Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Democratic Debate: Winners and Losers

DES MOINES, Iowa -- The final Democratic debate before the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses is in the books.

Rather than give Fix readers a roundup of what just happened (you can get that here from the AP's Nedra Pickler), we figured we would take a page from the fast-moving campaign and jump right in to the winners and losers. (We also need to get to work on tomorrow's new Presidential Line; these things don't just write themselves, ya know.)

But first a reminder: These rankings are the views of one man and therefore inherently subjective. We encourage you to offer your own winners and losers in the space below.

And now, without further ado, the winners and losers!

WINNERS

Joe Biden: Biden was extraordinary today. Not only did he speak specifically and with authority on issues both foreign and domestic, he was able to tie all of his arguments together under the umbrella of taking action and setting priorities. Biden also beat back the toughest question of the day when moderator Carolyn Ashburn asked him whether his past verbal gaffes in relation to race reflected a level of discomfort with the issue. "I got involved in politics because of the civil rights movement," Biden said with real emotion, adding that his career in the Senate reflected that commitment. When he finished speaking, all of his rivals offered a "huzzah" for his answer. Biden also played to Iowans' vanity by praising them as the foundation of democracy and asserting their right to be first. A complete performance by The Fix's Iowa darkhorse.

Barack Obama: Obama will never be the best debater of the bunch but today he showed how much he has improved. He used almost every answer to make his case that real change in politics is only possible if he is the nominee, and to broaden the argument from one about specific issues to one about the tenor and tone of political discourse. "We need leadership from the White House that restores that sense we are all in this together and are not in this on our own," Obama said. Obama also seemed more willing than in past debates to let viewers in on his personal life. He told of buying a Christmas tree with his daughters yesterday before jetting back to Washington to cast votes to illustrate the strain that running for president puts on a family; "The only reason that is worth that sacrifice is if somehow my participation in public life is having a broader impact on their lives and the lives of children all across the country" Obama explained. Powerful stuff.

John Edwards (First 45 minutes): Edwards is, without question, one of the most gifted (if not the most gifted) debater on any stage. And, for the first 45 minutes of the debate his populist "us versus them" message really hit home. "Corporate power and greed have literally taken over the government," he said at one point; "You have to be willing to fight....I have been fighting these people and winning my entire life," he said at another. As the debate wore on, however, Edwards' riff on the "people versus the powerful" started to grate on us a bit as he seemed to be so focused on pushing that message that he didn't really answer any of the specific questions posed to him. That might have just been us, of course. The Edwards team was quick to point out that the Fox News Channel focus group gave their candidate a smashing victory in the debate. We can see why but felt he faded out a bit as the debate wore on.

Hillary Clinton (Second 45 minutes): At the start of the debate, Clinton seemed content to offer a series of talking points on issues like balancing the budget and fixing Social Security -- a bipartisan commission might well be the right answer but it sounds a lot like politics as usual in Washington in an election where voters want anything but that. Starting with her "free statement" about halfway through the debate, however, Clinton kicked it into a higher gear. In 30 seconds or so, she summed up her campaign's message for the final 21 days before Iowa: "Everybody on this stage has an idea about how to get change. Some believe you get change by demanding it, some believe you get it by hoping for it. I believe you get it by working hard for change."

That's as concise a message about why Hillary (and why not Obama and Edwards) as we have heard from the Clinton campaign. Clinton also managed to humanize herself a bit in the debate's second half, referencing that her daughter, Chelsea, was in the crowd and talking about how she had been "eating her way across the state." Not a home run for Clinton but perhaps enough to arrest the "she's sliding" storyline. (Of course, this news, which broke as the debate ended, complicates that effort.)

LOSERS

Bill Richardson: Unlike past debates where Richardson struggled to make time for himself amid a barrage of questions asked of the frontrunners, today he was awarded ample time to make his case to Iowa voters. And, while he didn't fail, he also didn't succeed. From the very start of these debates (lo those many months ago), Richardson always seems to be trying to put too much into his answers; he was the only one of the candidates on stage who repeatedly violated the time restrictions, forcing the moderator to interrupt him. Richardson had his moments (his New Year's resolution, as it is every year, is to lose weight, he said) but there weren't enough of them, especially when you consider the amount of time he was given.

The Republican Field: For those spartan few of us who watched both debates, one thing was crystal clear: the Democratic field was far deeper and more impressive. That's not to say it is and will always be so. But today the Democrats on stage engaged in a civil but edifying debate on issues that each candidate seemed well versed on and ready to talk about. It was a stark contrast to the Republican gathering, which was largely hijacked by former Ambassador Alan Keyes.

By Chris Cillizza  |  December 13, 2007; 4:50 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Democratic Debate Preview: Do or Die for Clinton?
Next: Giuliani to Outline Governing Vision

Comments

Edwards WAS ideed electable, as a VP. In fact he was indeed elected as the VP. But both he and John Kerry played along with the FAKE election and refused to fight for what was rightfully theirs.

Only one day after the election in 2004 was obviously stolen, they both conceded defeat and disappeared.

That took most of the legitimacy of fighting for their right to occupy the White House.

Of course, even if they did take the White House, they still would have done the bidding of the corporate oligarchy, so the election of 2004 offered us a false choice, again. Just as the one coming up is also being set up with a false choice.

Aside from that, why on Earth would anyone want to vote for Edwards now? He has proven himself to be a traitor to the American people.

John Kerry knew what he did was wrong. That is why he chose not to run again. But Edwards thinks he can fool us again, but he can't, and neither can the other corporate sponsored candidates.

Remember, a vote for either Edwards, Hillary, Obama or any Republican is a vote for the corporate oligarchy.

The only qualified candidate that will fight the corporatocracy is Dennis Kucinich.

www.dennis4president.com

Posted by: kevinschmidt | December 18, 2007 4:47 PM | Report abuse

"As for the 60's, rufus, it was all about hedonism and spoiled Middle class kids running wild. I recall vividly hitchhiking to SF during the "Summer Of Love". After "sharing" my money with my fellow hippies I ended up broke around the first of August. I called my parents, who graciously wired me money for a plane ticket home. My last memory of SF was seeing two beautiful young girls on the street (they couldn't have been any older than 18), one selling the other to raise enough money for gods knows what. THAT, and "hippy love-share" (I love, you share) are what the 60's are all about for me.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 13, 2007 08:29 PM
"

Alternate capitalism? Man. SAd. From what I've read, the music, and the documentaries I watched, it seemed like their minds were right. Seems like the lsd scene and acid destroyed it. But what do I know, I wasn't born yet.

I asked my pop how we got here from the 60's. He metioned drugs, iran. Very sad. The flower children had the world in their fingers. If only they knew where to go from here, like WE do.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 14, 2007 10:59 AM | Report abuse

"CNN as well as Fox News had focus groups watching the debate, a total of 57 undecided Democratic voters in Iowa. Both groups agreed that John Edwards had won the debate. Do not be surprized if Edwards wins Iowa ,especially when Obama and Hillary are fighting.

Posted by: cutellimark | December 13, 2007 11:42 PM
"

Really? The fox one I saw with that propogandist frank luntz had obama winning

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 14, 2007 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Could there be a more inside-the-Beltway analysis than this? All the Senators did well and the only candidate from outside-the-Beltway is hammered.

Funny that David Yepsen [http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=PluckPersona&U=3a86a5c341684631abb59d87c02a2df8&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckUserId=3a86a5c341684631abb59d87c02a2df8&plckPostId=Blog%3a3a86a5c341684631abb59d87c02a2df8Post%3a7673310a-cc46-498b-80b8-6611d94c192e&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest]saw it completely differently -

"Give Thursday's debate among the Democratic presidential candidates to the second tier candidates, particularly Joe Biden.

Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson turned in some of their best debate performances of the 2008 campaign and were the day's biggest gainers."

Posted by: baseball_fan4life | December 14, 2007 10:31 AM | Report abuse

In response to the below question, Joe Biden is in the viable category in regards to having the wisdom and leadership to be our next President. The only thing he is lacking is appropriate media coverage for the rest of the nation to realize that Joe is a frontrunner. Once people open their eyes to look at Joe Biden they will realize he is the best choice. Joe Biden has my vote!

Also, a political columnist from the DesMoines Register, David Yepsen, has declared Biden the debate winner as well. Here is the link

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071213/NEWS/312130004/-1/NEWS04#gslPageReturn&

Posted by: nasims | December 14, 2007 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Wow--plenty of Clinton staffers on hand for this morning's comments.

Any Clinton supporter who thinks Obama is unelectable needs to get a grip. 50% of the electorate has consistently said that they would NEVER vote for Hillary. Not exactly the kind of numbers you want to start of a general election campaign with.

Bush and Clinton fatigue is dragging this country DOWN.

Posted by: elroy1 | December 14, 2007 9:32 AM | Report abuse

Chris,
I have to tell you, I believe Biden looks like, acts like and should be our next President. I think his debate performances continue to improve and he would be the strongest and most compelling voice for the whole country in the general. I still hope for the Biden/Obama ticket.

Posted by: dab23 | December 14, 2007 9:24 AM | Report abuse

I wonder if Obama would have the support he has if he had been subject to the same level of Interrogation that Clinton endured.

Why not ask why, as an "anti-war" candidate, Obama went to Connecticut and campaigned for Lieberman's reelection in 2006?

Why did he travel with Donnie McClurkin - a nutty homophobe?

Why did sponsor a bill that would benefit the coal industry and spew pollutants into the air and contribute to global warming?

All Obama sets is soft-ball from the interviewers.

Posted by: lennyjazz | December 14, 2007 8:49 AM | Report abuse

Thought I should share this with you:

Obama awarded

"Person of the Year" award

http://www.seferm.com/sefermspecials/personoftheyear/person-of-year.asp

Posted by: ensure365 | December 14, 2007 8:39 AM | Report abuse

Chris, why is none of the mainstream media even questioning the Des Moines Register decision to exclude Dennis Kucinich from the Democrats debate, and yet their equally puzzling decision to allow Alan Keyes in the Republican debate? That doesn't begin to pass the "smell test," and yet they seem to be getting a complete pass on it. Can you say "disparate treatment?"


Posted by: gasmonkey | December 14, 2007 8:30 AM | Report abuse

markinaustin: I found it and Bookmarked it, commented, suggested reading, what I did on a previous thread here as well. "The Fix" 26 Mar 07 entitled "Bill Shaheen: Brokering Middle East Peace?".

Posted by: lylepink | December 14, 2007 5:50 AM | Report abuse

Cilizza looking for an in with a future president by unabashedly trumpeting everything Clinton. She was nowhere near any of the other candidates. Please, Chris, can we hear more about head versus heart? Please? Who in their right mind, or "head" would back Clinton? Please look at the "What She Got Wrong Feature" on the WashPost feature. She sounds like George W Bush on the Iraq War. If she wins, thanks alot Chris. Hope she was all you ever wanted.

Posted by: Cameron_Carter | December 14, 2007 2:53 AM | Report abuse

Hillary's "electability" farce is pretty funny considering
1. She loses to republicans in current polls or wins by smaller margins than Obama OR Edwards.

and 2. Hillary says she can beat the republicans, so what does it mean if Obama is beating HER? Logic says that if Hillary can beat the repubs, and Obama can beat Hillary, Obama can beat the republicans, too! Duh.


p.s. Hillary's claim that she can beat the republicans is just unfounded. I think she is absolutely the LEAST ELECTABLE in a general election. (and current polls back up my opinion)

Posted by: julieds | December 14, 2007 2:51 AM | Report abuse

I agree with Chris Cilizza that John Edwards has become very tiresome. This is a man with a $55 million personal fortune and all he does is poor-mouth the country. Its not an accurate representation of the country and Edwards really does look like a terrible hypocrite with his own lavish lifestyle. He is so angry at people he calls "the wealthy" who mostly have less than he has. Its so Hollywoodish.

Posted by: Malia2 | December 14, 2007 1:35 AM | Report abuse

You can tell Kuccinich was the real deal because they didnt let him particpate. Its sad when the media tells us whos acceptable to vote for and who might cause some change.

Posted by: waawaazaire | December 14, 2007 1:27 AM | Report abuse

The immediate, spontaneous response by the other presidential candidates in support of Senator Biden when he was asked about his commitment to civil rights was striking as well as heartfelt. It was obvious to all but the most jaundiced observers that Biden commands a lot of respect, even from his competitors. Seems like an ideal person to bring the party together for the fall campaign, no? Why not the best?

Martin Edwin Andersen
Churchton, Maryland 20733

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | December 14, 2007 12:07 AM | Report abuse

If Bill Clinton succeeds in rescuing his wife's campaign and makes it back into the Oval Office, will he once again have interns on his staff?

Posted by: onwaj6 | December 13, 2007 11:49 PM | Report abuse

CNN as well as Fox News had focus groups watching the debate, a total of 57 undecided Democratic voters in Iowa. Both groups agreed that John Edwards had won the debate. Do not be surprized if Edwards wins Iowa ,especially when Obama and Hillary are fighting.

Posted by: cutellimark | December 13, 2007 11:42 PM | Report abuse

I have just finished watching both DMR debates and Ms. Washburn is such a schoolmarm that she reminded me of why I hated Jr. High 5 times - for myself and for each of my kids.

drindl, in Austin we call hail, sleet, pellets, and wet sheets of ice "ice storms".

We actually think of pellets as typical hail, and golf ball hail as bad hail. The pellets sound like bbs on the roof. Snow once a decade, ice every two years, or more often.

MikeB, I only shoot the wily skeet! Steelheads sound like great fun, though.

bsimon and JD, I think history shows 4 tix out of IA is not unusual. But it narrows in NH and SC if you do not already have the money for the big one salted away.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 13, 2007 11:12 PM | Report abuse

JD writes
"Remember, only 3 tickets get punched out of Iowa... Caucuses will finish Obama first, HRC 2nd, and Edwards 3rd (unless they catch him with a dead girl or a live boy before then). Biden, Dodd, etc: see ya."

JD, in that scenario, I'd call Edwards the guy on his way out. For him, 3rd in Iowa is below expectations. For Biden, a 4th there is a big surge. Granted, place rankings don't say a lot; the delegate counts will clarify the situation.

Posted by: bsimon | December 13, 2007 10:52 PM | Report abuse

claudia asks
"it's not hail--it's these evensized pellets of ice and it looks like snow on the ground, then you step on it and it's like walking on frozen ball bearings. cars piled up all over the place here. I wondering if there was a way of saying it as a verb --like snowing. Or do you just say, 'it's ice pelleting today.'"

Never heard of it. Could be frozen rain, if there's warm air aloft & freezing below, but it would usually fall as rain, then freeze. What you describe, I'd probably call hail!

Posted by: bsimon | December 13, 2007 10:48 PM | Report abuse

Obama/Biden '08.

Posted by: thecrisis | December 13, 2007 10:43 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin- If you ever get out this way again, let's make plans to get together. I'll take you out fly fishing for those famous McKenzie redsides and steelhead. Sounds hard to believe but we regularly land 6 to 8 steelhead a day here. Not too big, mostly in the 6 to 10 pound range, but they run like bonefish and when they leap 6 feet straight up, your heart stops. I "catch and release" my fish. If you're into upland game birds we have lots of partridge, mostly Redleg/French, and if you're up for a heart attack we can chase them up and down the mountains all day, too. (P.S. leave the nice o/u at home if you come. The Deschutes "hills" are a mile straight up and down and that o/u will weight 10,000 pounds by the end of the day. You want a pump!)

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 13, 2007 10:18 PM | Report abuse

In my opinion, you nailed it, CC, on the dem candidates as well as the dem vs rep debate. Biden, Obama, Edwards was exactly how I ranked them.

I listened to a bit of commentary afterwards and wanted to scream! Why do the pundits always seek out the worse in people? Apparently, they aren't happy unless there is controversy. They aren't happy unless the candidates attack each other. As a democrat, I was proud of the candidates today.

Posted by: claire2 | December 13, 2007 10:12 PM | Report abuse

MikeB, I did know that Kesey called Eugene home.
My eldest daughter attended Ore summer of 1991 and I visited her during the midsummer break. She took me to the "Oregon Country Fair." Reminded me of Austin [and Berkeley] in '68.
Was in SF in Aug. '66 and stayed one night in the Y, three nights camped on Mt. Tam. Three coldest August nights I ever spent. My friend Randy and I did visit the Haight but found it uninteresting and mainly hiked all over the west side from Golden Gate Park to The Palace of the Legion of Honor and back toward the Marina. Ate a lot of good cheap Italian.

But the goal of our trip was actually Monterrey because we were Steinbeck fans.
And that was a whole other story.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 13, 2007 9:50 PM | Report abuse

jillcinta - Face it, Dodd, just like Kucinich, is going nowhere. Both are good people, would make great Presidents, but they didn't have the campaign organization to get them into contention. Biden still has a chance, Edwards still has a pretty good chance, but the front runners are Obama and Clinton. I think an Edwards-Biden ticket (either guy on top) would be unbeatable, but I sure wont cry if Obama is the nominee. Even Clinton seems to have "gotten it" about the economy being THE issue and, if she runs in opposition to outsourcing and corporate welfare, she will overcome her negatives and win, too.

The Republican's have one truly decent guy, McCain (with current policies that are not what voters want), and I expect the R. insiders and shakers to not give him a chance. The election goes Democrat.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 13, 2007 9:47 PM | Report abuse

WHEN are you going to start talking about Biden when you are on the talk shows.

Please start telling everyone about Biden.
He is the best of all of them.

And you forgot Dodd....who also had an excellent performance.

Posted by: jillcinta | December 13, 2007 9:18 PM | Report abuse

lyle, bsimon was not referring to a college paper when he invoked "The Trail". This i what he meant:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 13, 2007 8:59 PM | Report abuse

ll in all, it was a good day for all the candidates: Hillary Clinton looked enthusiastic and ready to discuss substance, Edwards was back to his sunny 2004 image, and Obama was more posed and presidential than ever. But in a stunning reversal, it was Clinton who was trying to score points against her rivals rather than the other way around. As for the second-tier candidates, they got much more airtime than usual and used it well.

The debate is not likely to change many people's minds in that few contrasts were drawn; but every candidate was right on message and people's impressions are likely to be confirmed. Insofar as Clinton needed a strong showing that would slow down talk of her slide and vulnerabilities, she got it. Insofar as Obama wanted to avoid major showdowns that could reverse the storyline of his momentum, he got that too. And insofar as Edwards's hope in the next three weeks is to capture the spirit of Iowa nice, he still has every chance of prevailing on January 3rd.

Read full analysis: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/12/dmr-debate-all-candidates-get-what-they.html

Posted by: campaigndiaries | December 13, 2007 8:55 PM | Report abuse

No Thank You Mama - I'm for Obama !

Barack Obama for President of the United States of America

Posted by: PulSamsara | December 13, 2007 8:33 PM | Report abuse

rufus, mark - mark is completely correct. We smoked a little pot and dropped acid back in the 60's because of hedonism and peer pressure. It had nothing to do with "enlightenment" or any other nonsense. And, the vast majority of us got tired of wasting money and time and quit after a year or so. In spite of what the ads say, pot and LSD etc. aren't any more dangerous than alcohol. All of them are a waste of time and money and no one over the age of 25 with an ounce of common sense does anything other than drink an occasional beer or glass of wine. Obama captures what most of us think about that stuff precisely.

As for the 60's, rufus, it was all about hedonism and spoiled Middle class kids running wild. I recall vividly hitchhiking to SF during the "Summer Of Love". After "sharing" my money with my fellow hippies I ended up broke around the first of August. I called my parents, who graciously wired me money for a plane ticket home. My last memory of SF was seeing two beautiful young girls on the street (they couldn't have been any older than 18), one selling the other to raise enough money for gods knows what. THAT, and "hippy love-share" (I love, you share) are what the 60's are all about for me.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 13, 2007 8:29 PM | Report abuse

The debate format was not helpful to Obama or Edwards. Without the opportunity to attack, their inexperience and shallow grasp of the issues was all the more apparent.

The debate showed how shallow Obama's knowledge of the issues are - how he stammers when he's out of his depth, how he changes the topic. With Edwards, his strategy is going back to his talking point, over and over again without showing any depth. It's quite obvious that the other candidates on the stage have a better grasp of the issues. It's embarrassing to watch considering that these two are supposed to be frontrunners.

Biden and Dodd shone and Clinton and Richardson was not far behind. The format of the debate was really helpful in showing who's just bluster and who really has the experience.

Posted by: andurilaiglos | December 13, 2007 8:22 PM | Report abuse

Joe Biden, I couldn't agree more that he was the best.

One moment in the debate highlighted why for me, the question about the New Year's resolution, Biden clearly thought about the question, and he got genuinely choked up.

Straight talker, leads with conviction, he has experience and is ready to lead our country back to one.

Biden thank you, if you can't win at least the other candidates will take your lead.

Posted by: kshea32 | December 13, 2007 8:22 PM | Report abuse

connectdots- Agreed. And, if Hillary is dead serious about her new stand opposing outsouring (and comes up with acceptable means of preventing it and punishing companies that do it) and stops with the negative campaigning I might just have to go on a strict diet of crow. (e.g. I'd vote for her.)

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 13, 2007 8:14 PM | Report abuse

For the first time, all the Democratic candidates looked presidential, with Hillary Clinton's best moment coming en route to the debate, apologizing to Obama for her New Hampshire co-chair's snide statement about Obama's "drug use."

Obama himself had a moment of grace by volunteering to back Joe Biden against charges of racism.

http://ajliebling.blogspot.com/2007/12/best-behavior.html

Posted by: connectdots | December 13, 2007 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Remember, only 3 tickets get punched out of Iowa. Does anyone really believe that Biden will edge out one of the others?

If not, then... I don't know, seems like a waste of time. Caucuses will finish Obama first, HRC 2nd, and Edwards 3rd (unless they catch him with a dead girl or a live boy before then). Biden, Dodd, etc: see ya.

Posted by: JD | December 13, 2007 7:50 PM | Report abuse

I just want to know when Republicans decided that Democrats weren't American.

Posted by: thecrisis | December 13, 2007 7:36 PM | Report abuse

"Rufus, MikeB and I were on opposite sides of the "drug divide" but I bet we will agree that hedonism and experimentation were the drivers for many people, that "fitting in" was a driver for some, that hearing stuff that was not actually in the music was a driver for some - but that hardly anybody in the youth culture of '66-'68 was doing any Leary style mind exploration. Guys in service were using to numb the emotional pain - just like problem drinkers do.

Most heavy potheads were not as funny as Cheech and Chong. They were pretty lame.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 13, 2007 07:15 PM
"

Ok. But what about the leary's of the movement? Which side where they on?

i watched a movie on andy warhol. i had thought he was with me. I thought he was with the left. Making fun of capitalism and showing how insignifigant the things he painted were. As I dug I saw he was on the other side. Damaged my mental psyh for a day. :)

So their was an idealogiacal war waging. Intermixed. Both saw beauty in waht they did. Both sides were right. other than the conservaitve non-comabatants who stayed out.

What changed? how did we get so polar? did the conservaitves try and stomp out both sides. those not liek them? How did we get here? I don't trust the histroy books anymore. :) I'd rather get it from someone who lived it. You seem to be a rationale man. Although we disagree about much. And I could be wrong about everything I say, maybe not. Enlighten me.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 13, 2007 7:23 PM | Report abuse

the republicans are terrified of an Obama nomination because their attacks will come across as what they are - racist, bigoted and unfounded. How do you attack someone who speaks so powerfully and with so much hope and optimism that it leaves thousands in tears after every speech?

Posted by: thecrisis | December 13, 2007 07:12 PM
"

Lie spin and discredit. Divide and conquer. That is the new gop platform. Choosing party over county was is and always will be treason. The gop picks party over country. As a result they are done for a generation. The are playing to the racist southerner. the angry white man. But what if the angry white man turns on them for lying nonstop to them? Why hasn't this happened yet? Why does the right continue to watch fox, continue to listen to rush, after they have been shown for lying fascist propogandists?


SOOO un-american.

Sorry I had to add that for a chuckle :)


I think the 08 election will wake-up them, when the 06 sweep did not, for some reason. the right was dylusional then. Now they have ventured off the deep end. But if we know the propogandists are lying fascists yet the right still follows, where do we go from there?

I say screw them, like they say with me. Leave them behind n the wind. Break any laws sabotage your country for politics, treason. Stop the war on drugs, get those americans out of jail. Put real law breaks and traiotrs in their sted.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 13, 2007 7:18 PM | Report abuse

the republicans are terrified of an Obama nomination because their attacks will come across as what they are - racist, bigoted and unfounded. How do you attack someone who speaks so powerfully and with so much hope and optimism that it leaves thousands in tears after every speech?

Posted by: thecrisis | December 13, 2007 07:12 PM
"

Lie spin and discredit. Divide and conquer. That is the new gop platform. Choosing party over county was is and always will be treason. The gop picks party over country. As a result they are done for a generation. The are playing to the racist southerner. the angry white man. But what if the angry white man turns on them for lying nonstop to them? Why hasn't this happened yet? Why does the right continue to watch fox, continue to listen to rush, after they have been shown for lying fascist propogandists?


SOOO un-american.

Sorry I had to add that for a chuckle :)


I think the 08 election will wake-up them, when the 06 sweep did not, for some reason. the right was dylusional then. Now they have ventured off the deep end. But if we know the propogandists are lying fascists yet the right still follows, where do we go from there?

I say screw them, like they say with me. Leave them behind n the wind. Break any laws sabotage your country for politics, treason. Stop the war on drugs, get those americans out of jail. Put real law breakers and traiotrs in their sted.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 13, 2007 7:18 PM | Report abuse

Rufus, MikeB and I were on opposite sides of the "drug divide" but I bet we will agree that hedonism and experimentation were the drivers for many people, that "fitting in" was a driver for some, that hearing stuff that was not actually in the music was a driver for some - but that hardly anybody in the youth culture of '66-'68 was doing any Leary style mind exploration. Guys in service were using to numb the emotional pain - just like problem drinkers do.

Most heavy potheads were not as funny as Cheech and Chong. They were pretty lame.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 13, 2007 7:15 PM | Report abuse

And the republicans know that the only way any of their candidates could beat Obama is through their usual smear/distort/lie negative campaigning. Obama came clean on the drug use, neutralizing their one easy attack on him. What are they going to do, say that his honesty is dangerous for the country?

Posted by: thecrisis | December 13, 2007 7:15 PM | Report abuse

the republicans are terrified of an Obama nomination because their attacks will come across as what they are - racist, bigoted and unfounded. How do you attack someone who speaks so powerfully and with so much hope and optimism that it leaves thousands in tears after every speech?

Posted by: thecrisis | December 13, 2007 7:12 PM | Report abuse

I would have to say that the lack of a clear winner is a win for the candidate in the lead and with the momentum - and for the first time that is Barack Obama. He had a nice answer to Hillary on the Clinton adviser question too.

So sad to see that most of the anti-Obama forces are down to arguing that Obama should have lied about his past drug use (hooray for lying!), or that Americans will not vote for a black man and the Republicans will win easily in a general. I tell you what, for the general I want a candidate who has taken on a big, negative machine and won. A candidate who has a 67% favorable rating rather than a 50% unfavorable rating. A candidate who spots you a 5-10% lead against Huckabee and a 13% lead against Romney. That candidate is Obama, not Hillary.

Guess what, race and the madrassa smear will not play in the general. They will go over badly enough with the independents and moderate Republicans that we will see any member of the Rep campaign who brings them up gone just about as fast as Shaheen today.

Posted by: Nissl | December 13, 2007 7:04 PM | Report abuse

27, maybe you can answer my question, since I trust your opinion ore than mark's anyway. What is your take on the 60's? Why the turn? Where are teh flower children now? Why are they not calling teh shots?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 13, 2007 6:57 PM | Report abuse

from teh republcain popoganda site, politico, so take it for waht it's worth

"Question:

After the final pre-caucus debate, which of these Democratic front-runners do you think will win Iowa?
Answers:

Hillary Clinton
(24 %)

John Edwards
(9 %)

Barack Obama
(59 %)

None of the above
(9 %)
"

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 13, 2007 6:56 PM | Report abuse

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times." :)

For the freedom, not the drugs. What happened? Why did the movement win then turn? The 70's? the 80's? What the heck was that about? Turned from mind enlightenment to hedonism?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 13, 2007 6:51 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin - One other quick story. You knew that Ken Kesey was from Eugene, didn't you? Well, my wife attended Bible Study Fellowship with his wife for many years here. She was a children's leader.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 13, 2007 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Leahry was involved with the cia, no? Mind experiments?

Was it all a gop ploy to kill my movement? To fog the debate. To prolong the war?

I'm still trying to grasp the 60's. So much good, so much bad. VEry pertinant to the times today. Teh leaders of that time should be our leaders now. Waht happened? Where are the flower children? did they sell us out and become what they hated?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 13, 2007 6:48 PM | Report abuse

I was thinkign about this mark. I watched that movie "Across the universe". Set in the 60's. I was thinking about the place of the tim learys of the 60's. Let me ask you since I wasn't born yet :).

I see an enlighten movement in the 60's. In the begining they said, "smoke this ,read this". The mvoement pasted on by the beats.

I see how the republcains get into the left's milk to sabotage it, in some cases. Here is my question mark. for my enlightenment, not an attack.

Are the timn leary's gop sabotuers? Are they their to turn the movement away from it's orignial poltical goal, into a hedonistic " do what you want" freedom? The tim leary's with their "tune in drop out " message. Was it gop sabotage of lennon and other democratic socialists movement? ENlighten me. I thought abou this the other day.

i see many people turned the mvoement into somethign it was not. "Drugs, all the drugs you can handle all the time. Screw everyting else. "Was gop it sabotage of a political movement?"

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 13, 2007 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Neat story mark_in_austin. I met them in the spring of 1967. I think I'm pretty typical of my generation. In 1967 I smoked pot, took LSB, and even tried Peyote (NOT recommended!). In 1968 I graduated to alcohol...vast quantities of beer at keg parties from my sophmore year in college until my first child was born. Then, I quit everything. My drugs of choice these days are my high blood pressure medicine and the statin I take for choloresterol. My high is gotten by playing with my grand daughter (who will grow up to be a member of the family trap team by the time she's 10.)

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 13, 2007 6:45 PM | Report abuse

How much money has Hillary Clinton raised for Republicans, by being the bogeyman target of their appeals, compared to Barack Obama?

Posted by: jon.morgan.1999 | December 13, 2007 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Who won the Des Moines Register Democratic Debate in Iowa?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1296

.

Posted by: jeffboste | December 13, 2007 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Obama is the Republicans' dream opponent. That's why they attack Hillary every chance they can get. I'm sure President Kerry, who also won the nomination on his "electability", agrees with you.

Posted by: jon.morgan.1999 | December 13, 2007 06:32 PM
"

right. And why are the r candidates attacking hillary like she is teh candidate if they don't want her. You know who they fear by who they DON"T talk about. fo xmentions hillary everyday. They got a guy that comes on fox only to bash clinton (dick morris). No. If they wanted obama, you bet they would be forcing him down our throughts. They are forcing clinton. Clinton got money from fox. Only of the d's I know that did

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 13, 2007 6:37 PM | Report abuse

"rufus - On illegal immigration, listen to mark! If we do, as I have advocated in the past, deport all illegals they take their kids with them. But, those kids, having been born here, and due to some Supreme Court decision mark cited (and I checked) they ARE U.S. citizens and can and likely will come back."

I feel you believe me. But their parents shouldn't have done what they did. The parents have a choice. LEave the children with someone and try to come back legally, or take them with.

You might say, MAtt you claim to be a democratic socialist, how can you say this aren't you for open borders. One day. When the time is right we can get rid of the borders. But not teh illegal's way. Not strong arming the system. One day once we perfect our democractic system here, the results will be undeniable. Every country will want a piece of the freedom and happiness ameria is. But that day is not now. We must get our governmetn right before opening the border, if that is what WE choose to do. But the illegals strong arming the system then saying this is their country. Not cool with me personally.

i feel you perspectie and respect it. My job housing and socail markets are flooded out in here the west.

I'm not for rounding up, here is the solution. Work, housing, social programs. illegals need these things. So card them there. I know I get carded for these things.

But it gets down to accountability. This is not a gop issue as it's been swun 27. regan offered the last blanket amnesty. You know I think the clintons are moderate republcains. So what have the republcains done since regan's last pardon if this is their issue? Slave labor, that's all it is.

If we need accountability, we need to enforce the laws. But I respect your point of view. Bush going to jail iraq and the econmoy are the issues I'm concerned with. My to cents.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 13, 2007 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Who won the Des Moines Register Republican Debate in Iowa?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1286


.

Posted by: jeffboste | December 13, 2007 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Obama is the Republicans' dream opponent. That's why they attack Hillary every chance they can get. I'm sure President Kerry, who also won the nomination on his "electability", agrees with you.

Posted by: jon.morgan.1999 | December 13, 2007 6:32 PM | Report abuse

The drug war has already been lost. Condolences!

Obama's candor about having tried illegal drugs--like Al Gore's in 1988--is refreshing and ultimately no big deal. I prefer honesty to perfection any day. Voters have proven repeatedly that they want leaders who are authentic, even if they don't always agree with them. Maybe this is part of why polls show Obama beating the Republicans Hillary would lose to.

Posted by: jon.morgan.1999 | December 13, 2007 6:22 PM | Report abuse

rufus - On illegal immigration, listen to mark! If we do, as I have advocated in the past, deport all illegals they take their kids with them. But, those kids, having been born here, and due to some Supreme Court decision mark cited (and I checked) they ARE U.S. citizens and can and likely will come back. Do you really want thousands, maybe millions, of U.S. citizens being raised in Mexico as Mexican's? Not me! I want 'em raised here and if that means handing out green cards and fast tracking for citizenship their mothers and father, so be it. It will cost us billions but it is in our long term interest. (BUT, I still want the WALL built to prevent further illegals.)

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 13, 2007 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Seems to me Bill Clinton was a better debater than John Edwards. Not to mention the brilliant on his feet Rep. Barney Frank.

Posted by: jon.morgan.1999 | December 13, 2007 6:17 PM | Report abuse

"I think that Iowa will do us (D) a big favor. We'll elect a democrat in 08. A white male - Edwards. The USA will not elect a BM or WF to the office."

Racist sexist repubclainss won't elcet them, thanks for sure. But you are not americans, are you? You are party loyalists.

All americans/people are created eqaul. Do you believe in this principle gop, or not?

Get out of teh 60's. The year is 2007.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 13, 2007 6:15 PM | Report abuse

MikeB, you will like this story. In 1969 or 70, Ken Kesey parked his multicolored bus in front of my law office for two weeks. I met Kesey and Timothy Leary. They both appeared sober at the time I met them. Parades of chicklets walked in and out of the bus.

They stayed up at Dave Hickey's place about 5 blocks north of our office and Hickey asked my law partner, who was his friend, if the multicolored bus could stay in front of our office, where there was not metered parking at the time.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 13, 2007 6:13 PM | Report abuse

I think that Iowa will do us (D) a big favor. We'll elect a democrat in 08. A white male - Edwards. The USA will not elect a BM or WF to the office.

Posted by: WiltonManorsSteve | December 13, 2007 6:12 PM | Report abuse

"My only questions about Obama are with his ties to lobbyests and the Wall Street crowd."

Here here. i have called him on this.

alnother issue for me personally is illegal immagration ,living in the west. I wish he would get on the right side of that issue. Nobody would be able to call him "Anti-immagrant". It would be impossible. He would get a tidal wave of support and blow by clinton. Doesn't look like he's going to do it. It's called compromise gop. LEarn it. Love it. You cannot have everything your way every single time. Only elementary school kids get everythign they've always wanted.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 13, 2007 6:08 PM | Report abuse

MikeB, I never used any drugs except beer, but I probably would have used steroids if they had been around so that I could have thrown hard for more than five innings.

I do get your point. When I was licensed in 1967, UT kids offered to pay their lawyers in dope and it was everywhere. Of course the APD would have liked nothing better than to bust a criminal defense lawyer who was using - and sometimes they did - lawyers older than I who wanted to be "accepted" by young pothead women. But most of us on the other side of the "divide" stayed as far away from all drugs as we could.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 13, 2007 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Well said 27. He also said he wasted time. Thi sis not an endorsment of weed in the slightest. But at the same time he is not demonizing it, which is cool. to many young people are not involved in the american econmic system due to the war on drugs. To many people in jail. to much money wasted. Billions a year (I think the last estimate I saw for weed enforcement only is 41 billion a year). We need to scrap the war on drugs.

The republcains used the war on drugs like the war on terror to divide america and punish non conservaitves and get them off the streets. Free the poltiical prisoners I say. But obama would not go this far. I respect that.

To make a natural plant illegal is not only impossible but it is a joke. A joke that costs billions to taxpayers, for people's personal leasure activities. Not that I have any horse in that race. I'm just saying. What a waste. What a waste of lives. What a waste of money. All to make the authoritarians feel superior.

In terms of obama. He says it was a waste of time and he wants americans to get out of that fog. Admirable. But the peopel the gop is demonizing on this are still people. They are still americans. Do not throw their lives away to make you feel "good". Help them. Use their talents. Do the christian thing. Rather than locking them up and throw away the key. Who does that help other than the people making money off it?

The cops can't enforce illegal immagration but they can fight the war on drugs agaisnt americans? Misguided principles to me. Change is at hand. We are all americans. Plants are not drugs. God put plants on this earth for medical purposes. To demonize them puts your wil above God's.IMO

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 13, 2007 6:05 PM | Report abuse

mark, operhasp I am being cheritable, but I see henryvu's comments as merelt stating what some areas of the country think. There are plenty of racists in this country and lots of people who think/thought that putting Obama in the WHitehouse would open the door to racist swines like Al Sharpton and his crew. It took me months to realize that Obama has no more in common with Sharpton than I do. If nothing else, I really do believe that he has put the final nail in the coffin of racism and, if he is the candidate, I will support him and expect him to win. My only questions about Obama are with his ties to lobbyests and the Wall Street crowd. We all know Edwards and Biden loath those groups. Maybe Obama does, too. I don't know and I'm waiting to find out. As for "experience", he has as much as John F. Kennedy, as much as Thomas Jefferson and Eisenhower, and they all turned out to be pretty good Presidents.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 13, 2007 6:04 PM | Report abuse

lhong_99 - I don't know if you have ever used drugs in your life or not, but almost everyone of my age did so during their early college years. I fact, I know of exactly one person, just one, my age who never used even pot. Mr. Obama is merelt saying what everyone knows. I cannot imagine any of the candidates (maybe McCain and Huckabee) never having used drugs as kids.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 13, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Biden, again - from your lips to the caucus goers' ears.

McCain v. Biden for a few of us here represents the best our parties have in terms of leadership and character and experience.

Maybe it will still happen. Probably not.

I think that if Obama is nominated, race will not be an important factor. I am judging from Austin, TX, where race has not played a role in elective politics for many years, but where there are still echoes of the mixed southwestern past. When I entered law school in 1964 the "Drag" [on the west side of the Main Campus] had only been integrated for three years, but
Jacobs Pit BBQ had been integrated since it opened in the early fifties and the Law School had been integrated since the early fifties. The great math prof, Robert Moore,a petty tyrant of a racist, always acted surprised, in the fifties and sixties, when he had accomplished black students. Mixed history.

But Austin is more like Silicon Valley today than like any other demographic, except that it is one third Hispanic, and I have not heard a word uttered against Obama based on race. I dismiss henryvu's post as misguided at best, hateful at worst.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 13, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Great analysis. Finally I feel like you gave honest answers. "Objective" doesn't mean lying if the democrats really are better options than the republicans this time around. We all know it, but staying on the fence and remaining objective aren't always the same thing.

http://think.mtv.com/briantrich/

Posted by: thecrisis | December 13, 2007 5:51 PM | Report abuse

"the clinton campaign - mess up once and you end up shooting yourself three times in the back of the head.

Try to find sox and buddy.'

LOL! Poor old sox and buddy. They probably told Chelsea they took 'em to a 'farm' down the road. Just like Tony's dog.


Now Shaheen will have to go back to doing legal work for the Clintons behind the scenes. That should keep him pretty busy.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | December 13, 2007 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Edwards and Biden were on their game here. Wonderful stuff. I really want them to run as the Democratic stnadard bearers in 2008 as a team. Obama, as we expected, did a good job, too - a decent, honerable guy with a lot of questions still surrounding his corporate ties. And, KOZ, not to disappoint you, but Hillary CLinton actually looked and acted human... Something has happened today and Clinton lost that shrill mean look that has haunted her for so long. Maybe it's the switch from negative campaigning. Maybe it's actually meeting people who have been harmed by some of Washington's silly pro-business votes. Who knows, but she looked good - humble, in touch, *human*, almost Edwards like. Richardson, nice man that he is, needs to drop out.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 13, 2007 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Let's send Obama back to his young daughters, he can run again in 12 years when he has some experience, finds his senate records, and might have done something.
Let's not give the GOP the Dem.Nominee they want...barak

Posted by: newagent99 | December 13, 2007 5:46 PM | Report abuse

"John Edwards (First 45 minutes): Edwards is, without question, one of the most gifted (if not the most gifted) debater on any stage. And, for the first 45 minutes of the debate his populist "us versus them" message really hit home."


I hear that cc. The more I hear edwards the more I like him. But I'm not sure if I can trust him. HE seems a little to cute (the boxing term). But I like what he says. Judgement and will he deliver on what he says, I'm not so sure. I trust obama to do as he says much more. Though I like edwards. He gets teh respect he is due. At this time he needs to stand aside and give his support to obama, and his followers. Push obama over the hump. I just wish clinton would step down for the good of the nation. Be an elder stateswomen clinton. Run teh senate. You'll get your chance. She jsut aligned herself with the wrong people, like bush cheaney and fox. CAn't trust her. She is on the wrong side of most issues, from tis liberals perspective.

Her husband touring the world with bush 41 for a year, last year. Wrong person at the wrong time. She needs to step down for her country's sake. She is doing the gop's dirty work right now. I hope she means what she says about her ridiculous attacks on sen obama.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 13, 2007 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it sad that you have to say that Hillary's indepth knowledge of issues and what is happening in the world aren't what people want to hear.

I think that in the end people will realize that the Republicans will make mince meat of Obama. They don't need Bill Shaheen to tell them how to do it- Obama has done this to himself.

I think it's time for the press to allow people to make up their own minds. After all with all the time all these candidates have spent in Iowa if there is one Iowan who hasn't made up their mind yet they must be living under a rock or a cornfield or whatever they have in Iowa.

It will be all about getting people to the caucus. ONe of the most ridiculous ways to vote in the world. What ever happened to secret ballots. Even in Russia they have those.

Posted by: peterdc | December 13, 2007 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Since we're pulling posts from previous topics henry. I got you, racist.

""Do you think they will vote for a black?
If you think so, sorry, I would say you don't know anything about the state of this country."

Tahnk you for showing independants what the gop really thinks. Thank you for showing the gop's face. I for one appreciate it. The youth are not as ignorant and scared as our fathers and grandfathers. You show your racist face. Time is pasting you by, old man. Get with the program. Stop sabotaging you rcountry. You racist sexist authoritarian fascits give america a bad name.

It is your fault our status in the world has slipped. It is your people's fault the dollar has slide. It is your people's fault the nation is divided. What has the gop done right. If all the people that voted for GW still vote republcain, then are in more trouble as a nation than we think. I for one would flee this fascist country, if that's the case. And you fascists deserve whatever peril befalls you.

You people are not america. You merly hide behind the flag. You do not care about our rothers and sisters serving. You merly hide behind them. To for those that are real patriots to stand up, and for the traitors to stand down.

The gop is done for 30 years. Enjoy you rirrelevance.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 13, 2007 02:03 PM
"

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 13, 2007 5:39 PM | Report abuse

the clinton campaign - mess up once and you end up shooting yourself three times in the back of the head.

Try to find sox and buddy.

It is like the sopranos - you go to jail or die in the end. but the money is good while it lasts.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 13, 2007 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Another Soviet-style debate that apparently didn't feature any discussion of immigration matters. That's the area where the Dems are weakest and a little spirited question would reveal the huge gaps in their policies.

The MSM can't hide from a real discussion of this issue for long. Eventually people are going to start going to campaign appearances, asking the questions the MSM is afraid to ask, and then uploading the responses to video sites.

Cillizza might want to discuss with his bosses the impact that would have when it's done after the primaries. Perhaps they might decide that having a real debate about it now is the better option.

Here's an example of a real question the MSM is afraid to ask of Hillary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_l4Lawj14A

And, here's one for Huck:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5Dp7FaKIJo

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | December 13, 2007 5:37 PM | Report abuse

trying to bait henry? You are a master at it.

You also are a racist. Somebody's got to tell you. Obvoicsly you are surronded by like minded people who won't tell you the truth. You are a racist. The year is 2007. Get out of the 60's. You lost remember. Just like with aboroation and seperation of church and state. Stop fighting you countries freedoms. You lost these battles. If you hate equality or freedom, move elsewhere. this is america

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 13, 2007 5:36 PM | Report abuse

again to sielnce those her who wul dlie to you people.

""This election is too important and we must all get back to electing the best qualified candidate who has the record of making change happen in this country"

Think on that for once. Choosing party over country is was and always will be treason. I don't care what Bill O'REilly or the criminals in question tell you in defense of their lawlessness. Just another random criminal trying to get out of going to prison. The differnce is these criminals have our money, they have power over the bottom, they have power over our brothers and sisters. Why are the republcains not as angry as the liberals? For our children and grand childrnes sake. At least.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 13, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Do you think they will vote for a black?
If you think so, sorry, I would say you don't know anything about the state of this country.
All voters who voted for GWB will vote for Republican again and we will wait for 8 more years.
White house is much more important than congress, even you win both houses of congress you would still be underdog. GWB at 26% approval still vetoed and vetoed again whatever he wants to. The supreme court is in the hand of Republican already. With one more conservative justice you will see abortion ban, affirmative action disappear, gun soar.....
Think about it first before your hate.

Posted by: henryvu | December 13, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

"The Republican Field: For those spartan few of us who watched both debates, one thing was crystal clear: the Democratic field was far deeper and more impressive...."

What? 'Virtuoso' Rudy outclassed by a pack of squabbling liberals? Say it isn't so, Joe.

Taking CC's comments at face value, it sounds like this debate won't budge the polling numbers. Darn.

According to Pickler's column, much of what was said centered on balancing the budget. While I heartily applaud that notion, I'm finding it hard to believe that was the main subject of a Democratic debate.

Posted by: judgeccrater | December 13, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

"""I made a mistake and in light of what happened, I have made the personal decision that I will step down as the co-chair of the Hillary for President campaign," Shaheen said in a statement released by the campaign. "This election is too important and we must all get back to electing the best qualified candidate who has the record of making change happen in this country. That candidate is Hillary Clinton." "

But propogate and attack gop. Now you see why your party is done. Lying fascist propogandists. Choosing party over country is treason, fascists. But the facts don't matter to you. Only getting fascists elected. I don't pity you or the fall of your party at all. You are now reaping what you continue to sow.

Any appologies to me and or Obama for spreading lies and smears with zero facts?"

Teh gop is done. Issues like this show way.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 13, 2007 5:25 PM | Report abuse

""I made a mistake and in light of what happened, I have made the personal decision that I will step down as the co-chair of the Hillary for President campaign," Shaheen said in a statement released by the campaign. "This election is too important and we must all get back to electing the best qualified candidate who has the record of making change happen in this country. That candidate is Hillary Clinton." "

But propogate and attack gop. Now you see why your party is done. Lying fascist propogandists. Choosing party over country is treason, fascists. But the facts don't matter to you. Only getting fascists elected. I don't pity you or the fall of your party at all. You are now reaping what you continue to sow.

Any appologies to me and or Obama for spreading lies and smears with zero facts?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 13, 2007 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Bill Shaheen has resigned as a co-chair of Hillary Clinton's national campaign! Wow, how predictable was that? He took the fall for the campaign, how noble. Just another casualty of Team Clinton.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | December 13, 2007 5:23 PM | Report abuse

thank you bsimon, for your, like Mark's, courteous explanation to me.

since you live in the north country, do you have much experience with ice pellet storms? not an ice storm where everything is coated, something different. we had one today, never seen one before, and it's nasty. i guess it's frozen rain, right? it's not hail--it's these evensized pellets of ice and it looks like snow on the ground, then you step on it and it's like walking on frozen ball bearings. cars piled up all over the place here.

I wondering if there was a way of saying it as a verb --like snowing. Or do you just say, 'it's ice pelleting today.'

Posted by: drindl | December 13, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Biden, though clearly under the weather, gave the best performance. He was the most authentic candidate, and is clearly the most respected and most experienced. I suspect that "dark horse" Biden will pick up a lot of supporters in the Caucuses (remember, John Kerry was stalled at about 2% this time in 2004...). Kudos to The Fix for not following the conventional wisdom of lavishing attention solely on the frontrunners!

Posted by: soonerthought | December 13, 2007 5:16 PM | Report abuse

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

http://www.votenic.com

The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.

Posted by: votenic | December 13, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Obama may rock the vote but he won't rock the boat!
Lobbyists endorsing Obama....
http://www.rollcall.com/politics/kstendorsements.html

Edwards won on substance and specificity!

Posted by: JoseyJ | December 13, 2007 5:13 PM | Report abuse

"Clinton Adviser Out After Obama Comment"

Any gop'ers want to make any appologies for spreading lies and rumors? I'll wait for accountability for gop members with baited breath.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 13, 2007 5:12 PM | Report abuse

The Register has been running a series on the issues, where the candidates stand on the issues and how the Register views those issues. Biden has been in step with the Register on every issue thus far. An endorsement wouldn't be a stretch.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth_Hunter | December 13, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

CC: Your winners and losers are on the mark. Biden obviously has the respect of his fellow candidates to the extent that Obama gave him a "personal testament" on Biden's civil rights bona fides.

Also agree that the GOP lost the debates.... big time!

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth_Hunter | December 13, 2007 5:06 PM | Report abuse

A known drug user president will make the job of parents and teachers impossible for educating kids don't do drugs. People give too much credit for Obama to be candid about his past drug use based on his own words. In this case lying like Bill Clinton and W is far better than a known drug (especially cocaine) user because of the consequences on our nations drug war would be hugely negative. Don't hold truth so dearly, Santa Claus is not real after all, can you call all the parents lying? Are you going to be happy that your kids would have a sitting president to look up to do drugs and they can tell you and their teachers to get off their back and stop preaching and someday I maybe president too? As a parent, I will never vote for a known drug user, especially a cocaine user, republican or democrat, period!

Posted by: lhong_99 | December 13, 2007 5:06 PM | Report abuse

hey Chris, nice summing up, but no mention of the most YouTube-able bit of the event: Barack's retort to Hillary's interuption during the question on why so many of Bill Clinton's old team has gone to work for Obama (answer: they want change). The look on Hillary's face as she realizes that she just made a major mistake is priceless. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nKHBSFSosY&feature=user

Posted by: brumby | December 13, 2007 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Okay.... How can all three front-runners, PLUS the 'dark horse' candidate ALL be in the Winners column?!?

Question: did Biden perform well enough to win the Register's endorsement? If so, will it move him into the 'viable' category in the caucuses?

Posted by: bsimon | December 13, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company