under ware.

aren't you a dishonest unnamed pissante' trying to develop a story and position based upon the stench of your own dishonesty....and blowing it over the relatively unstained?


you sicken me.

wanna dance? I love chopping up chicken with my new ginzu knives....

dance with me schewin hunt

.

Posted by: see | August 19, 2007 3:07 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes: I see you are still a good Repub promoting the weaker of the dems. We both know Obama has no chance and Hillary is going to win, we have been around long enough to know. Allison knows as well.

Posted by: lylepink | August 19, 2007 3:02 PM | Report abuse

As with the earlier GOP version, the debate featured absolutely no questions about immigration matters.

Does anyone seriously consider Stephanopoulos anything other than a hack?

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | August 19, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

MESSAGE TO CHRIS:

I enjoy your blog and was curious to know why there seems to be a dramatic disconnect between pundits, such as yourself, stating Hillary won, when Fox Focus Groups rated Obama the best and some even chaged their votes.

Here is a clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4aVFJ3FIrY

I want to get some input from other bloggers as well.

I was originally a Hillary supporter, but concede I actually want to win the White House and Hillary is too polarixzing even in post-bush she has trouble winning,......that is sad.

What you guys think?

Posted by: FRED, DC | August 19, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

so you think you know what is going on?


I don't take issue with Bill Clinton helping out Obama.


The idea that Obama can handle the bad guys by himself is absurd....


his saying the Clintons needed to forget their bad history shows his lack of understanding....


if Obama doesn't understand this string of events:

1. Castro , Bay of Pigs, CIA, Mafia, Cubanos, Zapata Oil/FLORIDA

a. West Indies CO. / Walker
b. Walker/Bush support of nazis during WWII, CIA coverup of that support

2. CIA/MAFIA/TEXAS/JFK/BayofPigsANGER

3. NORIEGA/Cocaine/CIA/terroristas/George H.W. Bush/IRAN_CONTRA
a. Gary Webb, Parry, CIA/Letter of Understanding....FLORIDA/Cubanos/Honduras
b. arms deals/drugs/Laos/Colombia/Mexico

4. Saddam Hussein/April Glaspie/OIL/Afghanistan...Heroin/TransAfghanistan Pipeline/Cheney/IRAN CONTRA

5. PNAC/Letter to Clinton, AEI becomes PNAC, Rumsfeld, Perle, Kristol, Feith, Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Libby, JINSA/PNAC

6. SAUDI/WTC/BAKER/BUSH FAMILIES/CIA/AL QUEADA


then Obama is guaranteeing failure once he gets in office....


especially if he doesn't know how to tie in

1. outsourcing
2. unions derailed as a political purposeful event
3. down sizing -> internationalization as a threat to our country
4. OIL and GAS dependency being maintained to keep the pressure on about acquiring IRAQ...


what bushCO and Cronies are doing has nothing to do with making AMERICA a better place to live for anyone but themselves and they are running a


subgovernment....


then Obama is going to get sucker punched by the time he figures out that "it's true," and he is a waste of tax payer energy...


you want to talk about it?

or are you an insider WASHINGTONIAN trying to sell a weaker sister?


'cause I ain't heard Obama address the clique' problem.


.

Posted by: dear | August 19, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Anon, I'm not a fan of Obama, but your snipe at him is desperate. He took his kids to the Fair and enjoyed himself. You know, a human being, not just a political robot.

Bhoomes, You only hurt your cause.... if your cause is anti-Hillary. The more the GOP crudely goes after her, the more they undercut their own chances.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | August 19, 2007 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Rudy will make a Great AG for either Romney/Thompson or Huck but would cost us the WH if he received the Republican nomination. He is about the only one who couldn't beat the ever shrill/homely Mrs. Clinton. If by some fluke she did win, she get the terrorists to confess by threatening to make them have sex with her. Nobody could withstand that type of torture.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 19, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

The voters have decided, or soon will, that Obama lacks experience. That's what you get when you spend your time riding the bumper cars rather than doing the legislative job entrusted by the citizens of IL.

Obama is done. Now if only the entertainment wing of political reporting will get on with it.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 19, 2007 2:26 PM | Report abuse

It's interesting to read how differently many saw the debate, from MSM's CC, to candidate supporters, to GOPers.

My take is also different than many. I thought Hillary too Stepford, Obama an accurate sniper, Edwards an effective labor advocate, Richardson rekindled, Biden a subdued Iraq guru, Dodd upstaged, Kucinich benignly neglected, and Gravel.... well, definitely one debate too far for him.

Obama evidently thinks the "introduction" stage is over, so is nixing more debates for one-on-a-group forums.

Bad idea as this gives the GOP the TV stage for the many who can't greet-and-meet the candidates.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | August 19, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

In May of last year, another fanatic, guns blazing, attacked Turkey's supreme court in Ankara. Four justices were wounded and one was killed. The assassin's weapons of choice were a pair of Glock pistols.

The attacks were no mystery. What puzzled Turkish police was the weapons' origin. Glocks are high-quality sidearms, but by last year they had practically become common street weapons in Turkey. More than 1,000 had been taken from criminals, guerrillas, terrorists and assassins all over the country, and authorities believed tens of thousands more had found their way onto the black market--but from where? The Austrian government repeatedly checked the serial numbers of the murder weapons. The manufacturer informed Ankara that the pistols were consigned originally to " 'US Mission Iraq' [formerly the Coalition Provisional Authority], address: Republican Presidential Compound, Ministry of the Interior, Baghdad, Iraq."

There are many more where those came from. At least three U.S. government agencies are now investigating the massive "disappearance" and diversion of weapons Washington intended for Iraqi government forces that instead have spread to militants and organized gangs across the region. The potential size of the traffic is stunning. A report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office last month showed that since 2004, some 190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols, bought with U.S. money for Iraqi security forces, have gone missing.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 19, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Anxious customers jammed the phone lines and website of Countrywide Bank and crowded its branch offices to pull out their savings because of concerns about the financial problems of the mortgage lender that owns the bank.

Countrywide Financial Corp., the biggest home-loan company in the nation, sought Thursday to assure depositors and the financial industry that both it and its bank were fiscally stable. And federal regulators said they weren't alarmed by the volume of withdrawals from the bank.

The mortgage lender said it would further tighten its loan standards and make fewer large mortgages. Those moves could make it harder to get a home loan and further depress the housing market in California and other states.

The rush to withdraw money -- by depositors that included a former Los Angeles Kings star hockey player and an executive of a rival home-loan company -- came a day after fears arose that Countrywide Financial could file for bankruptcy protection because of a worsening credit crunch stemming from the sub-prime mortgage meltdown.

The parent firm borrowed $11.5 billion Thursday by using up an existing line of credit from 40 banks, saying the money would help the lender meet its funding needs and continue to grow. But stock investors, apparently alarmed that the company felt compelled to use the credit line, sent Countrywide's already battered stock down an additional 11%.

At Countrywide Bank offices, in a scene rare since the U.S. savings-and-loan crisis ended in the early '90s, so many people showed up to take out some or all of their money that in some cases they had to leave their names.

Posted by: financial panic | August 19, 2007 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Rudy's attack against Ron Paul in the debate was a classic example of that kind of politics, a Rovian masterstroke. The wizened Paul, a grandfather seventeen times over who is running for the Republican nomination at least 100 years too late, was making a simple isolationist argument, suggesting that our lengthy involvement in Middle Eastern affairs -- in particular our bombing of Iraq in the 1990s -- was part of the terrorists' rationale in attacking us.

Though a controversial statement for a Republican politician to make, it was hardly refutable from a factual standpoint -- after all, Osama bin Laden himself cited America's treatment of Iraq in his 1996 declaration of war. Giuliani surely knew this, but he jumped all over Paul anyway, demanding that Paul take his comment back. "I don't think I've ever heard that before," he hissed, "and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th." ...

The Paul incident went to the very heart of who Giuliani is as a politician. To the extent that conservatism in the Bush years has morphed into a celebration of mindless patriotism and the paranoid witch-hunting of liberals and other dissenters, Rudy seems the most anxious of any Republican candidate to take up that mantle. Like Bush, Rudy has repeatedly shown that he has no problem lumping his enemies in with "the terrorists" if that's what it takes to get over. When the 9/11 Commission raised criticisms of his fire department, for instance, Giuliani put the bipartisan panel in its place for daring to question his leadership. "Our anger," he declared, "should clearly be directed at one source and one source alone -- the terrorists who killed our loved ones."

Posted by: the scum rudy is | August 19, 2007 2:16 PM | Report abuse

'chritistians' threatening to kill judges:

A panel of judges at the American Bar Association's meeting in San Francisco last week reported on threats to judges for crossing the religious right:

More than two years after enraging right-wing groups by ordering Terry Schiavo's feeding tube removed, George Greer still peers over his shoulder nervously at times...
Two years ago, he said, someone in the Bay Area threatened to kill him over his decision to end life support for the brain-damaged Schiavo. And even though that person was prosecuted and jailed, Greer said, he's taking no chances.
"It is a little unnerving," he said. "I still can't see a strange car come down my street without wondering [who's behind the steering wheel]."
Greer was one of four current or former judges who appeared in a 90-minute seminar in Moscone Center West to describe how their lives were affected by their rulings in high-profile cases involving hot-button issues.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 19, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Via the AP: Giuliani: 'Leave my family alone'

Republican Rudy Giuliani said Thursday that people should "leave my family alone" when asked by a New Hampshire woman why the presidential candidate should expect loyalty from voters when he doesn't get it from his children.
On the one hand, I can understand Giuliani's response. On the other, it is a fair question.

I have to say that it has long been a staple of social conservative circles to state that the way a politician treats/deals with his family reflects how he or she would deal with the public-certainly the issue of Clinton and his womanizing often lead to statements like "if his wife can't trust him, how can we?" from the right when he ran in 1992 and later during the impeachment process. As such, it seems to me that inquiries into Giuliani's family are fair game.

Beyond the issue of past behaviors in the GOP, it does seem that it is fair game to wonder about Giuliani's rather unimpressive record on the personal level as he seeks the highest office in the land.

Posted by: Martin | August 19, 2007 2:11 PM | Report abuse

You know, as our financial markets and home loan industries continue to melt down, there's one thing missing. We haven't seen a good, old-fashioned bank run. Until now: Anxious customers jammed the phone lines and website of Countrywide Bank and crowded its branch offices to pull out their savings.... But the economy is great under George W. Bush. All the conservatives say so, anyhow, and they're completely objective.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 19, 2007 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Yesterday I wondered whether the big news orgs would continue describing the imminent September Iraq progress report as representing solely the word of General Petraeus -- as the Gospel According To Petraeus -- now that we know that the report is being written by the White House. As Atrios put it, "a major test of our media right now is whether this bait and switch enters the basic narrative or not."

Well, we now have our first major failure of that test, and fittingly, it's The Washington Post's editorial page, which at this point is devoting its powerful opinion-shaping real estate to little more than a rearguard effort to salvage what's left of the reputations of Beltway war supporters. And not only does WaPo's editorial page today not acknowledge that "bait and switch," it actually continues to try and maintain the fiction that the September report will represent the sole word of Petraeus.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 19, 2007 2:05 PM | Report abuse

An embarrassed Fox News hits Wikipedia: Days after getting caught making self-serving edits, the partisan network targets online encyclopedia - Thanks to some IP-address based research, the political world learned this week that Fox NEws was responsible for "touching up" Wikipedia pages, editing content that didn't fit with the partisan network's political agenda. For example, embarrassing content from Media Matters about FNC personalities was quietly removed. Criticism of Keith Olbermann and Al Franken was accenuated. With that in mind, it shouldn't surprise anyone that Fox News' Chris Wallace -- you guessed it -- sought to undermine Wikipedia's credibility with a report last night. The irony is rich. Fox News tried to exploit Wikipedia, and got caught, so naturally it's time to undermine the source of the network's embarrassment.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 19, 2007 2:03 PM | Report abuse

On Friday, a New York Times story examined Rudy Giuliani's schedule in the months after 9/11 to verify his controversial claim that, like rescue workers, he'd spent long hours at ground zero, and so was "in that sense ... one of them." In fact, the Times found, he only spent 29 hours at the terror site between Sept. 17 and Dec. 16.

What was he doing instead? Giuliani's beloved New York Yankees made it to the World Series in 2001. We decided to compare the time he spent on baseball to the time he spent at the ruins of the World Trade Center.

The results were, considering the mayor's long-standing devotion to the Bronx Bombers, unsurprising. By our count, Giuliani spent about 58 hours at Yankees games or flying to them in the 40 days between Sept. 25 and Nov. 4, roughly twice as long as he spent at ground zero in the 60 days between Sept. 17 and Dec. 16. By his own standard, Giuliani was one of the Yankees more than he was one of the rescue workers.

Posted by: Report this, CC--I dare ya | August 19, 2007 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Any of them would be better than any republican alive today...

Posted by: Amy | August 19, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

George S. is a smarmy little twerp. He plays favorites, and simply reinforces the inside-the-Beltway group-think. Why do they let him preside over these things?

Posted by: Oliver | August 19, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

I thought George S. moderated a very good debate today. I agree that it appears that Rep. Kucinich did not receive anything near equal time. (I did not want to hear Gravel's opinions...shame on me..and it is time for him to step aside.)

I thought Clinton was solid as usual on most issues. However, she was disingenuous when she tried to nuance her previous statement that nuclear weapons should be "off the table" if the U.S. attempted to destroy Iranian nuclear plants. Her answer did not work and I am happy that Obama made note of it.

Obama seems to be stronger and more resolute than in earlier debates. He has convinced me that he really does believe in his positions on talking to goverments we do not like and going after bin Laden with or without the consent of Mushraf. But I wish he would debunk the statements made by Dodd and Clinton that the governement of Pakistan would then fall into the hands of terrorists...highly unlikely.

I have always felt that Biden was the most qualified of all the candidates on the stage. But it is now clear to me why over the years he has been unable to excite the electorate. For some reason, he stands there debate after debate and does not challenge Clinton when she says she is the most qualified, experienced candidate! Why, Senator Biden?

I simply do not believe John Edwards.

Posted by: stroud | August 19, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

'Viewed from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal.

Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. [...]

Given the situation, it is important not to assess security from an American-centered perspective. The ability of, say, American observers to safely walk down the streets of formerly violent towns is not a resounding indicator of security. What matters is the experience of the local citizenry and the future of our counterinsurgency. When we take this view, we see that a vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force that has failed to produce normalcy after four years and is increasingly unlikely to do so as we continue to arm each warring side.'

Posted by: soldier's perspective | August 19, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

One has to wonder about the ethics of ABC News hiring George Steponallofus to be the host or moderator of any news program.
How can you not laugh at the OBVIOUS fact that these people- Gov.Richardson, George Steponallofus, and Senator Clinton- all worked together in the most incompetent and crooked Presidential administration in American history?
How successful was having Gov Richardson find Monica Lewsinsky a job in the DOD to find Osama Bin Laden? Aren't you curious George?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 19, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

It's been a discouraging weekend for the Lieberman-Kristol-McCain contingent. Yesterday, Jonathan Finer explained that their visits to Baghdad -- after which they boast of widespread "progress" -- are scripted, largely "ceremonial" visits. Their "epiphanies" aren't based on much, and shouldn't be taken too seriously.

Today, champions of the Bush administration's Iraq policy suffered another indignity with a powerful NYT op-ed from seven infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division, who will soon be returning home frustrated and jaded.

Joe Klein said the troops' piece "puts to shame -- and shame is the appropriate word -- all the Kristol, McCain, Lieberman, Pollack and O'Hanlon etc etc cheerleading of the past two months." I think that's exactly right.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 19, 2007 1:17 PM | Report abuse

'At the same time, the most important front in the counterinsurgency, improving basic social and economic conditions, is the one on which we have failed most miserably. Two million Iraqis are in refugee camps in bordering countries. Close to two million more are internally displaced and now fill many urban slums. Cities lack regular electricity, telephone services and sanitation. "Lucky" Iraqis live in gated communities barricaded with concrete blast walls that provide them with a sense of communal claustrophobia rather than any sense of security we would consider normal.

In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, "We need security, not free food."

In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are -- an army of occupation -- and force our withdrawal.'

Posted by: editorial written by soldiers | August 19, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Tragically, a whole bunch of people have died and others are injured but so far, we've heard almost nothing about this "star's" background in pushing unsafe mining techniques and anti-union policies and neither have we heard anything about the fact that the man Bush named to be the "mine safety czar" was such a bad choice for the job that he had to give him a recess appointment with a Republican congress.

It's difficult to know if that being public knowledge would have led to a more prudent rescue attempt. But it certainly would have spared the miners' families having to put up with the "face of the rescue" being the same man whose anti-regulatory, anti-labor policies may very well have led to their loved ones' deaths.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 19, 2007 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Looks -unfortunately-like another election where I vote AGAINST a lot of people.

Posted by: Independent voter | August 19, 2007 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Here's a question for the media: Since when do the owners of mines -- especially owners who have been fined millions of dollars for numerous safety violations -- set the news agenda?

So here we are, 12 days after the first collapse, with three heroic rescuers dead, six others injured, and the original six trapped miners almost certainly lost forever. And, finally, we have Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman suggesting we "focus like never before on workplace safety" (the Governor had better be prepared for the wrath of Murray: when Hillary Clinton made a similar statement months ago about the importance of workplace safety, Murray attacked her as "anti-American.")

So why wasn't the focus on workplace safety the focus of the media from Day One?

All along, Murray called the shots and he wrote the media's script for them.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 19, 2007 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Obama did very well despite having to stand up there the first 15 minutes listening to the other candidates tell the audience how inexperienced he is for president.

George S. threw out a question to Biden, Clinton, Edwards, Dodd, and Richardson about why they think Obama is too inexperienced to be president. I almost threw the TV out the window.

I applaud the senator for handling that segment with grace, class and humor.

Now...let's all sit back and watch as the pundits fall over themselves in their rush to declare Hillary the winner...just watch.

Posted by: Chima | August 19, 2007 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Obama did very well despite having to stand up there the first 15 minutes listening to the other candidates tell the audience how inexperienced he is for president.

George S. threw out a question to Biden, Clinton, Edwards, Dodd, and Richardson about why they think Obama is too inexperienced to be president. I almost threw the TV out the window.

I applaud the senator for handling that segment with grace, class and humor.

Now...let's all sit back and watch as the pundits fall over themselves in their rush to declare Hillary the winner...just watch.

Posted by: Chima | August 19, 2007 1:07 PM | Report abuse

look -- brownie is working in 'counterterrorism' expect an attack any day now.

'Michael Brown, the former federal official who bore the brunt of criticism for the government's handling of Hurricane Katrina, has moved on to a new career -- offering disaster relief and data-mining for government agencies and other customers.

One company he represents, InferX, has found work with the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, Brown says, and is attempting to sell its services to airlines and agencies that monitor passengers for potential terrorist threats.'

this sums up everything that is wrong with 'private business' handlling what should be government business. it's entirely run by incompetent cronies.

Posted by: are you scared yet | August 19, 2007 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Back then, most of the coal industry was unionized, and bright young miners like Cecil Roberts, who is now the United Mine Workers president, got together to make their union stronger and more effective. When they couldn't get the coal companies to protect their lives on the job, the miners went out on several long national strikes to win, among other things, expanded safety rights. They had safety committees at every mine that had real power to get hazards removed before it was too late or shut down the mines. The number of deaths in unionized mines dropped dramatically. Giving miners a real voice in their safety worked.

But in the decades since then, coal companies have followed the national trend of using intimidation and other tactics to transform their industry to be mostly nonunion. It's no coincidence that every time you hear about a big mine disaster these days, you can pretty well assume that, like the Murray Energy mine in Utah, it's in a nonunion operation where the workers have to accept hazardous conditions or go looking for another job.

As Arianna points out, the impression the public gets from most of the media coverage of these disasters is that they are acts of God. But in most cases, precautions that management could have taken are known. As Cecil Roberts says, these disasters usually are "needless and preventable" -- a matter not of chance but of choice

Posted by: why unions prevent deaths | August 19, 2007 1:03 PM | Report abuse

zouk -- it doesn't fool anyone when you post the exact same commment under two different names. You really don't have a life, do you? You are here 7 days a week -- R trolls are truly sick people.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 19, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

'The idea you are going to escape the Republican attack machine and not have high negatives when they are done with you is missing what has been going on in politics for the last 20 years."

The most relevant comment you've reported in a while, CC.. anyone who is the Dem candidate will have high negatives bacause the attack machine will slime them, and the MSM will happily help them, as they always do.

Posted by: Sam | August 19, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Sounds like Clinton and Edwards got their wish: A diminished debate. You leave out the "lesser" candidates, and everything becomes boring. Sure, they "have no chance of winning" (because all the attention is on the Big Three...) but they highlight issues and take risks that the others do not. Biden wants an actual Iraq policy, Kucinich speaks to the classic liberal ideals, Dodd... thinks you want another decade-spanning north eastern senator? Clinton won't outline any specific policies because it might lose her support. Leave her out of the debate and see how much mud gets slung

Posted by: Anonymous | August 19, 2007 12:49 PM | Report abuse

George Stephanopolis was shamefully unprofessional in ignoring and marginalizing Dennis Kucinich, surely the strongest populist candidate in either party. The only one who consistently voted against the war, the only one who promises single-payer health care and not a give-away to insurance companies, who provide no service whatsoever (see SICKO, which has somehow disappeared from the theaters even though people were going in droves). Does anyone think Hillary, who is being stuffed down our throats, isn't the favorite of Republicans and corporate America? Do we want more of the same, or someone on the side of we, the people?

Posted by: shaman7214@sbcglobal.net | August 19, 2007 12:44 PM | Report abuse

George Stephanopolis was shamefully unprofessional in ignoring and marginalizing Dennis Kucinich, surely the strongest populist candidate in either party. The only one who consistently voted against the war, the only one who promises single-payer health care and not a give-away to insurance companies, who provide no service whatsoever (see SICKO, which has somehow disappeared from the theaters even though people were going in droves). Does anyone think Hillary, who is being stuffed down our throats, isn't the favorite of Republicans and corporate America? Do we want more of the same, or someone on the side of we, the people?

Posted by: shaman7214@sbcglobal.net | August 19, 2007 12:44 PM | Report abuse

I cannot believe the MSM continues to let Hillary get away at pretending to be the most experienced candidate. She has only served a couple more years in the Senate than Barack. Other than that, she has NO experience to include no Executive experience. If she believe living in the White House should count for experience then Barbara Bush should be running. I do believ Ms. Thunder Thighs will get the Dem nomination only to be shellacked the Republican Nominee, ALLISON: When they count the votes, a majority of women would have voted Republican.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 19, 2007 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Gravel's senility is getting more and more apparent with each passing debate. We learned first-hand the dangers of a senile septugenarian during Reagan's second term. Some body show some guts and disinvite Gravel to the next (and next, and next) debate.

Posted by: jpgdlc | August 19, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

George S. is a terrible moderator. He did a bad job with the Republican candidates and did a terrible job with the Democrats. He loses control and tries to add his own editorializing.

Posted by: Mike from Ohio | August 19, 2007 12:25 PM | Report abuse

taking Tom Deal Aide out would do wonders for improving the chances of

honesty making a comeback.

work on that.


.

Posted by: actually, | August 19, 2007 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Obama lead in this debate as he does on the issues

Hillary seemed to reinforce some of Obama's statements thinking she portrayed her "experience"

Edwards finally decided to tone down. So he was good today

Dodd started to aggrivate me

Richardson was boring

Biden seemed to want too much sympathy, BUT he was good today

Gravel needs to leave

Kucinich can stop complaining

Posted by: SeanFoots | August 19, 2007 12:18 PM | Report abuse

One more comment, the ONLY White House wedding I am interested in is the Chelsea Clinton wedding which may take place when her mother is President.

Posted by: Allison | August 19, 2007 12:15 PM | Report abuse

I thought Richardson was much better than he's been in the previous debates. It always seemed like he was winging it previously but no matter how bright you are, you need to prepare in order to get your message out in 30-60 seconds.

He did put pressure on the Biden and Clinton to explain why keeping forces in Iraq is a good idea and I don't think they could justify it. As far as the issue about how fast you withdraw, that's just a logistical problem and I think Richardson has shown too much competence in his career to do anything reckless. He just feels you need to keep the timetable as short as practically possible and leaving it open ended is just a way to kick the problem down the road without committing to any particular action.

With this performance and his double-digit polling in both Iowa and NH, I think it's time to start including him in the top-tier. He probably needs a front runner stumble to pass them but at least he's positioning himself to take advantage of an opening if it occurs.

Posted by: wirro | August 19, 2007 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Winners:
Obama - won the battle against Hillary. Sounded the strongest when he said that if he had info on Osama and Pakistan would do nothing, he would take Bin Laden out. That works everywhere. This was his best performance.

Richardson - He actually showed upp. Showed some life and actually became a part of the process.

Edwards - got back to a little bit of the optimism that worked so well for him in 2004.

Losers
Hillary - She lost battles against Obama and Edwards on the lobbyist. Also, Kucinich's line (Was your vote a mistake() wasn't answered, but it hung out there.

Kucinch - Didn't seem to get a chance to speak at this one.

Biden - This was his worst performance. Just not quite there with the same passion. He did well, but he needs to do better.

Whatevers -
Dodd - Had some good answers, but really didn't seem to be a big part.

Gravel - Everyone was laughing at him when he started talking about the 100,000 more soldiers to nuke people on an education problem. Was I the only one that went "what?"

Posted by: vahawk | August 19, 2007 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Hillary Clinton has again clearly demonstrated why she is hands-down the most qualified candidate in the race for President.

Women will carry her into the White House. I know many Dem, Ind and normal Republicans (the ones who want their party back from the crazy neo cons) who will vote for Hillary. The normal R's have had enough of Bush/Cheney and Rove, read the lead story in the Wash Post today. They are willing to see their party go down so they can reclaim and rebuild it. Hillary will benefit from this.

Sen. Clinton will be a great President. Bill is the great bonus.

Wow, the country and world can't wait!

Posted by: Allison | August 19, 2007 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Another photo ops by snow white and the seven dwarves? No wonder John Kerry lost the last election.

Posted by: Will Grosse | August 19, 2007 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Another photo ops by snow white and the seven dwarves? No wonder John Kerry lost the last election.

Posted by: Will Grosse | August 19, 2007 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Chris, one thing I think you missed: Clinton's comment about having fought the Republicans and knowing how to beat them came immediately after Obama's comments about needing to bridge the divide between the parties and change the divisive politics of the past 20 years. Clinton can have all the experience in the world battling Republicans but none of it will matter if she can't get anything done once in the White House. Clinton's response may have been on talking point, but it just served to reinforce Obama's concern.

Posted by: hawkeyebetty | August 19, 2007 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Another photo ops by Snow White and the dwarves! When are these clowns going to become serious?

Posted by: willig | August 19, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Another photo ops by Snow White and the dwarves! When are these clowns going to become serious?

Posted by: willig | August 19, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Another photo ops by Snow White and the dwarves! When are these clowns going to become serious?

Posted by: willig | August 19, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

What I don't get...there's a recent Peter D. Hart poll (Aug 16) out there for ONE that shows Edwards leading in Iowa among likely caucus goers...results are Edwards 30%, Clinton 22%, Obama 18%.

Is this an anamoly? Is it indicative of a trend?

It's kinda frustrating reading the "neck and neck" motif but then finding stuff like this out in the back-pages...

Posted by: Jen Q | August 19, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

to what needs to be said ...

Im sure Bill will be happy to be a roving ambassador for President Obama.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 19, 2007 11:57 AM | Report abuse

no one wins if any of the candidates are diminished...

however, weaknesses need to be exposed....

a Whitehouse w/o a Clinton in '08 is a vulnerable Whitehouse...


Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton both had to do some tap dancing in order to keep from losing some toes...

Bill was a better dancer, not a nicer guy, not a smarter guy, a more saavy guy...


nice guys will finish, and then be dismembered by the scavengers, that will nip them, start the bleeding and then manipulate the situation...


you want to have a better world? start removing the parasites and think about a team that you want in the Whitehouse...


selectively start destroying the scavengers, by nameing them...


sunnis/al Queada being backed by the bushCO & Cronys team is a reality, if bushCO pulls out, the Saudis are being prepped to move in...


assassination of a candidate or speaker of the house is not off the table for these guys.... anyone that would kill JFK and his brother, needs to meet some ice....


we don't need none of that.

.

Posted by: what needs to be said is this... | August 19, 2007 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Why don't the moderator's hold the candidates to answering the questions that are posed, instead of going off on tangents and spewing out the pre canned messages thay they choose to deliver??

Posted by: Alton | August 19, 2007 11:53 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company