Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Democratic Debate: Winners and Losers

As the debate season has worn on, all 17 candidates (yes, there are 17 of them) competing for the nomination have gotten measurably better. Gone are the stumbling answers and the non sequitors and in their place are generally polished replies, nicely turned.

All of that is to say it's getting tougher and tougher to distinguish between the winners and losers in each of these contests. The space between the best and the worst performance is smaller and smaller.

But, politics is about making hard choices. Below you'll find The Fix's take on the winners and losers from last night's Democratic debate in Charleston, S.C. It goes without saying (though I will say it) that this is one man's opinion and inherently subjective. For another take, make sure to check out Dan Balz on the new Post campaign diary-- The Trail.

Away we go!

WINNERS

John Edwards: In the first three debates, the former North Carolina senator really struggled to distinguish himself. Last night, he found his voice. Edwards ' outrage on a variety of issues -- most notably the inability to solve the health care crisis in the country -- came through loud and clear. And, while traditionally voters don't like angry candidates, the Democratic electorate is in a decidedly feisty mood and Edwards' emotion seemed to fit the night. In an election campaign in which every candidate is fighting for the change label, Edwards made a compelling case as to why his life experience and willingness to propose bold solutions made him the right choice for voters looking to make a clean break with business as usual in Washington. His performance for the first 118 minutes of the debate was enough to overcome the foible of criticizing the jacket Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) was wearing. Why do that?

Hillary Clinton: Of the top tier candidates, there now appears to be little doubt as to who is the best debater: it's the senator from New York. Again last night Clinton was at the center of almost every conversation and she shined on the few tough(er) questions asked of her. Take the question on whether electing her would further the Clinton/Bush stranglehold on the White House over the past two decades. "I think it is a problem that Bush was elected in 2000," said Clinton, a remark that drew laughter and applause. She added that she was "proud" of her husband's time in office (more applause) and that she hoped she would be judged on her own merits in 2008. Smoooothe. And, again, Clinton drove home the experience issue with her response to the question over whether or not she would agree to meet with dictators like Venzuela's Hugo Chavez or Cuba's Fidel Castro.

Bill Richardon: Ok. Richardson isn't the best debater. But, last night he did what he set out to do -- drive home the difference between him and the senators on the war in Iraq. Richardson made sure viewers/voters knew that he is the only candidate calling for all American troops to be out of Iraq by the end of the year. Richardson also benefited from getting a few questions right in his wheelhouse on Darfur and No Child Left Behind. On both, he made sure to tout his hands-on experience -- reinforcing that he is an executive, and not a legislator. Richardson looked -- slightly -- more comfortable on stage last night; at the least it didn't take away from his message.

Format: Watching the pre-debate coverage on CNN, they were setting themselves up for either a home run or a swinging strikeout. Well, in this viewer's mind, they belted it out of the park. By and large the YouTube clips were funny, revealing and insightful; The Fix had been waiting for someone (anyone....Bueller?) to ask Clinton and Obama whether his race or her gender negatively affected their chances of winning the nomination. Anderson Cooper was generally a force for good, attempting to keep the candidates on topic. Our favorite video? The snowman question on global warming. We're a sucker for a good Frosty reference.

LOSERS

Al Gore: We thought the man who used to be the next president of the United States was going to get some air time last night when Anderson Cooper introduced a question from these guys. But, Cooper quickly followed up by saying "we're not going to talk about Al Gore." Huh? Why not? And, if we aren't going to talk about Al Gore why show the video? Anyway, Gore always benefits if he seems like a missing presence in the debate hall. He wasn't last night.

Early States: Even though the debate was in Charleston, the founders of YouTube made quite clear in a lunch with reporters yesterday that the goal of their involvement in the political process was to turn the race into a national debate rather than just a two or three state contest. The success of the format likely means we will see imitators in the near future. That means more focus on national issues, less on those most important to Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Mike Gravel: Sure, the former Alaska senator raises the entertainment bar in these debates. But, unlike Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), Gravel is an angry presence on the stage. The closeups of Gravel last night were downright scary. The Fix is not in favor of limiting the number of candidates at the debates but what exactly does Gravel bring? Does he have a point of view not already represented on the stage? And, remember anger is not a position.

By Chris Cillizza  |  July 24, 2007; 11:20 AM 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: A Wrap Up
Next: A Real Challenge for McConnell?

Comments

OBAMA IS A CROOK, the CLINTONS ARE THIEFS! stop the madness people! vote Mike Gravel

gravel08. us

Posted by: inotheyare(portland,or) | August 12, 2007 10:54 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA IS A CROOK, the CLINTONS ARE THIEFS! stop the madness people! vote Mike Gravel

gravel08. us

Posted by: inotheyare(portland,or) | August 12, 2007 10:54 PM | Report abuse

So what if Gravel is a little "weird"? At least he's being honest! You've got to know that every single one of the other candidates has some quirk or secret that they're hiding from the public--Gravel is being himself.
Give him a chance to speak; his ideas should carry just as much weight and deserve just as much airtime as the higher contenders and it's outrageous that he has been restricted from some debates, such as the ALF-CIO Forum.

Gravel '08!

Posted by: Teri | August 8, 2007 1:29 AM | Report abuse

It figures that the Post would berate Senator Mike Gravel without bothering to investigate what he brings to the table.

Here is what Gravel stands for.


Wholesale reorganization of the US Government from a non-representative form to a direct democracy.

Elimination of the "war economy" and "laws for sale" that DC has built up to a preposterous level.

Universal Health Care

Education of everybody instead of the elite.

Mike Gravel represents a move to Power for the MASSES, not the ELITE who control the country now.

The current US government wants to keep the people down by not educating them, pretending to execute a war on drugs, by spending all of the Social Security funds, and not providing health care.

We need complete overhaul of US gov. before it is too late. The fact that the Washington Post would disappear as a result would just be another good benefit of this change.

Gravel is the only candidate worth voting for unless you like the status quo.

Nobody else stands for anyting but what the polls tell them to say.

Hillary is a power hungry witch who remained married to a coke head that still picks up anything that will take him.

Posted by: John Doe | July 26, 2007 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Your comments about Mike Gravel are completely ignorant. You MIGHT think that an organization like the Washington Post might research the candidates before it tries to bury them.

Gravel is THE ONLY candidate that will bring about the change that the US needs, through DIRECT DEMOCRACY INITIATIVE.

The fact that the post berates Gravel without mentioning his proposals for change, is evidence that the Post are just another bunch of Bush cronies, on the Bush payroll, part of the establishment that needs to be overrun.

I hope that when the next terrorist attach occurs in the US, which will happen as a direct result of greedy US foreign policy, that they do it in DC so we can get rid of all the white trash that currently runs this country.

Posted by: James E | July 26, 2007 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Hi Rufus. I get tired of Dick Morris' Hillary bashing also, but in his defense at least he backs up his comments with facts from his own personal experience with the Clintons. I think its also interesting that he still likes Bill Clinton but obviously loathes Hillary.

I don't think that just because he's on Fox he's now part of the "right wing conspiracy". Susan Estrich is on Fox and she's a liberal democrat who thinks Hillary walks on water. They're both political consultants to the show that are paid for their opinions. At least FOX has people on from both sides of the coin.

Have you listened to CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS. If you add a "T", an "L" and buy an "I" you can spell CLINTON...

Posted by: carol r | July 26, 2007 3:07 PM | Report abuse

I agree with you Charlie. Bill Richardson is the only one who has any real life experience, success, and is respected abroad. Its unfortunate that his credentials are overlooked because of of the continued refusal of the press to give the other candidates a fair shake.

I don't care if the candidate is a good debater. I'm tired of the talk. How about some substance. After all these debates so far not one candidate has said a damn thing worthy of my vote.

Has it escaped everyone's attention that 24 to 48 hrs prior to a debate, a new poll comes out showing that Hillary is still the frontrunner?

The Clintons have the media in their pockets - as evidenced by the continued BS being pumped out by the likes of the Washington Post.

I guess we'll get quality candidates when we get a neutral press. Don't hold your breath folk!

Posted by: carol r | July 26, 2007 2:48 PM | Report abuse

"Notice that he rarely says anthing bad about Bill. No one knows the Clintons like he does! He knows every scandal that happened in the WH during the Clinton years(except the sexual ones) led right back to Hillary. And she's talking about ethics and pardons, and the law? She shouldn't use big words she does quite understand."

I hear you carol. Morris is nothing but an attack dog riding the right-wing attack machine to make a fortune. He has one job on Fox. Attack Hillary. That's it. That's what he GET'S PAID TO DO.

I would think that would lose him his credibility. Conflict of interest and all. Dick Morris is a liar and a propogandist. Not that I disagree with anything you say. I just wanted to point out what Dick Morris is. He's a sell-out. He's a traitor. He's a fair weather politcial puppet. That's all.

Where has he been (since out of office) before he came on fox attack hillary daily, and I'm not for her again. If anything I'm against the GOp and the Dick Morris's of the world.

Posted by: rufus | July 26, 2007 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Winning a debate is not winning the people.

Hillary is a good debater-
doesn't mean she's a good candidate.

Talk about inexperienced....if media wasn't
so distracted by her last name and her gender,
they'd be wondering what makes her think
she's qualified to be prez.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 26, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Richardson should be the front-runner. I still do not get how Obama and Clinton are so far in front. They're the most prepared to get into word tracks, but really have nothing to offer beyond that. Edwards seems genuine and I might be more inclined to support him, but 2004 has still left a bad taste in my mouth. He'd been better off not being part of the Kerry ticket.

If they had town-hall type of debates where the candidates could move away from the podium and embrace the audience I think you'd see a ground-swell of support for Richardson

I take exception to the comment on Gravel.
He has plenty to offer, but no one is
listening and unfortunately for us he did not try to run back in '76 or '80. His idea for not having a tax on income, but a tax on spending to move us towards a savings economy instead of a spend economy was right on the money. He also was the only candidate that did not take a private jet to the debate. He also mentioned to look at where the money was coming from in the "top tier" candidates and really had Obama on the ropes and cause Obama to cite legislation that is not a law, but a dead bill on the floor of the senate. Gravel is 77 and angry and I don't blame him. We owe him a lot for what he has done, more than just the few seconds he gets to respond.

Posted by: Charlie | July 26, 2007 12:48 PM | Report abuse

In response to Rufus re: Dick Morris.
Yes he is a Fox News contributor. But my point was that he was involved with Hillary Clinton's polls regarding her Arkansas eduction reform. Too many teachers couldn't meet the standards and were in jeopardy of being fired. So they polled people asking what percentage of teachers they though wouldn't meet the criteria. The average was 10 - 15% when in fact it was nearly triple that average. But since Hillary was afraid of taking on the tearchers' unions they miraculously came up with test results that showed only 10% of failing teachers and only those were fired. Once again the woman can't do anything without a poll or a script!
So what that Dick Morris hates Hillary -
Notice that he rarely says anthing bad about Bill. No one knows the Clintons like he does! He knows every scandal that happened in the WH during the Clinton years(except the sexual ones) led right back to Hillary. And she's talking about ethics and pardons, and the law? She shouldn't use big words she does quite understand.

Posted by: carol r | July 26, 2007 8:15 AM | Report abuse

Not sure what debate you were watching. I saw the debate where Hillary didn't answer the question about 28 years of Clinton/Bush.

Sure, she got a laugh when she mentioned the 2000 election. Therefore, she wins the debate?

How about a candidate that answers the question asked?

So how DOES Hillary represent change? Still waiting to hear her answer...

Posted by: To Chris | July 26, 2007 12:20 AM | Report abuse

you are all wrong!!! mike gravel brings TRUTH back into politics. he is the PEOPLE'S candidate and everyone in their hearts knows this regardless!!! people do what you can to elect this: korean war vetran, draft stopping, nucular watchdog creating TRUE AMERICAN HERO.

gravel08. us

Posted by: inotheyare(pdx,or) | July 25, 2007 11:44 PM | Report abuse

Everything else carol is on point. Also factor in this, and I will never vote for her:

"All U.S. presidents since 1989 have been Yale graduates, namely George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton (who attended the University's Law School along with his wife, New York Senator Hillary Clinton), and George W. Bush, and Vice President Dick Cheney, (although he did not graduate). Many of the 2004 presidential candidates attended Yale: Bush, John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Joe Lieberman.

Other Yale-educated presidents were William Howard Taft (B.A.) and Gerald Ford (LL.B). Alumni also include several Supreme Court justices, including current Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito."


Posted by: rufus | July 25, 2007 6:17 PM | Report abuse

"Dick Morris' comments about this - and he was Bill Clinton's strategist"

He is also a Fox puppet. I haven't heard ONE good thing about Hillary from him. Not ONE. I'm not for hillary, but morris continuous barrage of attacks is a blatent as it get's in politics.

Posted by: rufus | July 25, 2007 6:14 PM | Report abuse

"Dick Morris' comments about this - and he was Bill Clinton's strategist"

He is also a Fox puppet. I haven't hear ONE good thing about Hillary from him. Not ONE. I'm not for hillary, but morris continuous barrage of attacks is a blatent as it get's in politics.

Posted by: rufus | July 25, 2007 6:14 PM | Report abuse

carol r consider yourself insulted, because a lot of women are saying that is the reason they will vote for Hillary.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 25, 2007 5:55 PM | Report abuse

In response to the criticism of Mike Gravel:

"The Fix is not in favor of limiting the number of candidates at the debates but what exactly does Gravel bring? Does he have a point of view not already represented on the stage?"

Mike Gravel is the only candidate to put some perspective on the debate and the platforms of his opponents. The other candidates are incredibly similar and too heavily funded by corporations for their own good (Especially Hillary, Edwards and yes Obama). These three in particular offer very little divergences from the accepted norm of a ignoring withering constitution and an unrepresentative corrupt government sponsored by multinational corporations who aim to screw Americans and the world in general to make a buck. Unfortunately, money equals power in Washington. If the media should decide FOR Americans that Mike Gravel is not worthy to debate and thus looses his chances for presidency, the election will be futile. It would be proof that the mass media has already decided the outcome of the election- not the people!

To believe that the mainstream democrats are very different from the mainstream republicans is false. Perhaps they are a lesser evil, but not fundamentally different.

I will vote and support Gravel because he knows how to bring America's political system and government back to what the founding fathers envisioned. He knows whats wrong with the electoral system and will strive to bring back representativity by reforming it. He knows why our education, health, and foreign policy is in the abhorrent state that it is in. Furthermore, he is able and willing to fix it. He is one of the only candidates really aimed at repairing our system to be representative, fair and to follow the guidelines of our constitution and defend them.

The others just want to use the system for their own benefit not change it to protect us from further despots like Bush and Cheney.

The don't want to end the war, or they would have already done it by making the war illegal and charging Bush with war crimes. They make money for their supporters through wars and thus get more money for their campaigns to gain more and more power. Its the sad truth.

Research Gravel online (youtube.com, Grsavel08.us, etc.) for more info on Gravel. Don't take my word on it.

Posted by: Jason | July 25, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

To Paul the man who criticized women who don't like Hillary - here's my comments to you and all the "Hillary is an example to women" chanters.

As a young educated white career woman Hillary is not a shining example to me or any other woman I know. Continued comments about her brilliancy is a joke considering she failed the Washington D.C bar exam (never mentioned anywhere by anyone) and then left D.C. and hitched her wagon to Bill Clinton's rising by moving to Arkansas to marry him.
She was assigned the task of education reform in Arkansas - by her husband, despite not having any credentials in education - and failed miserably (read Dick Morris' comments about this - and he was Bill Clinton's strategist!).
She allowed herself to be humiliated by his continued affairs, harrassed his victims, and assigned WH Staff to "bimbo control". She's no model of women's rights in my book.
She became a partner in the Rose lawfirm after her husband cooerced his friends to throw business to the firm (we all know you can't make partner unless you bring in business).
She was put in charge of Healthcare Reform - again by her husband, despite having no healthcare credentials - and failed again.
She flaunts her "foreign policy experience" which consists of photo opps with foreign leaders. She criticized Barack Obama as being naive because he would meet with foreign foes without conditions. Apparently she's had a lapse of memory about her own prior comments about this issue and failed to recall Speaker Pelosi's recent trip to Syria!

Apparently no one thinks its odd that she (a Jr. Senator) is assigned to high exposure committess (like to Armed Services Committee)since it takes years for an ordinary senator to get on them.

And I'd like to know when being First Lady constitutes as experience for being the President. The cooks were in the WH for 8 years too, but they're not qualified for the presidency either. At least The Bush women championed literacy and Nancy Reagan had the "just say no" campagne. What did Hillary do as "co-president" [someone should have told Al Gore he could have left early].

Hillary Clinton is another example of a woman who accomplished nothing on her own except for riding a man's coattails to get what she was incapable of getting on her own merits. If her name wasn't Clinton, we wouldn't even be having this debate.

To think that women are going to vote for her just because she's a woman is an insult.

Posted by: carol r | July 25, 2007 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Looks like your gonna lose both ways ,Mike. When rush and fox are off the air I'm gone. You just can't win can ya mike. don't blame me. Look in the mirror. I know I didn't vote these fascists in.

Posted by: rufus | July 25, 2007 10:53 AM | Report abuse

"Aside from the Mexican Candidate, why have so many of our proposed Leaders to be been drafted from the deepest darkest pit of incompetance on this planet? What part of the Congress has a record low approval rating(Half of Bushies!), a track record similiar to a Train Wreck on issues they should have handled, and they would do away with the separation of powers by effectively making the Senate Majority leader the President don't most Americans understand?
Hey, I know it is the most thankless job on the planet, but surely, we could maybe hire an illegal(Vincente Fox?) to do the job better for less!

Then again, maybe we could get some H1-B visas for all of Congress! Hire some competant people! You know, Indians and Chinese!

From Austin, Mexico!-This has been the Yahoo's favorite!-RAT!-THE!

Hasta mi amigos!"

Actually "RAT," Richardson was born in LA. We gots some pretty dumb people in this blog, starting with you.

Posted by: 761-091 | July 25, 2007 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Chris is far from alone in not figuring out what seemed obvious to a few of us, that John Edwards was not criticizing Hillary Clinton's jacket, but the news media's superficiality. I suspect that even Hillary understood. Wonder why the news media representatives just can't seem to get points about them?

Posted by: JohnJT | July 25, 2007 9:02 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is so polished--and so fake. I hope people will see through her.

Posted by: RobertRB | July 25, 2007 8:50 AM | Report abuse

Clinton definitely looked rattled at times up there. Edwards seemed like the clear winner. Check the live blogs:
http://threeq.blogspot.com

Posted by: BTB | July 25, 2007 3:37 AM | Report abuse

Clinton definitely looked rattled at times up there. Edwards seemed like the clear winner. Check the live blogs:
http://threeq.blogspot.com

Posted by: BTB | July 25, 2007 3:36 AM | Report abuse

Mr Jacks I agree with you; I'm not surprised but disappointed. Many 'talking heads' from around the Country gave Joe Biden credit for his straightshooting and his answers on questions like Darfur and the troops. The media, i.e. this paper, seems to be trying to tell us who the frontrunners are. No wonder it's so hard for others to raise money....

Posted by: ccohen | July 25, 2007 12:41 AM | Report abuse

Some comments on non-issues that commentors/pundits and candidates are using to rag on certain candidates.

I approve of Richardson's six months and out plan and do not believe it is unrealistic at all. Come on, it took us SIX weeks to get in! The country is NOT that large. We have after all a mobile army (thank you Mr. Rumsfeld) and can drive across the border to a friendly Arab State and then fly back at our leisure. Biden's comments make him sound like he is smart, and were effective at making him sound more thoughtful about the process than Richardson, but the core of it is not true. We can get out as quick as we get in if we truly want. Of course there will be total chaos, but then that is what is happening now.

On the comments that Obama is naieve cause he is willing to meet with some of these evil world leaders. This was a nice one that Hilary used to make Obama sound naieve, but I think what Obama was trying to say was that open discussion with some of these leaders should always be left on the table. I don't think with any of these candidates if they became president, their advisors and or the pentagon would let them fall for a propoganda trap by meeting with an opposing leader. Our weak position in world diplomacy is partially a result of our pigheadedness and refusal to talk to other nations. And that waiting a year crap before opening direct leader to leader negotiations that Clinton said is exactly what you do not do, take something off the table publicly. In diplomacy you leave your options open. Even if you do wait a year and send envoys instead!!!!!!

Although I admire Senator Clinton on many issues, this comment only cements my suspicion that she can be bullheaded at times. I am for Richardson.

Posted by: WesternNY Geologist | July 24, 2007 11:53 PM | Report abuse

Colin -- I can definitely see your point, but it's just not enough for me. We're a free society, and we're free to make our own investment decisions.

If my pension fund were invested heavily (and I would venture to guess that few, if any, are more than 3% in any ONE thing) in a hedge fund, I'd do something about it.

That's just the conservative in me believing that more government isn't the answer to an issue like this.

http://conservativestandards.blogspot.com

Posted by: Mike | July 24, 2007 11:17 PM | Report abuse

I totally concur on Gravel. This guy just comes off as unstable. He exists solely to tear down the other (plausible) candidates. (Is he really "frightened" by Hillary, Obama and Edwards, as he said at a previous debate?) And his ideas....? A national sales tax replacing the income tax? That's Alan Keyes, a Republican, talking.

He's so out there and angry that I can't even believe he's serious about most of the stuff he says. It's just a vanity trip for him. Kucinich and Ron Paul come across as sincere. Gravel's just putting on an act, and he's wasting our time.

Posted by: Pete Wiley | July 24, 2007 10:44 PM | Report abuse

Chris concedes that his views are very subjective, and that the difference between the best and worst debaters was minimal. So why leave out Senator Obama - who's one of the top two candidates based on any metric??? Instead, he gives tons of attention to a completely insignificant third tier candidate. Why not just comment about each of the candidates, instead of arbitrarily excluding one of the top two??? Chris, you are as pro-Clinton as the NY Times, Hillary's hometown newspaper.

Posted by: Robert* | July 24, 2007 10:25 PM | Report abuse

Mark -- you can absolutely substitute me for a reliable 'D' vote in the presidential race.

Mike -- I've always though the "they're rich so lets not worry about them" argument was sort of strange, especially since most of the regulations I'm advocating for only require enhanced disclosures. Regardless though, I think the number of institutional investors out there - including pension funds - probably provides the most compelling argument in favor of increased regulation in the field.

Posted by: Colin | July 24, 2007 9:16 PM | Report abuse

Rufus -- exposed for the ignoramous you are. Bigger fish to fry? Haha, I love it.

You make me smile Rufus. I'm glad you're around. Don't stop posting.

Posted by: Mike | July 24, 2007 9:04 PM | Report abuse

I thought the night's biggest revelation was this: following the debate, most, if not all, of the so-called CNN analysts anointed Hillary the winner ... and then came the focus group of ordinary folk saying, no, Barack won. It shows the disconnect between the beltway and the rest of America. Where the beltway sees ""naivete," the rest of us see "idealistic" - never a bad trait to have in a president (see: Ronald Reagan; JFK; FDR).

As far as the controversy over Obama's willingness to meet w/the leaders of rogue nations - to fear being used for "propaganda purposes" is to fear, period.

Posted by: Jeff | July 24, 2007 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for your thoughts as always Chris, although its clear many on the blog don't agree with you.

Hillary is very scripted, but she's also very polished. She seems to spout the same old stuff, but she knows that's what gets people elected. She's running an excellent campaign, and thats to be respected even if you don't agree. Its interesting that she's triangulating already!

Obama had an ok night, he is improving. But I think his dictators comment did show a bit of inexperience. People are willing him on because he has such a fresh viewpoint, and is very different to the establishment. But that difference may be his undoing.

Edwards had a great night. His comment about the jacket was obviously a joke, although the media seems to be trying to make it a gaffe. He's desparately trying to keep himself in the top tier. However the media's obsession with Clinton/Obama is working against him (and Richardson).

Richardson is improving, but needs to do more to broach the first tier. He did better last night to tout his resume, but as has been said earlier, some of the best questions for him were not directed at him.

Gravel is the Ron Paul of the Dems, but unlike RP he isn't gaining any traction whatsoever. I think Kucinich does the job adequately. Don't need Gravel out there.

Posted by: JayPe | July 24, 2007 8:30 PM | Report abuse

Just had to get that off my chest...

Posted by: JEP | July 24, 2007 7:56 PM | Report abuse

Erkster46 -- I couldn't have said it better. Bill Richardson knows where it's at. Ms. Clinton is phony, sugar-coats ideas, and avoids direct answers to questions. Mr. Obama (I like this kid) is barely wet behind the ears. Mr. Edwards is a feel-sorry-for-me, 1-issue man. Mr. Kucinich is off-the-wall. Etc.

Bill Richardson is an experienced executive, legislator, diplomat, Nobel Peace Prize nominee, UN ambassador, clean energy crusader, education enthusiast,...shall I continue or can you envision what this gentleman has to offer to all Americans, indeed, to the global community, as President of the United States?

I was very relieved to discover there was 1, but only 1, truly qualified person to be US Pres. He deserves your support, and the interest of the media to follow his campaign.

Posted by: Carol G. -- Wisc. | July 24, 2007 7:55 PM | Report abuse

"Any substance to the claim that there is some VRWC to supress minority voters has long since vanished since the 1960's..."

...problem is, the VRWS I suspect is still vast and still ideologically digressive started back with a fellow named Metternich, and everything since then is a cosmic redux.

The seeds of royal fascism that were born in those dark times have come to fruition in something "they" call "The New World Order." And this administration has come to personify that vain delusion. And their delusion took us into a loser'swar.

To promote their futile venture, they have bent the very foundations of our laws, and joined with faux-mainstream religious and fiction cults, to promote a profane union of "church" and state, all in the name of no-bid, faithbased "profits."

In some ways, this conspiracy is not a manifestation of the modern era, it is the final act of a pernicious, power-hungry beast, a politically-endangered-species, that holds its its power more dearly than The People from whom that power is derived.

But in essence, it is a conspiracy of greed, and on so many levels, their agreement has been simply in their single motivating need; MORE WEALTH!!

The well being of the entire world is just a playing card in their game of death and war. And we are their military-industial-strength ATM.

Posted by: JEP | July 24, 2007 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton will be our next President and then I will able to get a good nights sleep, for a change. When George Bush leaves the White House, I hope never to see or hear from him again. He should be ashamed for what he's done to our country and the world. The Democrats need to get their act together and bring Americans together...not divide the country further. Mr. Obama needs some experience before he even thinks of running for President..he is clueless...a few people telling him he has what it takes isn't going to get the job done. You have to walk before you can run. Oh, and I've watched Mr. Richardson too many times on Meet the Press not to understand what he's about. He is for legitimizing all 20 million illegal aliens in this country and further corrupting our economy. He's a problem, not any part of a solution.

Posted by: Pam | July 24, 2007 7:27 PM | Report abuse

updated list for anyone that cares. I'll start on that tomorrow. Good luck gop. YOu have a year. use it wisely

http://www.newshounds.us/2007/07/24/advertisers_on_the_oreilly_factor_update_707.php

Posted by: rufus | July 24, 2007 6:42 PM | Report abuse

that's no the way us "liberals" think. You can't put up garbage and expext anyone to resond. That is how I know I'm preaching truth, and have you gop'ers scared. If I was talking truth you/zouk/the old man would spend your entire lives worrying about me. I know I'm on the right track. I'lll continue to posts truths when I fell like it. YOu can contiinue to lay up in bed scared of truth. THAT IS YOUR FREEDOM. Mine is ignoring moronic agruments and complaint's like your's. Why hasn't anyone addressed your statements? You give yourself to much credibility. You think anybody here doesn't know your a hatful lying propogandist. Why waste my time. Your party is done in a year anyway. You remind me of a fish out of water taking his last breath. It's funny to me to watch you gop'ers wriggle in fear. FEAR DOESN"T exist. you fascsits are done in america. I say it was 60 years late, but hey. Beggers can't be choosers, right?

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy

After we were hit on September 11 2001, we were in a state of national shock. Less than six weeks later, on October 26 2001, the USA Patriot Act was passed by a Congress that had little chance to debate it; many said that they scarcely had time to read it. We were told we were now on a "war footing"; we were in a "global war" against a "global caliphate" intending to "wipe out civilisation". There have been other times of crisis in which the US accepted limits on civil liberties, such as during the civil war, when Lincoln declared martial law, and the second world war, when thousands of Japanese-American citizens were interned. But this situation, as Bruce Fein of the American Freedom Agenda notes, is unprecedented: all our other wars had an endpoint, so the pendulum was able to swing back toward freedom; this war is defined as open-ended in time and without national boundaries in space - the globe itself is the battlefield. "This time," Fein says, "there will be no defined end."


2. Create a gulag

Once you have got everyone scared, the next step is to create a prison system outside the rule of law (as Bush put it, he wanted the American detention centre at Guantánamo Bay to be situated in legal "outer space") - where torture takes place.

3. Develop a thug caste

When leaders who seek what I call a "fascist shift" want to close down an open society, they send paramilitary groups of scary young men out to terrorise citizens. The Blackshirts roamed the Italian countryside beating up communists; the Brownshirts staged violent rallies throughout Germany. This paramilitary force is especially important in a democracy: you need citizens to fear thug violence and so you need thugs who are free from prosecution.

4. Set up an internal surveillance system

In Mussolini's Italy, in Nazi Germany, in communist East Germany, in communist China - in every closed society - secret police spy on ordinary people and encourage neighbours to spy on neighbours. The Stasi needed to keep only a minority of East Germans under surveillance to convince a majority that they themselves were being watched.

5. Harass citizens' groups

The fifth thing you do is related to step four - you infiltrate and harass citizens' groups. It can be trivial: a church in Pasadena, whose minister preached that Jesus was in favour of peace, found itself being investigated by the Internal Revenue Service, while churches that got Republicans out to vote, which is equally illegal under US tax law, have been left alone.

6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release

This scares people. It is a kind of cat-and-mouse game. Nicholas D Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn, the investigative reporters who wrote China Wakes: the Struggle for the Soul of a Rising Power, describe pro-democracy activists in China, such as Wei Jingsheng, being arrested and released many times. In a closing or closed society there is a "list" of dissidents and opposition leaders: you are targeted in this way once you are on the list, and it is hard to get off the list.

7. Target key individuals

Threaten civil servants, artists and academics with job loss if they don't toe the line. Mussolini went after the rectors of state universities who did not conform to the fascist line; so did Joseph Goebbels, who purged academics who were not pro-Nazi; so did Chile's Augusto Pinochet; so does the Chinese communist Politburo in punishing pro-democracy students and professors.

8. Control the press

Italy in the 1920s, Germany in the 30s, East Germany in the 50s, Czechoslovakia in the 60s, the Latin American dictatorships in the 70s, China in the 80s and 90s - all dictatorships and would-be dictators target newspapers and journalists. They threaten and harass them in more open societies that they are seeking to close, and they arrest them and worse in societies that have been closed already.

9. Dissent equals treason

Cast dissent as "treason" and criticism as "espionage'. Every closing society does this, just as it elaborates laws that increasingly criminalise certain kinds of speech and expand the definition of "spy" and "traitor". When Bill Keller, the publisher of the New York Times, ran the Lichtblau/Risen stories, Bush called the Times' leaking of classified information "disgraceful", while Republicans in Congress called for Keller to be charged with treason, and rightwing commentators and news outlets kept up the "treason" drumbeat. Some commentators, as Conason noted, reminded readers smugly that one penalty for violating the Espionage Act is execution.
9. Dissent equals treason

Cast dissent as "treason" and criticism as "espionage'. Every closing society does this, just as it elaborates laws that increasingly criminalise certain kinds of speech and expand the definition of "spy" and "traitor". When Bill Keller, the publisher of the New York Times, ran the Lichtblau/Risen stories, Bush called the Times' leaking of classified information "disgraceful", while Republicans in Congress called for Keller to be charged with treason, and rightwing commentators and news outlets kept up the "treason" drumbeat. Some commentators, as Conason noted, reminded readers smugly that one penalty for violating the Espionage Act is execution.

10. Suspend the rule of law

The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 gave the president new powers over the national guard. This means that in a national emergency - which the president now has enhanced powers to declare - he can send Michigan's militia to enforce a state of emergency that he has declared in Oregon, over the objections of the state's governor and its citizens.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html

You cannot win mike. It is impossible to win combatting truth with lies and propoganda. That only works until the people are aware of what your doing. That window has opened and closed. Now your party is done for a generation

Posted by: rufus | July 24, 2007 6:34 PM | Report abuse

bsimon - I believe that your state has a strong historic record of fair elections.

Unfortunately, many states have a strong history of vote tampering of every possible kind. When LBJ beat Coke Stevenson for the Senate in '48[?], both sides stuffed so many boxes that the Texas Supreme Court refused to rule for a rerun, saying, in effect, "a pox on both your houses".

And Louisiana balloting history is colorful, compared to Texas. I think that vigilance is still called for, but in fact may have the desired prophylactic effect, because, as you say, instances of provable fraud have become rare, indeed.

JimD, can you cite me to the consent decree? Was that for the Jacksonville vote in '00?


Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 24, 2007 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Rufus -- You are a coward.

You are blatantly ignorant. And you refuse to admit it.

Instead, you flood the posts with your nonsense again and again.

RUFUS IS IGNORANT.

RUFUS BELIEVES ALL DEMOCRATS ADVOCATE THE FOLLOWING:

-DESTRUCTION OF JEWS AND ISRAEL
-MURDER OF POLITICAL OPPONENTS
-DEATH OF AMERICAN TROOPS

I'm surprised no Democrats on this thread are disagreeing with these claims.


We Tried... that was the funniest thing I've read in a long time.

Posted by: Mike | July 24, 2007 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Bill Richardson, though not great in the debate scenario, is the most QUALIFIED candidate in the race. Without fail he has come up with solid answers and strategies adressing the War in Iraq (which had nothing to do with terrorism.)
Ever read his energy policy? His withdrawal policy? His immigration policy?
Perhaps you should. He has REAL-WORLD foriegn diplomacy experience, REAL-WORLD energy experience, REAL-WORLD immigration experience, and has served his nation honorably and with dignity. Not along PARTY lines.He is, I believe, the one true hope for our country to regain some Dignity, Honesty, and Integrity.

Posted by: erkster46 | July 24, 2007 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Bill Richardson, though not great in the debate scenario, is the most QUALIFIED candidate in the race. Without fail he has come up with solid answers and strategies adressing the War in Iraq (which had nothing to do with terrorism.)
Ever read his energy policy? His withdrawal policy? His immigration policy?
Perhaps you should. He has REAL-WORLD foriegn diplomacy experience, REAL-WORLD energy experience, REAL-WORLD immigration experience, and has served his nation honorably and with dignity. Not along PARTY lines.He is, I believe, the one true hope for our country to regain some Dignity, Honesty, and Integrity.

Posted by: erkster46 | July 24, 2007 6:08 PM | Report abuse

A single post at a time would be nice too!

Posted by: Sybil2 | July 24, 2007 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Rufuses: Only one of you at a time, please!

Posted by: Sybil | July 24, 2007 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Anybody out there want me off this site. Here's your chance.

Go to www.crooksandliars.com

or

http://skinthefox.com/sponsors_001.htm

There is a list of sponsers of Fox news (some are old and no longer sponser.)

Last night Bill O Told his veiwers to go after the sponsers of people of business if they don't like what they are saying. As if any business (other than fox) is compleately rep or dem. As if a company is supposed to do rep lipmus test to hire only repubs. As if in said companies they sit around and talk only repub or dem issues. So people are saying "I have a probelm with Fox. Let's go after their advertisers."

Here is a list of fox advertisers. If willing call or email them in droves and tell them that rather than their advertising dollars going to grow their business. O'REilly is telling anybody who disagree's with fox or him to boycott the advertisers. Practice what you preach GOP.
Email or call and tell them their dollars to fox are not helping but hurting them publically. Imus applied to Fox.

Those that don't give two shi-- about this country ignore this post. Those that do stop hiding your heads in the sand and get these people off the air.

Those that want me off the air, help me get fox off and you got your wish. Otherwise, shut your mouths or fingers in this case. Put up or shut. Practice what you preach. Or put your money where O'reilly's mouth is.

Posted by: rufus | July 24, 2007 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Anybody out there want me off this site. Here's your chance.

Go to www.crooksandliars.com

or

http://skinthefox.com/sponsors_001.htm

There is a list of sponsers of Fox news (some are old and no longer sponser.)

Last night Bill O Told his veiwers to go after the sponsers of people of business if they don't like what they are saying. As if any business (other than fox) is compleately rep or dem. As if a company is supposed to do rep lipmus test to hire only repubs. As if in said companies they sit around and talk only repub or dem issues. So people are saying "I have a probelm with Fox. Let's go after their advertisers."

Here is a list of fox advertisers. If willing call or email them in droves and tell them that rather than their advertising dollars going to grow their business. O'REilly is telling anybody who disagree's with fox or him to boycott the advertisers. Practice what you preach GOP.
Email or call and tell them their dollars to fox are not helping but hurting them publically. Imus applied to Fox.

Those that don't give two shi-- about this country ignore this post. Those that do stop hiding your heads in the sand and get these people off the air.

Those that want me off the air, help me get fox off and you got your wish. Otherwise, shut your mouths or fingers in this case. Put up or shut. Practice what you preach. Or put your money where O'reilly's mouth is.

Posted by: rufus | July 24, 2007 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Anybody out there want me off this site. Here's your chance.

Go to www.crooksandliars.com

or

http://skinthefox.com/sponsors_001.htm

There is a list of sponsers of Fox news (some are old and no longer sponser.)

Last night Bill O Told his veiwers to go after the sponsers of people of business if they don't like what they are saying. As if any business (other than fox) is compleately rep or dem. As if a company is supposed to do rep lipmus test to hire only repubs. As if in said companies they sit around and talk only repub or dem issues. So people are saying "I have a probelm with Fox. Let's go after their advertisers."

Here is a list of fox advertisers. If willing call or email them in droves and tell them that rather than their advertising dollars going to grow their business. O'REilly is telling anybody who disagree's with fox or him to boycott the advertisers. Practice what you preach GOP.
Email or call and tell them their dollars to fox are not helping but hurting them publically. Imus applied to Fox.

Those that don't give two shi-- about this country ignore this post. Those that do stop hiding your heads in the sand and get these people off the air.

Those that want me off the air, help me get fox off and you got your wish. Otherwise, shut your mouths or fingers in this case. Put up or shut. Practice what you preach. Or put your money where O'reilly's mouth is.

Posted by: rufus | July 24, 2007 5:57 PM | Report abuse

wHY YOU WANNA BE LIKE ME. yOU CAN'T. wHEN YOU try YOU LOOK LIKE A FOOL ZOUK. gO PLAY WITH YOUR TEDDY RUPSKIN OR SOMETHING. Have him read you a story. Your used to taking orders and told stories. Continue at your own perile. You got one more.

You better try and figure out how to fix the destruction of this great country both overseas and domestically. Not cool wasting time attacking that which doesn't matter. I know. That's what lohan/paris/Rosie O'donnel/ann nicole/alec baldwin and whoever your "NEWS" decides to talk about today. Mike vick.

You people are a lost cause. It's ok you have a year. And you have one more post zouk before unleashing an onslaught. If you want it go ahead. Others can blame zoukie for the aftermath :)

Posted by: RUFUS | July 24, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

"This word game is getting all too transparent."

From the masters of etemology:
choice = kill an infant
redeploy = humiliation and surrender
is = was
s*x = not what he did
green = taxes
SS = taxes
Vote D = taxes
taxes = something the rich pay to the rest of us freeloaders
carbon offsets = rip off pyramid scheme, much like social security
support the troops = want them in the private sector
strong defense = hide in the celler
liberal = progressive
government = best way to run anything
profit = evil gop idea
health care = power
the Poor = suckers who vote for us if we bribe them

and so on....

Posted by: We tried, we failed, We're Libs, situation normal | July 24, 2007 5:48 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP writes
"Any substance to the claim that there is some VRWC to supress minority voters has long since vanished since the 1960's."

Well, except that its a perennial issue for the GOP, for no apparent reason. As has been noted multiple times above, what little voter fraud does happen doesn't appear to be impact the outcome of elections. Perhaps there is not 'proof' of said VRWC, but there is certainly anecdotal evidence that implies their concerns about election fraud are driven by an intention to suppress minority votes, rather than to solve a real, widespread problem.

In the end the question becomes - if the goal is to ensure the integrity of elections - is it better to squelch all voter fraud - even if such efforts discourage legitimate voters from voting, or is it better to encourage all eligible voters to take part in the process, even if a few folks end up voting illegally?

There is a parallel in our judicial system. Our system is designed to minimize the chances that people are incarcerated incorrectly. The standard for guilt is 'beyond reasonable doubt' and 'innocent until proven guilty.' Generally, the greater social good is seen as occasionally letting the guilty go free, vs incarcerating the innocent.

Posted by: bsimon | July 24, 2007 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Loudoun, I apologize for having offended you by suggesting that your ultimate vote was predictable. I, of course, do not know how you will vote, nor do I know how Cassandra, Mike, or proud will vote.
I welcome their tuition as well.

So that you understand why a simpleton lawyer in Texas like me could have erred, it came from my having read phrases from you like

"... contard-dominated GOP..."

that seemed weighted with, oh, a certain level of contempt for that entire one-third of the country who register as Rs.

Now I am led to understand that you were merely exaggerating to make a point, and that you are open to many views.

Colin, may I please substitute you for LV in my example of persons whose ultimate vote in the Presidential election will be predictably D?

Posted by: Mark in Austin | July 24, 2007 5:45 PM | Report abuse

proud,

I never said there was a vast right wing conspiracy. What has been DOCUMENTED is alleged ballot security measures instituted by various Republican organizations that have the end result of suppressing or intimidating minority voters. As I said before, why would these organizations sign consent decrees to stop some of these practices? It is DOCUMENTED that thousands of minority voters were erroneously removed from the rolls in Florida in a supposed felon purge. It is DOCUMENTED that various state Republican organizations have repeatedly challenged minority voters in various precincts to produce identification beyond what the local jurisdiction required.

I am not defending Richardson's overall positions, I was origianlly interested in him based on his resume and foreign affairs experience. I believe he is taking a position on Iraq that he knows is foolish to court the leftists in the primaries.

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 24, 2007 5:45 PM | Report abuse

"Chavez may have been democratically elected but he is busy trying to undermine any restraints on presidential power. He is purging the civil service to keep only loyalists. He is turning the media into cheerleaders. He has stacked the judiciary with followers who rubber stamp his moves that seem at odds with the Venezuelan constitution."

Boy, did this bring out a feeling of deja vu! Sure sounds like someone sitting in the white house right now!

Posted by: CJB | July 24, 2007 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Rufus -- You are (still) ignorant (see above).

Posted by: Mike | July 24, 2007 5:41 PM | Report abuse

This word game is getting all too transparent.

First, the R's established "voter suppression" as the new definition of "ballot security", emphasizing non-existent voter-fraud as the "primary" culprit.

Then when the Democrats refuse to support "voter suppression" legislation, the R's turn around and claim Dems do not favor "voter security," and perpetuated that subtle word-deception even after they lost power. And now that the Dems have begun to restore the REAL meaning of the term "voter security" the R's are still using the reference from before, as if the meaning doesn't really matter, only the framing.

DUH!!

It's the framing shell-game, but it has been repeated so many times, there aren't any suckers left, just hucksters.

And now they are just fooling each other.

Posted by: JEP | July 24, 2007 5:40 PM | Report abuse

YOU GOT NOTHING ZOUK. NOTHING

HAHAHAHHA Great day:)

Pink shirt buddy. Pink shirt :)

Posted by: rufus | July 24, 2007 5:40 PM | Report abuse

"Twice-baked bushisms.. now there's a new phrase that says a lot in a few words... "

Leave it to JEP to marvel at his own genius and wordsmithing. I would posit that you are the only one impressed, for obvious reasons. Thomas Payne you are NOT. More like Pee Wee Herman.

Posted by: We tried, we failed, We're Libs, situation normal | July 24, 2007 5:37 PM | Report abuse

JimD- Any substance to the claim that there is some VRWC to supress minority voters has long since vanished since the 1960's. The sound of Richardson invoking such a divisive charge and gross generalization in 2007 strikes me as pandering and desperation on his part to continue to flog that dead horse for his minority constituents.

Heck, this is a guy who wants to give every illegal immigrant full healthcare coverage paid for by US taxpayers. Of course he wants their vote too.

He wins the prize for "fastest surrender in Iraq". He may now be farther to the left than Kucinich, I'm not sure.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | July 24, 2007 5:35 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP writes
"Democrats are uninterested in preventing voter fraud, something that has been well documented too."

Can you provide such documentation? My understanding is that voter fraud happens, but very infrequently. Again, my understanding is that voter fraud is typically a problem on a one by one basis, not some kind of widespred conspiracy that impacts the outcomes of elections. For instance, the alleged fraud that former US atty Iglesias chose not to prosecute was perpetrated by a volunteer with a get-out-the-vote effort; her efforts were apparently to maximize her own pay by adding false and/or invalid registrations to the legitimate ones she collected. Some tried to blame her employer for widespread voter fraud and or conspiracy to commit such, but following investigation, the DOJ found no such effort existed.

Posted by: bsimon | July 24, 2007 5:34 PM | Report abuse

"ballot security"

Don't let this term get doublespoken, it should mean "election integrity," not "voter ID" and there's not a more important Orwellian twist we should be more vigilant about.

The Schlotzman-era politicization at the DOJ's voter rights division hinged upon a pernicious application of those very words.

Posted by: JEP | July 24, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Get a life. tough guy. Any independant think can see for themselves what you people are about. Attack spin discredit. You cannot win an debate that way. Only works with chuckling dittoheads who are like you. you are a joke gop. You have less than a year. The gop WILL be voted out. Then who will protect your lying propogating fascist avatars? You have a short time. Better use it fixing the destruction you cause rather than elementary school kids tricks. Any independant thinkers are laughing at you zouk. You are a joke

Posted by: rufus | July 24, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

But the gulf between rich and poor is fixed, and while the American Dream should afford anyone willing to wark, access to that wealth, it is very hard to cross over from that side to "this one."

Wrong, studies show that 20% of the super rich are not in ten years and 80% of the super poor are not in ten years. the chanting and lies is never in accordance with the facts in JEP's world.

Posted by: We tried, we failed, We're Libs, situation normal | July 24, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Democrats are uninterested in preventing voter fraud

how would they win otherwise???

Posted by: Anonymous | July 24, 2007 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Janet points out a good point - there was a two part question that Cooper just ignored asked by the veteran. (Cooper had the single worst performance of anyone on that stage - Katrina in Armani and the now leading the morons at CNN trying to make this into a two person race.)

Biden is the only person with a son who could be deployed to Iraq. That should have been pointed out. As an OIF vet, the notion that this has been a shared sacrifice in this nation is as much a fallacy as was WMD or 'the last throws'. All the rest of the politicians give the standard BS of 'honoring our service and sacrifice' that seems all to disingenuous. Particularly when you ask if any of them employ a veteran of a foreign war on their staff (my senator, Obama, who sits on the VA subcommittee does NOT) or exactly HOW they support vets.

I hate conspiracy theories, (mostly because we overestimate the intelligence of people like Wolf Blitzer and that pretty boy Cooper), but the media seems intent on ignoring such qualified candidates as Biden/Richardson/Dodd in favor of their own lame 'analysis'. Since when did they become central to any story.

Thank you Janet for pointing out that Biden was never given an opportunity to point out he has much more at stake in this debate, (his SON), than his political future.

Posted by: clawrence | July 24, 2007 5:28 PM | Report abuse

JEP - long time. your particular brand of nincompoop was quite unique for some time, but lately you have been replaced by a more virulent and aggressive strain of idiocy - the ignorant kos koward and his dingbat disciple rufas.

anyway welcome back

Posted by: We tried, we failed, We're Libs, situation normal | July 24, 2007 5:27 PM | Report abuse

WHAT WILL THEY DO WITHOUT THEIR AVATARS?:)

Hopefully, they will all finally speak for themselves.

it is yet to be decided, whether their posts and perspectives get more or less intelligent.

I would hope, without that pernicious influence of the wingnut talkers, these folks will clear up a bit and start proposing logical and meaningful dialogue, instead of twice-baked Bushisms.

Twice-baked bushisms.. now there's a new phrase that says a lot in a few words...

Says even more than half-baked.

Posted by: JEP | July 24, 2007 5:26 PM | Report abuse

proud,

I know the Dems are not clean on this. They favor very loose voter registration and certification measures. But, the studies also say that voter fraud is extremely rare. There have been "ballot security" efforts of dubious legality and many minority voters feel intimidated. One can argue about how reasonable that feeling is. My point was responding to your saying Richardson told an outrageous lie. There is some substance to the claim and I felt that your assertion should not go unchallenged. I might have been able to support Richardson if he hadn't taken such a ridiculous stand on Iraq.

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 24, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Mike writes, about hedge funds
"The minimum investment on most of these funds is 1,000,000. And you can't withdrawal for sometimes months or years.

The thinking is, these guys are rich, so if they don't bother understanding the risk they're taking, who cares if they lose their money.

Why do you want to protect them?"


Perhaps one good reason to enforce better disclosure from hedge funds is because pension funds are heavy investors in hedge funds. On the other hand, maybe the overseers of these pension funds should pay closer attention to the investments the pension guys pick.

For me its not hedge funds that are the problem, but mortgage brokers. They should be required to accept fiduciary responsibility for their clients' best interests. They're currently held to zero accountability. Ironically, of course, the mortgage brokers are managing to screw both the borrowers and the investors. They're selling obscenely expensive ARMs to unsophisticated borrowers, accepting those borrowers' lies about their own fiscal assets - then turning around and selling the bogus loans to hedge funds on false premises. Its a beautiful racket, really, if you overlook the ethics.

Posted by: bsimon | July 24, 2007 5:21 PM | Report abuse

One thing "rich" folks don't get, is that commoners don't begrudge a common man finding wealth, then speaking from a common man's point of view.

He's been there.

But when a child of privelege tries to speak ffom a common perspective, they simply can not, it's like the old song "you gotta pay your dues if you wanna sing the blues," a lifetime of privilege just takes you out of any common fraternity, ad unless you hit the skids and literally lose it all (it happens) you will never know what that common person knows, or undersand what they have experienced.

Sorry, it isn't that "we commoners" have tried to create an exclusive enclave that rich folks can't enter, it is a construct of their own doing (and undoing.)

But the gulf between rich and poor is fixed, and while the American Dream should afford anyone willing to wark, access to that wealth, it is very hard to cross over from that side to "this one."

And when that happend, the rare ones who survive usually don't pretend to speak for the real people they met on the way back up.

Posted by: JEP | July 24, 2007 5:16 PM | Report abuse

CC is a propogandist for hildog. He fears the change Obama would bring. Go Obama Gore 08

Posted by: JKrish | July 24, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

JimD- The "academic research paper" you cited also states in conclusion that Democrats have a long history of opposing legitimate ballot security efforts and that Democrats are uninterested in preventing voter fraud, something that has been well documented too.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | July 24, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

word is born JEP. I call them the GOP avatars. Bush/Rush limbaugh/sean hannity/rove/Oreilly.

I ask them daily. What will you do without your avatars? how will you think for yourselves? How will you survive?

It's good. Picture a world with no "dittoheads'. Imagine if everyone thought for themselves instead of like zouk/mike/proudgop(old man)/ parroting what they hear all day. The avatars don't have long, less than a year. WHAT WILL THEY DO WITHOUT THEIR AVATARS?:)

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 24, 2007 5:14 PM | Report abuse

One more vote for Obama here. He should have been named as one of the winners in this article wether the author was a fan of his or not.

Posted by: David D | July 24, 2007 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: blame bush? ok | July 24, 2007 5:08 PM | Report abuse

"Yoo's only real principle, his only True Conviction, is that the Leader is Good and Right."

He's a power addict. And the first step to recovery from any addiction is to admit a higher power.

Maybe that applies to neocon cultists, too. The first step to their recovery is to admit there's a higher power than Bush.

Except that they've already labeled it a "gd piece of paper."

FGEDERALIST SOCIETY, INDEED!

Bunch of raging monopolist fascists...

Posted by: JEP | July 24, 2007 5:08 PM | Report abuse

"Nothing happened on 9/11 that changed anything in the Lib world. We still don't get that there is a war on, escept the war on bush, of course."

the war on terror and the war on bush are the same. Nothing happened on 9/11? If you say so. You know what I think. Bush's freinds the saudi's and all. What will you say when the truth comes out, more so than it already has. How will you look your children in their eyes knowing you sold the country out and murdered millions for $$$$$$$$$$$

Posted by: rufus | July 24, 2007 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Colin -- I partially agree with your thoughts. Perhaps there should be more disclosure.

However, I thought you Dem types hate rich people.

The minimum investment on most of these funds is 1,000,000. And you can't withdrawal for sometimes months or years.

The thinking is, these guys are rich, so if they don't bother understanding the risk they're taking, who cares if they lose their money.

Why do you want to protect them?

I personally don't think these rich guys want or need a safety net. Besides, the kinds of transactions that the fund managers are able to do wouldn't exist if they were bound by normal mutual fund rules.

As far as the funds blowing up in the future -- that may be the only concern that would compel me to support legislation. Have you ever heard of LTCM (Long-Term-Capital-Management)? There's a wonderful, short read about it called "When Genius Failed".

Posted by: Mike | July 24, 2007 5:05 PM | Report abuse

:)

You got a problem? Take your ball and go home. You like to attack GOP. What you can't take it. Just like elementary school kids. No wonder "you think you smarter than a fifth grader" keeps you on your toes.HAHAHA

You want to run with the big dogs you gotta get off the porch :)

Stop whining. You got anything else FROMT HIS DECADE. Crying about clinton is so 90's. Whiners. you want me off stop the hypocricy. You want me off get rush/hannity/oreill/fox off the air. Until then keep crying. I saw Bohner crying in his pink shirt. Everytime zouk/mike cries it reminds me of that funny scene :).

That's for that zouk. You crying put a smile on my face

Posted by: rufus | July 24, 2007 5:04 PM | Report abuse

proud - we believe anything we choose. but only if it looks bad for bush. otherwise we tune out.

Posted by: loud and dumb voter | July 24, 2007 5:02 PM | Report abuse

I am still trying to use my Kos/Huff/Nation/moveon/Salon stuff to make a point from yesterday. It is not because I am an unthinking twit, which I am, it is because greenwald hasn't written anything new today.

Nothing happened on 9/11 that changed anything in the Lib world. We still don't get that there is a war on, escept the war on bush, of course.

Ignorant Kos koward aka greenwald

I'll try to find something from today to cut and paste here. Be right back.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 24, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

LOL the civil rights division of the Dept. of Justice found no credible evidence.

Just to be clear, folks, that would be the Bush Dept. of Justice.

And the US Commission on Civil Rights, now controlled by four Bush appointees, including the hack Kirsanow? The Commission is a joke.

Nice try, proud!

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | July 24, 2007 4:58 PM | Report abuse

did anyone notice that Biden called out the surrender -cowards on not voting to support a pay raise for the troops, on providing v-shaped undercarriages for Humvees, etc.

that is not what any normal person would call "supporting the troops", unless you're a Lib.

Posted by: We tried, we failed, We're Libs, situation normal | July 24, 2007 4:53 PM | Report abuse

"This is not the first time that Yoo has spouted fundamentally different "legal" views based on his political agenda. As Anonymous Liberal first noted last year, Yoo -- in 2003, before it was known that Bush was eavesdropping outside of FISA -- wrote an Op-Ed praising FISA as a constitutional and important safeguard which gave the President the eavesdropping tools he needed to fight the Terrorists while at the same time protecting our privacy.

But once it was revealed in 2005 that the President was violating FISA, Yoo suddenly reversed course, claiming that FISA was an unconstitutional infringement on the President's power and that Bush's violations of it were necessary to protect us all from being vaporized at the hands of the Terrorists. That behavior is quite similar to the right-wing fanatics who spent the 1990s vocally objecting to the "secret FISA court," whereby Bill Clinton could eavesdrop on us by getting warrants from a secret court (!), only to then defend George Bush's eavesdropping on us with no warrants or judicial oversight of any kind.

Like every good authoritarian, Yoo's only real principle, his only True Conviction, is that the Leader is Good and Right. Everything else he says is but a tool used to achieve that end, and as is true for all authoritarians -- indeed, it is one of their defining mental attributes -- there is no bar against holding fundamentally opposite views simultaneously as long as each is used to strengthen the cause and defend the Leader. John Yoo is the embodiment of the authoritarian mind."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

Posted by: greenwald | July 24, 2007 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Chris, you showed your obvious dislike of Obama but not even mentioning him in your article. He was was very good last night, better than your shrew Hillary. Your are one of Hillary's hacks who are steamed that Obama stepped in the way of her plans to dominate the Democratic field. You also are a fool for not mentioning the straightforward answers of Joe Biden. Did anyone else notice how the candidates and Anderson Cooper steered away from the question of whether the candidates had anyone in their family serving in Iraq? The guestion was part of a two part question asked by the veteran who lost his father and son in military service.

Posted by: janet | July 24, 2007 4:48 PM | Report abuse

"purposeful slander of Rs"

ooooh! what a bunch of meanies those Dems are...

Does anyone remember "...lets kick their soft teeth down their whiney throats!?"

So that was something to be Proud about?

Posted by: JEP | July 24, 2007 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Mike -- I think the Investment Advisers Act should apply to Hedge Funds and their managers, although I'd be fine with some carve-outs regarding fee structures and leverage so that Hedge Funds can continue to operate with more leeway than most registered funds. The end result would be an awful lot more transparency regarding how the funds are run and what the risks associated with such investments are.

There are an awful lot of people within the industry who think that Hedge Funds are going to blow up in the near future. Time will tell I suppose, although I definitely am skeptical that there are enough genuinely gifted people out there to match the ever increasing number of private funds...

Posted by: Colin | July 24, 2007 4:47 PM | Report abuse

I heard the oil companies are making a profit. we had better investigate again. the last two times they managed to hide their evil deeds.

Posted by: the extent of Dem policy | July 24, 2007 4:46 PM | Report abuse

"John Edwards is NOT a politician..."

thanks for that comment, now I know why I like him.

I didn't realize it until you mentioned it, but now that you point it out, I think that viewpoint explains why so many of us hold him in an esteem above Hillary and Barrack, who are both more qualified than any Republican to lead this country.

But they are both also trapped in a political slugfest, bound by their extended staff of Rovish pols to battle it out for political supremacy over each other.

Gephart/Dean, ca. IA primaries, 2003?

Edwards has higher priorities.

Posted by: JEP | July 24, 2007 4:42 PM | Report abuse

i'm ashamed. i once viewed sen. hillary clinton as a ambituous sweet talker riding on the shirt tails of her husband. after viewing the debates and her hard stand on the blunders of the bush administration along with her response to meeting with the leaders of the worlds most voltile leaders, in which she stated she would not do until certain diplomacy is established, i have to believe what a fine president this lady is going to be. "now" i wonder who will be her veep?

Posted by: aj michigan | July 24, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

So since Hillary also wants to start diplomatic talks, then the "exact wording" discussion is just a minor ripple that only political junkies will care about.

Posted by: Golgi | July 24, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Executive priv does actually apply to private conversations about the country's business. It does not apply to covering up indiscretions with interns. the clintons preverted this for all time. Just like pardons for cash, sleepovers for cash, secrets for cash, etc.

Posted by: duffy rufy | July 24, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

proud

Read the documentation. There are a lot of wild urban legends that cannot be proved but WHY WOULD GOP ORGANIZATIONS SIGN CONSENT DECREES IF IT IS ALL URBAN LEGEND? Are you saying those court orders did not happen? The purges of the supposed felons in Florida absolutely did erroneously remove thousands of black voters. There was a GOP congressional candidate who mailed a letter to the Latino voters telling them basically they could be arrested if they voted. IT HAPPENS.

The Republicans harp about "ballot security' to combat "voter fraud" that always seems to place obstacles in front of minority voters. Independent studies have long concluded that voter fraud is extremely rare.

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 24, 2007 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Rufus -- you're ignorant. (See Above)

Posted by: Mike | July 24, 2007 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Re diplomacy plans:

Just a few months ago, Hillary said the same thing she is now beating up on Obama for:

Apr 22, 2007 10:12 pm US/Eastern
(CBS/AP) DECORAH, Iowa
Hillary Rodham Clinton on Sunday criticized President Bush's foreign policy, and said if she were president she would do things differently, including beginning diplomatic talks with supposed enemies and sending envoys throughout the world.

"I would begin diplomatic discussions with those countries with whom we have differences, to try to figure out what is the depth of those differences," said Clinton, who spoke to about 1,000 people at Luther College in Decorah in northeastern Iowa.

"I think it is a terrible mistake for our president to say he will not talk with bad people. You don't make peace with your friends -- you have to do the hard work of dealing with people you don't agree with," said Clinton, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.

Posted by: Golgi | July 24, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

As long as it works out for the gop, right old man? The ends justify the fascist means, right

Posted by: rufus | July 24, 2007 4:32 PM | Report abuse

JimD - to rebut your salacious claims, here are some examples of why all of that nonsense is urban legend at best, and purposeful slander of Rs at worse...

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights conducted a six-month investigation in 2004 of the charges that thousands of blacks were disenfranchised, harassed, and intimidated from voting and found absolutely NO evidence of systematic disenfranchisement of black voters.

The civil-rights division of the Department of Justice also found NO credible evidence that any Floridians were intentionally denied the right to vote.

If there was a conspiracy to disenfranchise Ohio voters, black or white, its execution was profoundly inept.

Ohio voter turnout increased from 4.9 million in 2000 to 5.5 million in 2004.

Estimated black-voter turnout alone rose by 25 percent.

"It would be helpful if ostensibly responsible individuals refrained from inflammatory disenfranchisement rhetoric that erodes public confidence in the electoral process." - Peter Kirsanow, a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.


Posted by: proudtobeGOP | July 24, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

These gop'ers love to point at the source. Even when repeatly line for line WHAT THEY SAY BACK TO THEM. Somehow mediamatters is a hate site because you repaet what they say back. Not sure that works. Not sure how many people are buying that. I'm betting not many

"Reports that President Clinton may invoke executive privilege to block the investigation into the Monica Lewinsky affair have elements of both. . . .

Mindful of the extraordinary step of keeping information secret in a democratic government, presidents since Nixon have been wary of resorting to executive privilege. Presidents Ford, Carter and Bush formally raised the privilege only once each, and President Reagan three times in two full terms. In less than 1 1/2 terms, Mr. Clinton has claimed executive privilege at least six times, four times before Congress and twice in court. Like the boy crying wolf, Mr. Clinton's regular use of the privilege threatens to dilute its effectiveness for future presidents on matters of true national importance . . . .

A decision to invoke executive privilege in this case would be yet another example of the Clinton administration's failure to understand the distinction between the office of the president and the person who happens to be the president. In democracies, we distinguish between a public office and the person who holds that office; people for whom the office and the person are one and the same are called kings.
"

Posted by: Yoo. staright from the horses mouth | July 24, 2007 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Well, Senator Obama just lost the Florida primary when he said he would agree to meet with dictators like Venzuela's Hugo Chavez or Cuba's Fidel Castro.

With all due respect Senator Obama has a lot to learn about foreign policy and the US presidency is not a learn as you go type of job.

Posted by: Al | July 24, 2007 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Well, Senator Obama just lost the Florida primary when he said he would agree to meet with dictators like Venzuela's Hugo Chavez or Cuba's Fidel Castro.

With all due respect Senator Obama has a lot to learn about foreign policy and the US presidency is not a learn as you go type of job.

Posted by: Al | July 24, 2007 4:28 PM | Report abuse

You saying independants unity while attack dems'. You want chance by elceting the same party and people that have been in charge for 15 years? Ok. Go with that. See who else what's to buy a bridge. I know you gop'ers hate this country. I know you talk about how hard it i elsewhere and how great we have it, how we should be MORE LIKEOTHER COUNTRIES. Guess what? This is america. We have a differant goal than those countries.You gop'ers want to live in south korea be my guest. America, land of the free home of the BRAVE remember. Lost your fear. Fear is in your head. Changing the country to a fascsit state won;t take fear or make us more safe. You have been lied to. Fear doesn;'t exist.

Posted by: rufus | July 24, 2007 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 24, 2007 4:25 PM | Report abuse

It is certainly time for all Americans to consider the truth about politics and the media. We rarely get the truth from either one. A Clinton by any name is still a Clinton and bad for all of us. Hilary offers NOTHING new and the rest of the world apparently thinks the same way. Read it and weep Hilarites...If Democrats haven't learned anything by backing candidates like Howard Dean and John Kerry, then they deserve Hilary. It is time for us to put someone in the Oval Office that can make the changes necessary for Americans to regain America. Not new higher taxes, not a watered-down pointless healthcare system and certainly not a President who wants to go around the world apolgizing and selling us down the river. I don't see any other foreign nations reaching out to us for anything but money or big give-aways. In case Americans don't know...France elected a new leader that is not a liberal...Germany elected a new leader that is not a liberal...Spain caved in to terrorist and ran from democracy like a scarred cat!!!! Independents please unite and take this country away from those who want to see us defeated by our diversity, torn apart by special interests and who are more concerned about looking smart than being smart. I believe in America and ask again, INDEPENDENTS UNITE and take this country to NEW HEIGHTS...the American public is not stupid like Democrats like to say..we are perhaps too trustful of those we elect. It is time to make our government WORK for US!!!

Posted by: independentforamerica | July 24, 2007 4:22 PM | Report abuse

sorry about the double post

http://www.votelaw.com/blog/blogdocs/GOP_Ballot_Security_Programs.pdf

This academic research paper documents many "ballot security" measures that amount to little more than efforts to suppress minority votes.

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 24, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

John Edwards should do so much better in a debate scenario, After all, he made a fortune performing for juries as his profession! Sadly, he's performed quite poorly in every debate thus far. It is as if he's asleep at the wheel.

I often times wonder if HE wants the presidency as badly as Elizabeth. He is cetainly a different candidate that he was in 2004 and it's not for the better. Very lackluster.

What is up with those CHEESY photos in men's and women's Vogue? So much for the Edwardses being "down to earth." I hate to say it, but I think their ship has sailed.

Posted by: Jennifer Strum | July 24, 2007 4:20 PM | Report abuse

"But this isn't the first Op-Ed Yoo has written on the topic of Executive Privilege for the Wall St. Journal. Back in 1998, when Bill Clinton was asserting the same privilege to resist Congressional demands that his closest aides testify about the President's deliberations in responding to the various Lewinsky investigations, Yoo became one of the leading spokespeople denouncing the assertion of this privilege. "


So executive privledge bad for bj's good for the murder of thousands of people. good for the destruction of the doj. As long as he's not cheating on his wife. As long as he is claims he's a "christian" right? The gop is a joke. Now the jokes on you. YOu have a year. use it wisely

Posted by: frickin gop hypocrites | July 24, 2007 4:19 PM | Report abuse

I'm not wasting time on you puppet fascists today. I got bigger fish to fry.

Fox is done. Like the GOp thye have less than a year of relevance. Keeping talking yourslef into a frenzy Mike/zouk. You have a year. Then you will be back in the closet. Little angry tim mcveighs. You have a year of relevance. Then you little cry babies will go back to what you do best. HATING AMERICA, when your not in charge.

You got a year left. Rather than spinning and attacking you better try and fix the detruction you have cause to this great country. No amount of blame will fix this one for you.

Enough whining zouk/mike. We already know you are little elementary school kids. You want me off this site, help get get Fox off the air. Otherwise. SILENCE

nO MORE SOUP for you. You have a year. use it wisely. You party is done for a generation. HAHAHAHAHHAHA. I laugh at you. The only people you are convincing zouk is yourself. You are in dream world, have been for years. To bad (for you) more people aren't with

Posted by: Too busy today. Bigger fish | July 24, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Report: Man with Almost No Brain Has Led Normal Life
Tuesday, July 24, 2007

According a case history to be published in Saturday's Lancet, Dr. Lionel Feuillet told AFP. "The images were most unusual... the brain was virtually absent."

Congratulations Rufus, they have diganosed your problem at last!

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | July 24, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

proud

There have been definite attempts by Republican groups in various places to suppress minority votes. In fact, there have been numerous consent decrees by which the national and state GOP organizations have agreed to cease and desist from using these tactics.

Some examples:

Off-duty police were hired in Orlando to go through a minority neighborhood and question citizens about their voting habits. The officers talked about criminal penalties for voter fraud and provided inaccurate examples of what that would be. The Justice Department is investigating.

South Dakota Republican officials sent police to investigate 2000 newly registered Native American voters.

There have been numerous examples of misleading information mailed to minority voters, of old and dilapidated voting machines provided to minority precincts, of fewer machines per voter being placed in minority precincts than in majority precincts. Florida in 2000 hired a consultant to supposedly purge felons from the voting rolls - thousands on non-felons were stripped from the rolls. Virtually all were minorities. There have been numerous instances of election officials demanding indentification well beyond the legal requirements.

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 24, 2007 4:14 PM | Report abuse

proud

There have been definite attempts by Republican groups in various places to suppress minority votes. In fact, there have been numerous consent decrees by which the national and state GOP organizations have agreed to cease and desist from using these tactics.

Some examples:

Off-duty police were hired in Orlando to go through a minority neighborhood and question citizens about their voting habits. The officers talked about criminal penalties for voter fraud and provided inaccurate examples of what that would be. The Justice Department is investigating.

South Dakota Republican officials sent police to investigate 2000 newly registered Native American voters.

There have been numerous examples of misleading information mailed to minority voters, of old and dilapidated voting machines provided to minority precincts, of fewer machines per voter being placed in minority precincts than in majority precincts. Florida in 2000 hired a consultant to supposedly purge felons from the voting rolls - thousands on non-felons were stripped from the rolls. Virtually all were minorities. There have been numerous instances of election officials demanding indentification well beyond the legal requirements.

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 24, 2007 4:14 PM | Report abuse

I have to say, I wasn't a big Clinton fan before but the more I see of her, the more polished and smart and articulate she becomes.

I have to say, if she doesn't get it, no woman will.

Posted by: toby | July 24, 2007 4:13 PM | Report abuse

The Dow Jones industrials fell more than 200 points.


the market is now contemplating the idea that hillary has assumed she will gain the nomination and is now aiming her message at primary voters. the extreme left Kos haters are going to go loco. Edwards has shown he is a snake oil salesman, Obama is an adolescent. The inevitable hillary has turned the corner. Her shuffle to the left is over.

Posted by: the market knows | July 24, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand. While my lying eyes saw all the Democratic presidential candidates on last night's stage, Dan Balz's article clearly indicates that only Hillary and Obama participated.

Posted by: BSE--Mpls | July 24, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton, as always, was calm, cool, collected and concise in her responses. She won the debate hands down, as usual. She is the embodiment of "presidential."

John Edwards is NOT a politician, but he tries to play one on TV.

Winner? I think not!

Posted by: Barry Goode | July 24, 2007 4:09 PM | Report abuse

John Edwards has proposed taxing the millionaires in hedge funds and private equity firms.
A few days later, Obama and Hillary joined him.

Posted by: annefrank | July 24, 2007 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Rufus -- WAY TO NOT EVEN ANSWER THE QUESTION

I guess Rufus is admitting that the following ideas are "Democrat" ideas and not just far-left hate filled ideas:

-Exterminate Israel
-Attack the Troops
-Wish Death and Suffering on our political opponents

Nice, Rufus. You really are a clown.

Posted by: Mike | July 24, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

I just can't wait till Algore gets his Nobel Peace prize. At least two of the candidates, especially Billary, will need to go to the rest room to change clothes once Algore enters the race. Then things will get real fun!

Posted by: bdstauffer | July 24, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

"Your gop boy that you quoted yesterday"

pretend rufas (as we all know rufas can't spell or write an English sentence)

Yoo, A lawyer and published in the WSJ. while you ignoramus are busy sitting around cutting and pasting from hate blogs to "inform" your fellow travellers about all the injustice in the world. you are so cowardly as to post under anyone's name but your own. Meanwhile you rip off your employer by doing nothing productive all day. Is bossing around those interns too taxing for you, is directing them to seal, frank and mail constituent services too dreary for a genius like you? Maybe you would be noticed if you ever did anything.

summary - we have a flock of mindless hating bloggers continually challenging their betters and always falling short of any accomplishment, returning day after day to fight the battle again.

come to think of it, that sounds a lot like Reid, your vainglorious leader.

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 24, 2007 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Colin -- that comment was meant to be within the context of this whole idea that John Edwards isn't like the other mainstream, big-business backed candidates. My underlying point is that he's just like all the rest.

Any of you Dems that hate the nebulous monster "big business" and don't think your candidate is getting serious backing are wrong.

What do you think would be appropriate legislation regarding hedge funds and why (curious)?

Posted by: Mike | July 24, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Again, stop and whining and crying everyday. You got a problem you have two choices.

1. leave.

2.Anybody out there want me off this site. Here's your chance.

Go to www.crooksandliars.com

or

http://skinthefox.com/sponsors_001.htm

There is a list of sponsers of Fox news (some are old and no longer sponser.)

Last night Bill O Told his veiwers to go after the sponsers of people of business if they don't like what they are saying. As if any business (other than fox) is compleately rep or dem. As if a company is supposed to do rep lipmus test to hire only repubs. As if in said companies they sit around and talk only repub or dem issues. So people are saying "I have a probelm with Fox. Let's go after their advertisers."

Here is a list of fox advertisers. If willing call or email them in droves and tell them that rather than their advertising dollars going to grow their business. O'REilly is telling anybody who disagree's with fox or him to boycott the advertisers. Practice what you preach GOP.
Email or call and tell them their dollars to fox are not helping but hurting them publically. Imus applied to Fox.

Those that don't give two shi-- about this country ignore this post. Those that do stop hiding your heads in the sand and get these people off the air.

THOSE THAT WANT ME OFF THIS SITE, help me get fox off and you got your wish. Otherwise, shut your mouths or fingers in this case. Put up or shut. Practice what you preach. Or put your money where O'Reilly's mouth is.

Posted by: RUFUS | July 24, 2007 3:54 PM | Report abuse

"notice how enjoyable and deep the discussion is without the imbecilic Rufas and ignorant Kos koward hijacking the thread." Shhhh, I'm in disguise....

Posted by: Greenwald | July 24, 2007 03:29 PM

Oh well it was fun while it lasted.

"the rabid hatred of the D-Kos crowd who are attempting to hijack our party "

Indeed, they are loud and annoying but clearly not even a small percentage of the electorate, even the Dem voters shun them. Watch as the frantic ravings and postings accelerate. One would think George Bush and Bill Clinton are runnning again.

Posted by: there goes the neighborhood | July 24, 2007 3:48 PM | Report abuse

"The Wall St. Journal Editorial Page wanted someone to defend George Bush's serial assertions of "Executive Privilege" to block investigations into his wrongdoing, and it turned, of course, to ex-Bush-DOJ-lawyer John Yoo, who is not only the most authoritarian but also the most partisan and intellectually dishonest lawyer in the country. Yoo is not only willing -- but intensely eager -- to defend literally anything George W. Bush does or would want to do, including -- literally -- torturing people and crushing the testicles of children if the Leader decreed that doing so was necessary to fight Terrorists. Yoo, of course, is a principal author of most of the radical executive power theories which have eroded our constitutional framework over the last six years. "

Your gop boy that you quoted yesterday

Posted by: rufus | July 24, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

"The example he used was not a "Dem" group, but a hate group"

You make my point for me. How many times does O'Reilly resport to personal attacks and name calling? How many times a minute? How many basless labels on people he doesn't even know. Rosie?

He sits on his throne as a judge in the court of public opinion. He claims YOU should silence "hate groups". Rush? Hannity? Doesn't he have coulter on their?

Practice what you preach mike. Put the advertisers money where O'REILLY"S mouth is.

Fickin republcina hypocrites.

Posted by: rufus | July 24, 2007 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Mike -- I'm liberal, I'm a Democrat, and I don't Hedge Funds or any other type of Business. As a matter of fact, as a lawyer most of my practice has focused on the financial services industry. So the fact that Edwards worked at a Hedge Fund doesn't bother me, or many mainstream Democrats, at all.

The only trick, you see, is that folks like me think that appropriate regulation of entities like Hedge Funds is a good idea. Since Edwards agrees with that proposition, I'm really not sure what the conflict is.

Posted by: Colin | July 24, 2007 3:37 PM | Report abuse

I hear that mikeb.

That or "Screw both these parties I'm forming a REAL independant thrid party with teeth."


Where's the money man. GEORGE SOROS YOU HEAR ME. WE NEED MONEY FOR A REAL THIRD PARTY WITH TEETH :)


We need to get all these rich folk who claim there are for the same goals as us, mikeb, and tell them to put some dollars behind their mouths. It may be that the dems fear this and will not use us the way bush and his admin used the current gop/"christian" right/conservatives. I hope that's the case. I hope the dems see their (and the r's for that matter) slipping with disapproval of both parties. We can hope right?

Posted by: rufus1133 | July 24, 2007 3:37 PM | Report abuse

President Hillary Clinton. Get used to the sound of it you haters!

Posted by: Paul | July 24, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

I'm still confused as to why you haven't included Biden among the winners. Could you clarify? Seriously.

Posted by: Antigone | July 24, 2007 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Thanks to the OBNOXIOUS Multi postings separating my posts by miles!-Thanx Children!

Allow me this one re-post-for obvious reasons!

LOL! They are all losers for various reasons!

Clinton, what a sham! It is all about getting Slick back in-and both have already had their time in the Whitehouse! If a Spouse cannot collect pay during Campaigns, maybe it is because they are "PARTNERS!". In this particular case, in crime! How many other lost cases of Billary's Brothers are rotting in jail waiting for the next wave of over a Hundred Pardons! Bet the Enron guys are counting the Days!

Obasama-Thank-You for proving you have ZERO competance to be in charge of our Foriegn Policy(Cripes, even Thunder Thighs knew better-But, again, she has gotten to play Exectutive before and has a slight clue-just no more term limit!). I shudder to think what else a Constitutional Law Lawyer will wreck in the ONLY Branch he does not have any Qualifications for!

Pretty Boy? He is only good at hearing imaginary voices of dead people, and throwing Hissy Fits on his Bad Hair Days!

Loved the You Tube Video of him being a Pretty, Pretty Girl! You go Girl!
I mean it! Get out!

Kucinich-Snicker, Snort, Giggle! And they called Bush 1 a wimp!

Mr. Mexico-err I mean Senor Richardson, If this Mexican can run for office, why can't we get the Governator-who would be excellent for the job! He is ten times as American! Richardson suffers from the same Backstabbing antics as the other Border State betrayer McClown! Para Presidente? No crello yo mi amigos! Hasta!

The other Senators are well, just that!

Aside from the Mexican Candidate, why have so many of our proposed Leaders to be been drafted from the deepest darkest pit of incompetance on this planet? What part of the Congress has a record low approval rating(Half of Bushies!), a track record similiar to a Train Wreck on issues they should have handled, and they would do away with the separation of powers by effectively making the Senate Majority leader the President don't most Americans understand?
Hey, I know it is the most thankless job on the planet, but surely, we could maybe hire an illegal(Vincente Fox?) to do the job better for less!

Then again, maybe we could get some H1-B visas for all of Congress! Hire some competant people! You know, Indians and Chinese!

From Austin, Mexico!-This has been the Yahoo's favorite!-RAT!-THE!

Hasta mi amigos!

Thank you all for your patience!

Posted by: RAT-The | July 24, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Rufus -- You've shown your ignorance once again (though not hard for you I suppose).

Bill O didn't say go after companies who sponsor Dems or Reps - but radicals. The example he used was not a "Dem" group, but a hate group.

Israel should be attacked. Tony Snow should die of cancer. US Troops deserve to die. These are the ideas espoused by this joke of a publication, whose name I'm not going to mention.

I doubt you are claiming these are Democratic principles - the extermination of Jews and the overt hatred for US troops (which you and I both were/are).

And so, once again, whatever moveon.org or other hate-filled propaganda, far-left website you got your info from is WRONG. Because I actually watched that segment. You aparently didn't, or misunderstood it.

Either way, you're ignorant.

Any Dems want to come forward and agree with this hate-filled crap? Anyone?

Posted by: Mike | July 24, 2007 3:32 PM | Report abuse

rufus - I tend to agree with you. From what I see, I think Edwards might just pull into the lead in this race. He certainly says all of the things I want to hear. But those positions, so far, are rather like a beauty pagent contestant claiming they want "world peace". So, and this is a very big "but", we will need to hear from him on the particulars. We all know he wants some sort of universal healthcare, but what is the program? Is it another bloated government nightmare of an egg laying dairy pig or something common sense like the Scandinavian plans? Is it a public-private nightmare like the one that has already failed in England and Canada? Ditto for his concern about working class people and the Middle Class. Does he propose to end the H1-B visa program? Or add requirements that protect American workers? What is he going to do about illegal immigrants? What about outsourcing? What about ending the grip on American politics that corporations hold? Lots and lots of critical questions that the voters want answers to, but the press/media isn't asking them and neither Edwards nor any of the other candidates have answered them (and I don't suppose they will until someone from the media has the guts to ask the questions and demand straight answers).

Posted by: MikeB | July 24, 2007 3:30 PM | Report abuse

"The Bush administration has long used the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys and Rich Lowrys and Brit Humes and other ideologically loyal minions as their primary interviewers and vessels for message dissemination, and this is now clearly the U.S. military's media strategy as well. There is nothing in the Bush administration that is not politicized from top to bottom."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

Posted by: Greenwald | July 24, 2007 3:29 PM | Report abuse

You ask why John Edwards criticized the jacket that Sen. Clinton was wearing. I wondered myself, and then realized that, while it's too bad that Sen. Clinton was the target, it was likely done deliberately to point out how publicly pointless, unsubstantial, and worthless it is to criticize something so very personal......like a haircut.

Posted by: Iddybud (Jude) | July 24, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Anybody out there want me off this site. Here's your chance.

Go to www.crooksandliars.com

or

http://skinthefox.com/sponsors_001.htm

There is a list of sponsers of Fox news (some are old and no longer sponser.)

Last night Bill O Told his veiwers to go after the sponsers of people of business if they don't liek what they are saying. As if any business (other than fox) is compleately rep or dem. As if a company is supposed to do rep lipmus test to hire only repubs. As if in said companies they sit around and talk only repub or dem issues. So people are saying "I have a probelm with Fox. Let's go after their advertisers."

Here is a list of fox advertisers. If willing call or email them in droves and tell them that rather than their advertising dollars going to grow their business. O'REilly is telling anybody who disagree's with fox or him to boycott the advertisers. Practice what you preach GOP.
Email or call and tell tehm their dollars to fox are not helping but hurting them publically. Imus applied to Fox.

Those that don't give two shi-- about this country ignore this post. Those that do stop hiding your heads in the sand and get these people off the air.

Those that want me off the air, help me get fox off and you got your wish. Otherwise, shut your mouths or fingers in this case. Put up or shut. Practice what you preach. Or put your money wher eyou mouth is.

Posted by: rufus | July 24, 2007 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Richardson's outrageous lies last night were beyond the pale, and frankly I'm quite a bit surprised as to why CC would categorize him as a winner.

Just because someone may be voted Most Improved Player doesn't mean the coach thinks they did a first-string performance.

I mean really, Chris. How can you not call him on this outrageous statement:

Richardson: "We need to have an effort to get the Republican Party to stop suppressing minority voters."

C'mon people!...I, for one, am not going to give him a pass on that load of crap.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | July 24, 2007 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Rufus, I can't believe you would support a former hedge fund employee for president. Do you know what a hedge fund is?

Posted by: Mike | July 24, 2007 3:22 PM | Report abuse

MikeB -- Cantwell and Clinton aren't my favorite senators either, but NEITHER of them pretends to be anything other than centrist, DLC-member, Democrats. And I'm still unclear why your focus isn't on those policy positions that you disagree with rather than on the fact that each is a woman. For example, Evan Bayh and Tom Carper have similar views as both Cantwell and Clinton -- but you haven't argued that any of their supporters are irrational or raving lunatics.

Anyway, not trying to beat a dead horse. Obviously you are free to criticize whoever you want for whatever reasons, I just wish that during the primaries the folks on the center-left could focus a bit more on who the BEST candidate is rather than on the reasons we HATE some of the others. On that score at least, my preferences are, in order: 1. Obama, 2. Edwards, 3. Richardson, 4. Clinton, 5. Biden, 6. Dodd.

Posted by: Colin | July 24, 2007 3:20 PM | Report abuse

bsimon - The point is, lots of women, and quite a few men, think of Hillary as a feminist. She calls herself one and "pals around" with some of them. She also, at least last night, wants to be seen as a liberal. Well, she isn't. So, we see a lot of deluded people supporting her based on delussions.

Posted by: MikeB | July 24, 2007 3:19 PM | Report abuse

The more I hear edwards the more I'm coming around. Obama is making my worst fears about him come true. I'm hoping he is trying to get some votes from the other side. Edwards is getting me to come around. The more I hear him the mor eI like him. Now is he speaking the truth or pulling a Hillary clinton? Time will tell I guess.

Posted by: rufus | July 24, 2007 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Chris, I have looked and haven't seen a response regarding your exclusion of Obama.

All of these people falling over Clinton make me sick to my stomach.

Do you not listen to her? How is it "Smooothe" (give me a break with the drama) that she didn't answer the question about Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton? They had to squeeze an answer out of her about Dafur...if she is so strong in her opinion why didn't she say it to begin with? Because she a typical politician con-artist.

She IS an excellent debater, but I would rather someone make good decisions than debate well. Anyone can fight, can anyone accomplish things with those that disagree with them?

Her comeback after Obama's answer on meeting leaders of rogue nation's achieved her objective of making Obama sound inexperienced, but she herself has said exactly what Obama has said in the past. Nevertheless, it was a good soundbite.

I think Biden and Obama did well. Richardson did better, but it was hard to do worse. Clinton reminded me over and over again how she will not do anything for real change in the oval office b/c every decision will be based solely on political ramifications.

None of them have me convinced that they are ready to take charge and fix this mess.

Posted by: rwintstl | July 24, 2007 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Just got the "BARACK DOMINATES DEBATE" email from the Obama campaign. It cites Chris as one of two journalists supporting that statement. Funny, considering Barack isn't even listed in the "Winners" section of the blog entry.

Posted by: Melissa | July 24, 2007 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Re: "Borgen Project says that $19 billion would end malnutrition and starvation."
However the resulting increase in the rate of overpopulation of the world would have the negative effect of accelerating global warming.
Wars and starvation have been the historical methods of population reduction and, with the side benefit of CO2 control

Posted by: Tom Jones | July 24, 2007 3:16 PM | Report abuse

MikeB says
"There are plenty of women candidates, some of whom might call themselves feminists, that I find completely acceptable."

I kindof think of Hillary as the anti-feminist candidate. Isn't feminism about women being equal to men & rising to the challenge based on experience and making the tough decisions? Hillary is where she is because of who she married, not because of her own hard work.

Posted by: bsimon | July 24, 2007 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Colin - Maybe I mis-sated what I meant to say. There are plenty of women candidates, some of whom might call themselves feminists, that I find completely acceptable. Now, I'm an unabashed liberal and I rather like Nancy Pelosi. I can't stand Ms. Clinton for the very same reasons I happen to like Nancy, however. I loathe Washington's Senator Maria Cantwell for the same reason I loathe Hillary Clinton. They are corporate "yesmen" and crooks, posing as liberals. I always find it interesting when some wretched crook can call themselves a liberal and a populist and turn around and take money from corporate crooks and hobnob with them, ignore the needs and wishes of those same liberals who voted for them, and the stupid fools turn right around and vote for them again and again.

Posted by: MikeB | July 24, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

bsimon !

You are exactly right !!! And I really think that when that happens Clinton's responses not only in the debates but also by her spin doctors will really reveal the real Hillary. And I think her negative will go up.

Posted by: Ciara | July 24, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

OMG! GOLGI! LOL!!!

If Obasama cannot comprehend a sentance in English, how do you think your Congressioanal Clown will do while Foreign conversations are going on, with him getting a translated feed into his ear?

LOL! Fohgetahboutit!

P.S.-I do exclude John Carter, Kaye Bailey Huthinson, and John Cornyn from said criticism of the Congressional Clowns!

Paging Colin Powell, You are needed at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. BADLY!!!!

Y!AT Y!Amsters!-LOL!!! Get Lives!

RAT-The

Posted by: RAT-The | July 24, 2007 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Mr or Ms 761-091 ? you've got some serious issues with Obama.. I wonder what that is REALLY about....

Posted by: Ciara | July 24, 2007 2:57 PM | Report abuse

While I think you're right that Gravel needs to do more than be angry all the time, I think he does bring a different point of view to the table than any other Democrat. I mean, when do you ever hear a Democrat espousing the FairTax? I found it pretty interesting to hear a Democratic defense of this Republican legislation... moving us from a consuming, endebted society to one that saves. Not saying I agree, but it was interesting nonetheless.

But besides that, I think Gravel represents the oddball side of the party. Say what you want, but the other candidates are predictable in the fact that they are trying to appeal to the mainstream of the party. Kucinich is different because he's the pure liberal. Gravel is neither.

But with all that being said, I think it is time for Gravel to go. Sometimes I wonder if he's only up there to embarrass the other Democrats... that he may be a pawn of the Republicans. There isn't a parallel in the Republican debates. Ron Paul is decidedly different, but at least he has a clear platform that fits within a certain (albeit nearly extinct) wing of the Party. And I don't see him constantly attacking the other candidates and screaming that the Party has fundamentally changed as Gravel has done with the Democrats.

And besides... everyone else that's running has held elected within the last 5 years or. Gravel was in office over 30 years ago. I think we might want to finally say that this guy is not qualified enough to be in the debates.

Posted by: Chilidogger | July 24, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

The 7-10 writes
"Clinton won by not losing. She's trying to win by running out the clock, and she's succeeding."

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that Sen Clinton, for the next 6 or 7 months, can stay ahead of challengers in the polls? I don't buy it. Clinton has a ceiling of support. When people stop supporting the 3rd tier candidates, they are unlikely to gravitate to the Clinton camp. Instead, they'll go to one of the next three - Obama, Richardson & Edwards. Perhaps Biden as well. Obama has more campaign money than any of them, and still has less of an established candidacy with primary voters. As he starts spending money promoting himself & helping voters 'get to know him' it seems likely he'll pass Clinton before the primaries begin. She needed to build up more of a lead than she has - her strategy was to be the inevitable nominee by now. Because that hasn't happened by now, its less likely to happen in the future - Dem primary voters are finding things to like in the other candidates, which does not bode will for Sen Clinton.

Posted by: bsimon | July 24, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

"Obama was certainly a loser. The more and more exposed this guy gets, the less and less I believe he is anything other than an empty vessel for the Chicago machine to exercise a marketing campaign. Has he accomplished anything? He is clearly unqualified for the position he is seeking. Obama/Gravel/Kusinich were the losers."

agree 1000%

lets face it, if Obama let lest these opportunities to attack Clinton, he's losing. unfortunately the guy has done NOTHING to back up his rehtoric. sure, its easy to attack other people on their record, WHEN YOU HAVE NONE!

Obama is all marketing and media. If the guy wasn't black, better said, if he was white middle aged, he would be #5 in the polls. Biden and Richardson would certainly be polling better than him.

wake up people! a lot of people mistrusted W when he ran in 2000 due to his lack of foreign policy experience and look where it took us, Obama would not improve the mess we're in - he would be like Carter back in the 70's.

Posted by: 761-091 | July 24, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

(I think Matt from Philly is right on!)

After watching last night's debate, I believe that the winning democratic ticket should be Clinton/Richardson. This was the first time I saw all the candidates in action and I was really impressed by Biden. If Hillary wasnt in the race, he would have my support. However, like Bill Richardson pointed out, he would make an excellent Sec of State!!!

Posted by: Amod Damle - Portland, ME | July 24, 2007 2:48 PM | Report abuse

The criticism of Obama for his answer to the question about meeting with the leaders of the 5 countries most antagonistic to the US is off the mark in my opinion. Listen to the question carefully. It asks if he would be "WILLING" to meet within the first year with those leaders. The word willing is an important qualifier that makes Obama's answer bold and refreshing. Instead of calling Clinton's response smart and nuanced, isn't it just a stay the course strategy that voters are fed up with? Isn't it about time we talk to Cuba? What possible threat are they? Voters want change! Obama understands. Three cheers for his willingness to embrace change.

Posted by: Rich Evans | July 24, 2007 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Hello Chris,
I completely disagree with your "analysis" so much so that I was about to stop reading the Post. I have always been so impressed by your clear passion for politics.I was shocked by your blindness to "real peoples reactions" however I saw you on MSNBC today and was struck but your clear uncertainty when asked about the focus groups and you insiders in your post debate spin.

I imagine you and the others journalist and commentators are overwhelmed by the spin of each campaigns and the instant need to say SOMETHING. I have a suggestion that you should use, watch the debate twice once with a group of undecided voters to keep you finder on the pulse of the "real voter's". This election is going to be completely different, I think we all feel it. It will not be seen by the pundits and experts. PAY ATTENTION TO THE FOCUS GROUPS ! If you ignore the people they will ignore YOU.

Posted by: Ciara | July 24, 2007 2:46 PM | Report abuse

R Graham says :"Lets get real John Edwards is the only one who has taken on the powerful drug compaines, insurance companies and the others that control America"

Ok, I'll bite. WTF is this constant harangue of his..."I'll take them on." What does that mean...take them on?? I don't think it means anything, not a damn thing. It's more b.s. from weaselly fake Edwards. Give it a rest already!

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | July 24, 2007 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Interesting that the "during the debate" and "debate wrap up" blogs had on balance the most good things to say about Obama. do you not read your own stuff, Chris?

And my problem with Hillary is that I suspect that if I knew her personally, I would not be able to put up with her for longer than ten minutes or so. She strikes me as a self-obsessed, annoying know-it-all.

Posted by: Henry | July 24, 2007 2:44 PM | Report abuse

H. Chavez walks like a Dictator, talks like a Dictator, and acts like a Dictator; ergo, he must be a Dictator!

That, and all of the substantive reasons JimD has provided.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 24, 2007 2:43 PM | Report abuse

"if it weren't for the rabid hatred of the D-Kos crowd who are attempting to hijack our party (hatred I will never understand), Biden would be given serious consideration by the press."

See, I knew there were Dems out there that make sense. thank you.

notice how enjoyable and deep the discussion is without the imbecilic Rufas and ignorant Kos koward hijacking the thread.

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 24, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a joke, tried to steal and cheat in Arkansas and now thinks she do it to all of American. She's just like her bumstead husband. Making her president would lead American to down not up.

Posted by: bob Kephart | July 24, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a joke, tried to steal and cheat in Arkansas and now thinks she do it to all of American. She's just like her bumstead husband. Making her president would lead American to down not up.

Posted by: bob Kephart | July 24, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a joke, tried to steal and cheat in Arkansas and now thinks she do it to all of American. She's just like her bumstead husband. Making her president would lead American to down not up.

Posted by: bob Kephart | July 24, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a joke, tried to steal and cheat in Arkansas and now thinks she do it to all of American. She's just like her bumstead husband. Making her president would lead American to down not up.

Posted by: bob Kephart | July 24, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a joke, tried to steal and cheat in Arkansas and now thinks she do it to all of American. She's just like her bumstead husband. Making her president would lead American to down not up.

Posted by: bob Kephart | July 24, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a joke, tried to steal and cheat in Arkansas and now thinks she do it to all of American. She's just like her bumstead husband. Making her president would lead American to down not up.

Posted by: bob Kephart | July 24, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a joke, tried to steal and cheat in Arkansas and now thinks she do it to all of American. She's just like her bumstead husband. Making her president would lead American to down not up.

Posted by: bob Kephart | July 24, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a joke, tried to steal and cheat in Arkansas and now thinks she do it to all of American. She's just like her bumstead husband. Making her president would lead American to down not up.

Posted by: bob Kephart | July 24, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a joke, tried to steal and cheat in Arkansas and now thinks she do it to all of American. She's just like her bumstead husband. Making her president would lead American to down not up.

Posted by: bob Kephart | July 24, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a joke, tried to steal and cheat in Arkansas and now thinks she do it to all of American. She's just like her bumstead husband. Making her president would lead American to down not up.

Posted by: bob Kephart | July 24, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a joke, tried to steal and cheat in Arkansas and now thinks she do it to all of American. She's just like her bumstead husband. Making her president would lead American to down not up.

Posted by: bob Kephart | July 24, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a joke, tried to steal and cheat in Arkansas and now thinks she do it to all of American. She's just like her bumstead husband. Making her president would lead American to down not up.

Posted by: bob Kephart | July 24, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a joke, tried to steal and cheat in Arkansas and now thinks she do it to all of American. She's just like her bumstead husband. Making her president would lead American to down not up.

Posted by: bob Kephart | July 24, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a joke, tried to steal and cheat in Arkansas and now thinks she do it to all of American. She's just like her bumstead husband. Making her president would lead American to down not up.

Posted by: bob Kephart | July 24, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a joke, tried to steal and cheat in Arkansas and now thinks she do it to all of American. She's just like her bumstead husband. Making her president would lead American to down not up.

Posted by: bob Kephart | July 24, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a joke, tried to steal and cheat in Arkansas and now thinks she do it to all of American. She's just like her bumstead husband. Making her president would lead American to down not up.

Posted by: bob Kephart | July 24, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a joke, tried to steal and cheat in Arkansas and now thinks she do it to all of American. She's just like her bumstead husband. Making her president would lead American to down not up.

Posted by: bob Kephart | July 24, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a joke, tried to steal and cheat in Arkansas and now thinks she do it to all of American. She's just like her bumstead husband. Making her president would lead American to down not up.

Posted by: bob Kephart | July 24, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a joke, tried to steal and cheat in Arkansas and now thinks she do it to all of American. She's just like her bumstead husband. Making her president would lead American to down not up.

Posted by: bob Kephart | July 24, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a joke, tried to steal and cheat in Arkansas and now thinks she do it to all of American. She's just like her bumstead husband. Making her president would lead American to down not up.

Posted by: bob Kephart | July 24, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Edwards is a winner? He must be placed in the loser column after every debate that he does not absolutely dominate. He's too far back to settle for anything else.
http://political-buzz.com/?p=270

And, yes, Gravel is scary. Is there some type of restraining order that can keep him out?

Posted by: matt | July 24, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a joke, tried to steal and cheat in Arkansas and now thinks she do it to all of American. She's just like her bumstead husband. Making her president would lead American to down not up.

Posted by: bob Kephart | July 24, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

As an Independent voter, I'm feel asleep last night thinking to myself, God help us! By far, Biden won that debate last night, he was the most believable canidate on stage.

Posted by: Dale | July 24, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Lets get real John Edwards is the only one who has taken on the powerful drug compaines, insurance companies and the others that control America. Wake up America the Republicans don't want John Edwards because he can beat them and really change America. Obama is too green and Clinton is perfect for four more years of Repubican rule. I do like Joe Biden for VP though.

Posted by: R. Graham Ohio | July 24, 2007 2:37 PM | Report abuse

WEBB:
What is your malfunction?

Posted by: M.J. | July 24, 2007 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Biden was certainly a winner. Biden has distinguished himself at each debate, and if it weren't for the rabid hatred of the D-Kos crowd who are attempting to hijack our party (hatred I will never understand), Biden would be given serious consideration by the press. Experience and principle - something sorely lacking in Washington. Biden/Clinton/Richardson were the winners.

Obama was certainly a loser. The more and more exposed this guy gets, the less and less I believe he is anything other than an empty vessel for the Chicago machine to exercise a marketing campaign. Has he accomplished anything? He is clearly unqualified for the position he is seeking. Obama/Gravel/Kusinich were the losers.

Posted by: clawrence | July 24, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Full-disclosure: I support Obama.

I'm willing to buy Hillary and Richardson in the "winners" category if only because their performances were typically solid and markedly improved, respectively.

But Edwards! His was a lackluster performance at best. Both Sens. Biden and Dodd outshinned the one-man poverty crusade.

Now, onto my partisan pitch. Obama did perform better than he has and it seemed clear to me that the race is best described as between Obama and Clinton. Barack did well at challenging Hillary on Iraq and sounded more self-assured, if at times measured. Hillary's performance was mostly flat, with the exception of her comments on meeting with foreign leaders--her response there was strong and measured.

But come on! Ms. Clinton's mini-lesson on the history of liberalism came off as another way she plays to public opinion.

Barck 08

Posted by: Matt | July 24, 2007 2:30 PM | Report abuse

In the traumatic days after Hurricane Katrina, Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco turned to one of the most respected names in emergency management: James Lee Witt, the so-called Master of Disaster. But an eight-month investigation by NBC News into the performance and billing practices of Witt's firm, James Lee Witt Associates, raises questions about profiteering, cronyism and possible falsification of records by one of Witt Associates' subcontractors.

Posted by: blame it on bush | July 24, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Clinton won by not losing. She's trying to win by running out the clock, and she's succeeding.

Obama did okay, but the inexperience questions will only grow louder and louder. He strikes me as overrated, but his "vision" is inspiring.

Edwards did not help himself tonight. He seems to be phony and an opportunist, and he did not help himself with women who misinterpreted his "joke" about Hillary's pink jacket.

Biden and Richardson really did well. They clearly are the two best qualified candidates on the Dem side. That would be a formidable ticket. Neither one of them would need on the job training and would make the electoral math a lot more difficult for the GOP.

Dodd says all the right things, but just sounds too senatorial, rather than presidential.

Kucinich said a lot of things that resonated with the audience, but I think the voters wish a more viable candidate was saying those things, rather than him.

Gravel should be excluded from future debates. He is not being taken seriously and really serves only to throw the other candidates off kilter like a loose cannon.

http://theseventen.blogspot.com

Posted by: The 7-10 | July 24, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Chris, I think you're generally right on the debate. I thought Anderson Cooper's comment re: Gore was odd, particularly, as you note, because AC chose the question! The reality is that Al Gore would have whipped everyone in that debate.

Both Clinton and Obama were solid last night, but that was expected. The real surprise for me was Edwards. He was a non-entity in my book. Biden clearly outshined everyone up there, except for Clinton and Obama.

I never thought I'd say this, but I like Kucinich. In 2004, I found him annoying, but I think he's found his stride and, although his chances are slim, he really is contributing immensely to the dialogue in this campaign. He is certainly "serious enough" to be included in other debates. His positions are thoughtful and well-reasonsed.

As for Gravel, well, come on! The guy is a has-been. He has no chance, adds little substance to the debates, and no one really knows what he's done since leaving the Senate in 1980.

Posted by: anon | July 24, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

The debate was interesting as well as enlightening. Richardson, Dennis K and Edwards were impressive. Joe Biden I would of liked to hear more from. Ombama B still lacks massive experience - sad but true. Hillary couldn't even control her own husband, let alone foreign policy, and her healthcare plan failed under the Clinton administration. Otherwise, she debated okay. Although my view focused more on Edwards, Richardson, Biden and Dennis K.

Posted by: Neptune | July 24, 2007 2:25 PM | Report abuse

The debate was interesting as well as enlightening. Richardson, Dennis K and Edwards were impressive. Joe Biden I would of liked to hear more from. Ombama B still lacks massive experience - sad but true. Hillary couldn't even control her own husband, let alone foreign policy, and her healthcare plan failed under the Clinton administration. Otherwise, she debated okay. Although my view focused more on Edwards, Richardson, Biden and Dennis K.

Posted by: Neptune | July 24, 2007 2:25 PM | Report abuse

While I thought all of the canidates did well three of the them are A's in my book. Clinton,Obama, Biden all did well. Obama is a little inexperienced when it comes to dealing with rogue nations. Why did many people jump on the hillary bash gang? This great nation has had many great presidents and quite a few crappy ones toobut all of them were men. There has never been a woman president in the unted states historybooks nor were there any black presidents. I would like to see a clinton /Obama ticket as together I believe they could change the venue in washington. Hillary is smart and wise in politics and let's not forget her husband is an ex poresident who gave this country the biggest surplus's it's ever had and he would be there to give advice to her if she needed it. Obama is smart too as his answer about rogue nations intrigued me but his mistake was not stating that he would not give those rogue nations a propaganda oppurtunity before diplomacy and private meetings took place to work out differences between our nation and their nations and agreements are signed and sealed. Wake up america Just because obama is black and inexperieced doesn't mean we should discount him just like Hillary is white and a woman and very experienced doesn't mean we should discount her either . Let's face it a Hillary /Obama ticket would be first class compared to the Bush administration and their bullying tactics. The republicans are going to give you more of the bush administration if elected to power.

Posted by: Lori Webb | July 24, 2007 2:25 PM | Report abuse

While I thought all of the canidates did well three of the them are A's in my book. Clinton,Obama, Biden all did well. Obama is a little inexperienced when it comes to dealing with rogue nations. Why did many people jump on the hillary bash gang? This great nation has had many great presidents and quite a few crappy ones toobut all of them were men. There has never been a woman president in the unted states historybooks nor were there any black presidents. I would like to see a clinton /Obama ticket as together I believe they could change the venue in washington. Hillary is smart and wise in politics and let's not forget her husband is an ex poresident who gave this country the biggest surplus's it's ever had and he would be there to give advice to her if she needed it. Obama is smart too as his answer about rogue nations intrigued me but his mistake was not stating that he would not give those rogue nations a propaganda oppurtunity before diplomacy and private meetings took place to work out differences between our nation and their nations and agreements are signed and sealed. Wake up america Just because obama is black and inexperieced doesn't mean we should discount him just like Hillary is white and a woman and very experienced doesn't mean we should discount her either . Let's face it a Hillary /Obama ticket would be first class compared to the Bush administration and their bullying tactics. The republicans are going to give you more of the bush administration if elected to power.

Posted by: Webb | July 24, 2007 2:23 PM | Report abuse

While I thought all of the canidates did well three of the them are A's in my book. Clinton,Obama, Biden all did well. Obama is a little inexperienced when it comes to dealing with rogue nations. Why did many people jump on the hillary bash gang? This great nation has had many great presidents and quite a few crappy ones toobut all of them were men. There has never been a woman president in the unted states historybooks nor were there any black presidents. I would like to see a clinton /Obama ticket as together I believe they could change the venue in washington. Hillary is smart and wise in politics and let's not forget her husband is an ex poresident who gave this country the biggest surplus's it's ever had and he would be there to give advice to her if she needed it. Obama is smart too as his answer about rogue nations intrigued me but his mistake was not stating that he would not give those rogue nations a propaganda oppurtunity before diplomacy and private meetings took place to work out differences between our nation and their nations and agreements are signed and sealed. Wake up america Just because obama is black and inexperieced doesn't mean we should discount him just like Hillary is white and a woman and very experienced doesn't mean we should discount her either . Let's face it a Hillary /Obama ticket would be first class compared to the Bush administration and their bullying tactics. The republicans are going to give you more of the bush administration if elected to power.

Posted by: Webb | July 24, 2007 2:23 PM | Report abuse

While I thought all of the canidates did well three of the them are A's in my book. Clinton,Obama, Biden all did well. Obama is a little inexperienced when it comes to dealing with rogue nations. Why did many people jump on the hillary bash gang? This great nation has had many great presidents and quite a few crappy ones toobut all of them were men. There has never been a woman president in the unted states historybooks nor were there any black presidents. I would like to see a clinton /Obama ticket as together I believe they could change the venue in washington. Hillary is smart and wise in politics and let's not forget her husband is an ex poresident who gave this country the biggest surplus's it's ever had and he would be there to give advice to her if she needed it. Obama is smart too as his answer about rogue nations intrigued me but his mistake was not stating that he would not give those rogue nations a propaganda oppurtunity before diplomacy and private meetings took place to work out differences between our nation and their nations and agreements are signed and sealed. Wake up america Just because obama is black and inexperieced doesn't mean we should discount him just like Hillary is white and a woman and very experienced doesn't mean we should discount her either . Let's face it a Hillary /Obama ticket would be first class compared to the Bush administration and their bullying tactics. The republicans are going to give you more of the bush administration if elected to power.

Posted by: Webb | July 24, 2007 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Chris, obviously you didn't listen to a word Gravel has said either in this debate or in any of the others. If there is one candidate that stands apart from the others in his views, it is Gravel. Watch the debates again, or check out his sight.

He's not the best debater (much of that probably has to do with his frustration at getting so little time. Given a more relaxed format, I'm sure he'd do fine) but he's authentic and unconventional (read: anti-elitist). He rode a bus to the debates for God's sake. You couldn't get any more environmentally friendly than that.

His idea about abolishing the income tax is both notable and quite different than anything the others were suggesting. As he pointed out, having no ties to Wall Street enables him free reign to shake up the system and promote new and unconventional ideas - a luxury Obama and Hillary (for all their money) cannot afford.

P.S. It is interesting to note the unflattering camera angles given to Gravel, and also the fact that the only question given directly to Gravel was derogatory both in tone and content. So much for journalistic impartiality, CNN.

Posted by: Thomas T. Berry | July 24, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Chavez may have been democratically elected but he is busy trying to undermine any restraints on presidential power. He is purging the civil service to keep only loyalists. He is turning the media into cheerleaders. He has stacked the judiciary with followers who rubber stamp his moves that seem at odds with the Venezuelan constitution. He has gangs of thugs intimidating opponents. It is possible for a dictator to be elected, after all that is how Hitler came to power.

Posted by: JimD in FL | July 24, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

While I thought all of the canidates did well three of the them are A's in my book. Clinton,Obama, Biden all did well. Obama is a little inexperienced when it comes to dealing with rogue nations. Why did many people jump on the hillary bash gang? This great nation has had many great presidents and quite a few crappy ones toobut all of them were men. There has never been a woman president in the unted states historybooks nor were there any black presidents. I would like to see a clinton /Obama ticket as together I believe they could change the venue in washington. Hillary is smart and wise in politics and let's not forget her husband is an ex poresident who gave this country the biggest surplus's it's ever had and he would be there to give advice to her if she needed it. Obama is smart too as his answer about rogue nations intrigued me but his mistake was not stating that he would not give those rogue nations a propaganda oppurtunity before diplomacy and private meetings took place to work out differences between our nation and their nations and agreements are signed and sealed. Wake up america Just because obama is black and inexperieced doesn't mean we should discount him just like Hillary is white and a woman and very experienced doesn't mean we should discount her either . Let's face it a Hillary /Obama ticket would be first class compared to the Bush administration and their bullying tactics. The republicans are going to give you more of the bush administration if elected to power.

Posted by: Webb | July 24, 2007 2:21 PM | Report abuse

LOL! They are all losers for various reasons!

Clinton, what a sham! It is all about getting Slick back in-and both have already had their time in the Whitehouse! If a Spouse cannot collect pay during Campaigns, maybe it is because they are "PARTNERS!". In this particular case, in crime! How many other lost cases of Billary's Brothers are rotting in jail waiting for the next wave of over a Hundred Pardons! Bet the Enron guys are counting the Days!

Obasama-Thank-You for proving you have ZERO competance to be in charge of our Foriegn Policy(Cripes, even Thunder Thighs knew better-But, again, she has gotten to play Exectutive before and has a slight clue-just no more term limit!). I shudder to think what else a Constitutional Law Lawyer will wreck in the ONLY Branch he does not have any Qualifications for!

Pretty Boy? He is only good at hearing imaginary voices of dead people, and throwing Hissy Fits on his Bad Hair Days!

Loved the You Tube Video of him being a Pretty, Pretty Girl! You go Girl!
I mean it! Get out!

Kucinich-Snicker, Snort, Giggle! And they called Bush 1 a wimp!

Mr. Mexico-err I mean Senor Richardson, If this Mexican can run for office, why can't we get the Governator-who would be excellent for the job! He is ten times as American! Richardson suffers from the same Backstabbing antics as the other Border State betrayer McClown! Para Presidente? No crello yo mi amigos! Hasta!

The other Senators are well, just that!

Aside from the Mexican Candidate, why have so many of our proposed Leaders to be been drafted from the deepest darkest pit of incompetance on this planet? What part of the Congress has a record low approval rating(Half of Bushies!), a track record similiar to a Train Wreck on issues they should have handled, and they would do away with the separation of powers by effectively making the Senate Majority leader the President don't most Americans understand?
Hey, I know it is the most thankless job on the planet, but surely, we could maybe hire an illegal(Vincente Fox?) to do the job better for less!

Then again, maybe we could get some H1-B visas for all of Congress! Hire some competant people! You know, Indians and Chinese!

From Austin, Mexico!-This has been the Yahoo's favorite!-RAT!-THE!

Hasta mi amigos!

Posted by: RAT-The | July 24, 2007 2:19 PM | Report abuse

why is it that the angry posters are the ones who can't spell or don't know the difference between "there" and "their" or perpetrate other affronts to our language?


Another reason is that they may be aware that their expression is inappropriate, and trying to increase their anonymity. These people could be perfectly good spellers and grammar users, but are faking poor usage because they think that will keep anyone from knowing who they are. It's just a coverup.

Posted by: Golgi | July 24, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

I think you are too stereotyped.
Why don't you allow us to see through our very own eyes.
I think its absolutle unnesesary to tell us who won or lost.
What a chain reaction! The debates was bad and now the comments.

Posted by: myself | July 24, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

I am amazed at the number of people who think Obama "won" last night. I thought he sounded so not ready for prime time. And certainly not ready for the Presidency of the USA. Is it his supposed charisma? Is his inexperience appealing? And I thought that Hillary came across as more "real" and with more thoughtful (not canned) responses than I have heard so far. The glass ceiling is truly real.

Posted by: Cricket | July 24, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Those who advocate limiting the debates may as well let the media (or anyone else for that matter) tell them who to vote for. Every election cycle, the media reports on who does well in the polling and who has the most money and it rarely changes from the beginning of the election reporting until the end of the election day. In other words, once the media starts to identify who the front-runners are early in elections, those candidates tend to go on and win. But people like me who vote for our pick for the best candidate for the job, instead of the most popular just for being popular, welcome debates open to ALL of the candidates, because we welcome ideas and information. What's more, too bad we don't get to see the third party candidates debate.

Posted by: Jeffrey G | July 24, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

People, people, people, some of you are worse than the media about using only part of whats said to suit your mind. Take the question: would you meet with these leaders in your first year without condition(not word for word but you get the question).
Answer Clinton: I will not promise to meet with them in my first year blah, blah, blah( she didnt say she would never meet with them huh)
Answer Obama: Yes blah, blah, blah
Ok, now we all know that whatever comes out of the mouths of any of these candidates will in all essence be counted and touted as a promise by everyone. So, who's to say any of those leaders want to meet and deal with the president anyway and I doubt very seriously they would without condition.
You like who you like, so just say so and why. We can do without the bashing.

Posted by: jerry | July 24, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Blarg asks
"Can someone clearly explain why Obama's willingness to meet with foreign leaders is a sign of inexperience or greenness? ... Why does only an inexperienced candidate think that diplomacy can be a solution?"


There's not a good explanation. Hillary's answer, for example, is being promoted as more nuanced. To me it looks like she's scared. She said she "doesn't want to be used for propoganda." Huh? That's your call to make, sister, not theirs.

Posted by: bsimon | July 24, 2007 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Hillary clinton now represents a U-turn on the bridge to tomorrow.

Posted by: traffic back-up | July 24, 2007 2:12 PM | Report abuse

why is it that the angry posters are the ones who can't spell or don't know the difference between "there" and "their" or perpetrate other affronts to our language?


interesting observation. Blinded by hate? seething rage causes temporary vision spasms?

I suppose it is more of a general lack of education. how ignorant must you be to swallow that tripe on a daily basis from the hate sites - Kos, Nation, Huff? Of course a poor education is no guarantee of partisan zealotry. there are plenty of PhDs with no sense of the real world.

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 24, 2007 2:10 PM | Report abuse

I think it is clear Hillary is cruising for the nomination. will she bring obama along for the ride?

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 24, 2007 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Joe Biden said his net worth was $150k. After 35 years in the senate, his net worth is only $150k? That alone should disqualify him from being President.

Posted by: jay | July 24, 2007 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Why does the Post continue to ignore Nevada? In your most recent posting on the YouTube debate, you refer to the early states as only being Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Perhaps you have forgotten that Nevada comes before both NH and SC this cycle. Perhaps you're having trouble finding it on a map. Perhaps NV is just such a different state, with such unique politics, that it's easier to just ignore it. Try calling the Senate Majority Leader for a primer.

Posted by: Lonely in Nevada | July 24, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

And then there were three - Clinton, Obama and Biden. These were the candidates who had things to say and said them in poised and reasonable ways. I am not his biggest fan, but Obama's response to the "black enough" question was the highlight of the night.

Among Dodd, Edwards, Gravel, Kucinich and Richardson it would be difficult to pick who was most embarrassing.

p.s. - why is it that the angry posters are the ones who can't spell or don't know the difference between "there" and "their" or perpetrate other affronts to our language?

Posted by: Paul Donnelly | July 24, 2007 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton spoke to foreign leaders who weren't our allies.

you mean like camel stinkin' PLO despot Arafat. how did that work out for you?

Posted by: talk talk | July 24, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

anyone with any sense whatsoever knows hillary will win the nomination. she leads in 34 of 36 primary states....her natl polls have her ahead by an average of 16%. political pros understand this, it is why no major player has endorsed anyone but her since january, get a clue, she WILL BE OUR NOMINEE!

Posted by: dem dem | July 24, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

I went back and read the actual transcript of the diplomacy question and Obama's, Hillary's and Edwards's answers.

I support Obama, but his answer was a little slipshod. It sounds like he was responding to the spirit of the question, but perhaps didn't even notice the phrase "without preconditions." That phrase was buried in the long, unwieldy sentence structure of the question.

If Obama did not notice that part of the question, his response would definitely qualify as a gaffe even if the audience responded positively to the spirit of his answer.

I would like to hear more from Obama about this instance and about his plans for diplomacy.

This brings up an interesting point about the YouTube format. This particular question was very long and difficult to follow. Would a professional interviewer have posed the question in a less confusing way? Is that a disadvantage of the vox populi and is there a way to solve the problem?

Posted by: Golgi | July 24, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) called opponents of the Senate immigration bill "racist," strutted picket lines and said universal health care should include abortion in his last week of campaigning for the Democratic nomination for President.

Posted by: sharp left turn | July 24, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

What a bunch of empty suits. You could have gotten those chimps from that commercial and gotten the same results. If one of these clowns get in: Hold on to your wallets, get ready for an attack and then move to Canada !

Posted by: Bob G | July 24, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Teachers or retirees, or self-employed, or...!

Posted by: Anonymous | July 24, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

The significance of the Ahmadinejad/Assad/Chavez/Castro/Kim question was not that it came from a man in California or that it was asked via web video. It was that it revealed Obama's almost embarrassingly naïve view of a president's role in world affairs. And that was the real story in Charleston Monday night.

Posted by: preK for Prez | July 24, 2007 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Can someone clearly explain why Obama's willingness to meet with foreign leaders is a sign of inexperience or greenness? It seems that everyone takes this as a given, particularly lakesideconstruction, but I don't get it. Why does only an inexperienced candidate think that diplomacy can be a solution? Bill Clinton spoke to foreign leaders who weren't our allies. Bush speaks regularly with Putin and Musharaff, who are nominal allies but also dictators. Why attack Obama for saying that he'll meet with foreign leaders instead of ignoring them? And more specifically, how is this evidence of inexperience?

It's like the media is trying to shoehorn everything into their pre-defined narrative for the candidates. Obama's narrative is that he's inexperienced, so every potential misstep is held up as an example of his inexperience. His campaign leaked opposition research memoes, because they're green. He spoke honestly about his desire for diplomacy because he doesn't know what he's doing. But these criticisms aren't used against any other candidates. John McCain's campaign practically collapsed recently, but nobody said it was because he lacked the experience to keep them together. Why does everyone insist on blaming Obama's supposed inexperience for everything he does, while never applying that standard to other candidates?

Posted by: Blarg | July 24, 2007 1:55 PM | Report abuse

To All Posters:

Don't you have to work people?
Who the hell is paying you for spending time here?

I am a P.E. teacher on the "Summer Break." Are you all teachers?

Posted by: M.J. | July 24, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

The world is over populated and we are lucky that we won't have to live in the world we are creating. This is the highpoint for our civilization (1990-2090 and as humans we are helpless to stop ourselves from destroying it.

I like to think that these debates matter but they really don't. As long as our daily lives are left alone we are happy to forgive any resulting negatives. Global warming, whatever. Can I get a cheeseburger with fries in an english accent. Thanks.

I'll take Obama for the sake of change and a facelift for Americans with the hope that he can open our eyes to ourselves. This blind-self stuff is really bothering me as an American.

Posted by: 8 | July 24, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama gave a memorable speech performance in 2004 and many people I trust tell me that in private he is sensationally smart and inspiring. But this is the fourth debate I've seen him in and I just don't think there's any question he's extremely unimpressive in this format -- his speech is halting, he says very little that's substantive, he uses corny soundbite phrases. It's actually hard to believe he's one of the two leading contenders in the Democratic party. Being a good performer in these debates doesn't mean very much, I agree, but I think Obama has been hurt a bit by these events because he's supposed to be a glorious communicator and thus far, as a presidential candidate, he just isn't.

Posted by: john P | July 24, 2007 1:50 PM | Report abuse

MikeB -- I have NO PROBLEM with what you said in your 1:30 post. I just think you weaken your own argument when you dismiss Hillary's supporters as "crazy feminists."

I don't want Hillary to get the nomination for many of the same reasons you've cited. But I don't think it's entirely irrational for women to feel some kind of pull towards Hillary b/c she's the first viable female presidential candidate. The glass ceiling in the US is still plenty real and electing a female president would legitimately be a big deal. When you combine that with the fact that MOST of hillary's female support is among low information voters, who don't really know her policy positions in any great detail, it's not very surprising that she's doing as well as she is with women.

Nor, I should add, does it make those women "irrational," "feminists," or "bad people." In many cases, it just means they're like the majority of the country --wishing the presidential elections hadn't started yet and desperately trying to ignore what's going on.

Posted by: Colin | July 24, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

There's Really No Question [Kathryn Jean Lopez]


Hillary is the nominee. She won't talk to Ahmadinejad and Assad? That puts her way Right of our Speaker of the House.

If I had to vote for a Democrat, I know who it would be.

07/23 08:10 PM

Posted by: R perspective | July 24, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

I just wish they had more time to discuss solutions to our health care situation. I got the impression that they were just beginning to get to the fact that we need a national health insurance program paid for by taxes that doesn't include insurance companies because they're involved with health care to maximize profits. A one payer system with the government being the payer would cut costs by an enormous amount while at the same time improving our health care. It wouldn't be an experiment either. It's running successfully in every other advanced country and the great majority of people in all those countries would never give it up. Even in Canada where their provincial governments don't provide enough money for their national health care, causing some problems, Canadians support it and it's better than our system. Even in Cuba, where there's an embargo on medicines and medical equipment getting in to them so that they have a shortage of these things, people there have medical care almost as good as ours!

Posted by: dansingmore | July 24, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

They commence standard-issue pandering on entitlements and health care. Everything is free for all, stop the privatizers, bad Republicans, blah blah blah... Let's get rid of politics and find a solution...

I like Marcus who asks if his taxes will go up as they usually do when Democrats get into office.

Kucinich: You notice CNN didn't put anyone to the left of me.


Cooper: Well, we couldn't find anyone. Zing!

Posted by: free everything | July 24, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

For example, she tried to make it sound like the only reason she sent Chelsea to Sidwell Friends was the prying eyes of the press. Horsepucky. Many District of Columbia public schools are an unsafe, underperforming mess. Hillary could have even cited the Secret Service's concerns about security. Instead, she ignored why parents want school choice and played the victim card.

"I'm agnostic on nuclear power" is a triumph of indecisiveness. Also, not willing to call herself a "liberal" but insisting on "modern progressive."

Posted by: clinton simply lies and panders | July 24, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

For the those of you who wonder why he didn't mention Obama. I'll tell you its because he won. They can't take it. The Clinton machine has these guys to the point they don't even try to fake it. Leaving Obama out altogether when 3 out of 4 focus groups gave it to him says it all. Take heart "revenge is a dish best served cold"

Posted by: lyn | July 24, 2007 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Actually, unnamed sir, YOU need a life, taking the energy to complain about others arguing on a blog. Thats what blog comments are for, dumbass.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 24, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse

How much does Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign want to capitalize on Obama's comment that he would personally meet with leaders of Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc., during his first year as president? They're holding a conference call with Madeline Albright "to discuss Hillary Clinton's understanding of national security issues."

Interesting choice, since Albright actually did meet with Kim Jong-Il. Gave him the basketball signed by Michael Jordan, if I recall correctly.

Posted by: clinton attacks after scary loss | July 24, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Talk about losers, Clinton squirmed like the worm she is. As for Gravel, you'd be angry too if you were looked over and not given the same amount of air time as the other duffers. Anderson Cooper is a fluff and so obviously played favorites. Whatever.

Posted by: Maria | July 24, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Hi MikeB,
I think this is the first time I have ever agreed with you.
(your 1:31 post... much if not exactly all of it...)

Why is it important for the 2008 presidential race to be a female glass ceiling breaker anyway? Taking a shovel to a glass ceiling is a terrible way to choose the President of the United States.

Posted by: Golgi | July 24, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

It may come as a shock to a lot of readers, but John Edwards has been targeted by the GOP ever since he threw his hat in why because he's electable, Personally behind close doors Hillary will not get the votes eventhough she has presented herself well in the debates, and Obama answer about meetings wit hthe heads of States show anyone wit hbrains right there he's too green.

Posted by: Lakesideconstruction | July 24, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

It may come as a shock to a lot of readers, but John Edwards has been targeted by the GOP ever since he threw his hat in why because he's electable, Personally behind close doors Hillary will not get the votes eventhough she has presented herself well in the debates, and Obama answer about meetings wit hthe heads of States show anyone wit hbrains right there he's too green.

Posted by: Lakesideconstruction | July 24, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

It may come as a shock to a lot of readers, but John Edwards has been targeted by the GOP ever since he threw his hat in why because he's electable, Personally behind close doors Hillary will not get the votes eventhough she has presented herself well in the debates, and Obama answer about meetings wit hthe heads of States show anyone wit hbrains right there he's too green.

Posted by: Lakesideconstruction | July 24, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

It may come as a shock to a lot of readers, but John Edwards has been targeted by the GOP ever since he threw his hat in why because he's electable, Personally behind close doors Hillary will not get the votes eventhough she has presented herself well in the debates, and Obama answer about meetings wit hthe heads of States show anyone wit hbrains right there he's too green.

Posted by: Lakesideconstruction | July 24, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

It may come as a shock to a lot of readers, but John Edwards has been targeted by the GOP ever since he threw his hat in why because he's electable, Personally behind close doors Hillary will not get the votes eventhough she has presented herself well in the debates, and Obama answer about meetings wit hthe heads of States show anyone wit hbrains right there he's too green.

Posted by: Lakesideconstruction | July 24, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

The Boot and Hanson interviews make it perfectly clear that the consequences of retreat in Iraq are perfectly clear. The genocide and the export of terror that followed such a cut and run would be catastrophic, and wholly the legacy of a Democratic Congress.

The good news is that the American public is beginning to hear and see that the surge is working, and public opinion is turning against the Democratic defeat merchants. The anti-war fringe's attack on General Petraeus last week was just one of the many glimpses the American people have had at the real nature of the opposition to the war, and the average American sees, the less they like. Not surprisingly, the more they see of success in Iraq, the more they are supporting the surge.

The report in the New York Times of the new Petraeus plan --the "Joint Campaign Plan"--which sees American troops in Iraq through at least the summer of 2009 has got to be a blow to al Qaeda and the Shia radicals as that means another two years of the sort of punishment that General Petraeus referenced in the interview with him I conducted last week. The leaking of a plan to stay and kill terrorists for at least another 24 months is the first message that the terrorists have received in a long time that their strategy isn't working. Suddenly they find themselves against an American military that isn't retreating but which is pursuing them across every corner of the map, and with extraordinary lethality.

It is of course far too early to declare the surge successful or the Democrats' demand for defeat itself defeated, but it is way past time to begin to note the good news out of Iraq and to demand the MSM do so as well. The Victory Caucus collects all the stories about the war that the curious citizen needs, and the military is connecting with new media and delivering the facts via new platforms which is also helping the public get a complete picture of the successes and the stakes in Iraq.

Posted by: NRO | July 24, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

You all should get a life....argueing with each other on a blog, so so mature.

None of you should be able to vote.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 24, 2007 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Too many candidates in the debates? Why do so many in the media worry that Americans will become frustrated or overwhelmed by having to try to sort out the best candidate among fewer than 20 between the two parties? In a nation of nearly 300 million people, I suspect the problem is not too many candidates, but too few.

CNN's YouTube debate might have shown some Americans for the first time, for example, that there are some members of the Democratic party with a backbone whose principles, not their financial backers, guide their views. Neither Gravel nor Kucinich are apt to win the nomination, but their voices should be heard. So should the voices of Americans like the ones asking the questions last night. As an older American who doesn't know the difference between YouTube and a tube of toothpaste, I was thrilled to hear questions from all sorts of Americans who care enough about their country to want answers from the candidates.

TV debates should be just one way American voters inform themselves. For those who watched last night's debate, I hope it will make many of them want to know more and get involved with the party or candidate of their choice.

Posted by: julie bettenberg | July 24, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Professor Hanson also remarked on Barack Obama's "I've got my meeting planner open" moment:

What he's really saying to the people who have been slaughtered by the Assad government in Syria and the dissidents, we don't care about you. He's telling the people of Lebanon who suffer serial assassination when they try to stand up for democracy, we don't care about real politick at all. He's telling the people of Irsrael...I mean, go talk with somebody who promised that you're a one-bomb state and we're going to wipe you off the map? He's telling the Democratic dissidents in Venezuela...this is a man of the left, and what he's basically doing is willing to talk with dictators and autocrats who are being opposed by people on the left, on the Democratic liberal side, supposedly, in these countries. It's very strange that George Bush is talking about freedom and individual rights, and people in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party are sounding like old-fashioned, real politick, cynical people who say just accept the world the way it is, and most convenient for us is what we want, and don't try to ask for something better.

Posted by: obama the limp | July 24, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Too many candidates in the debates? Why do so many in the media worry that Americans will become frustrated or overwhelmed by having to try to sort out the best candidate among fewer than 20 between the two parties? In a nation of nearly 300 million people, I suspect the problem is not too many candidates, but too few.

CNN's YouTube debate might have shown some Americans for the first time, for example, that there are some members of the Democratic party with a backbone whose principles, not their financial backers, guide their views. Neither Gravel nor Kucinich are apt to win the nomination, but their voices should be heard. So should the voices of Americans like the ones asking the questions last night. As an older American who doesn't know the difference between YouTube and a tube of toothpaste, I was thrilled to hear questions from all sorts of Americans who care enough about their country to want answers from the candidates.

TV debates should be just one way American voters inform themselves. For those who watched last night's debate, I hope it will make many of them want to know more and get involved with the party or candidate of their choice.

Posted by: julie bettenberg | July 24, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Vulnerable Sununu Keeps Bush Away

Sen. John Sununu of New Hampshire, of the most vulnerable Republicans up for reelection next year, is keeping his distance from President Bush, the lawmaker says.

http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/vulnerable-sununu-keeps-bush-away.html

Posted by: Anonymous | July 24, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Colin - The "feminist bashing" isn't bashing women nor is it bashing feminsts. I am merely noting that the vast majority of those claiming Clinton won are women, that they tear down other candidates and minimalize Clinton's failings. I also might note, I keep reading comments like "I've been waiting 20 (pick a number) years for this..." and they go off on some rant about Clinton and women, etc. without discussing her foreign policy or economi stances, which usually run completely contrary to the posters stated positions. It's much the same as with the fundimentalist christians who supported Bush in his elections. Bush could use four letter words, make fun of Christian leaders, had a history of demanding a former girl friend have an abortion, and be a foul mouthed liar that appeared dead set of killing their sons in an ill adised foreign adventure, was a friend of the corporations that offshored their jobs and looted their savings, and led a lifestyile completely at odds with theirs. But, for some reason or other, he got identified as being "one of theirs" and they ran off the cliff with him. Now, it appears, we have another group of fools, doing the exact same thing with Hillary Clinton. Look, she is so wedded to big corporations, so supportive of outsourcing jobs and cheap immigrant labor, is for continuing tax breaks for the wealthy, for more foreign misadventures, so corrupt and money hungry as to be a Republican in everything but name. I find it interesting that so many so called liberal women would be so blindly supportive of a candidate that stands 180 degree opposite of what they claim to want. It is, I want to note, no different whatsoever than the situation we experienced with the fundimentalists and Bush.

voters who
esting and make note of the fact that these self described feminists are no differen

Posted by: MikeB | July 24, 2007 1:31 PM | Report abuse

It was very important for the presidential candidates to address the questions from YouTube and the general public. However, thus far, most media attention has focused on the war in Iraq and recent scandals in the White House. There are critical topics of great importance that I would like to see our candidate address in the future, especially with global poverty. As one of the nation that has pledge to fulfill the goals of Millennium Development Project, whose goal is the elimination of world hunger and poverty, this administration has not shown any substantial action to bring this fundamental problem to a stop. According to the Borgen Project, dedicated to fighting and ending Poverty around the world, only $19 billion dollars are needed annually to stop world wide poverty, hunger and malnutrition. However, more than $340 billion dollars has been poured into this "war on terror." And each year, our country has a military budge of $522 billion dollars. It's time for a new leader who will be addressing an issue that affects 1.2 billion people everyday worldwide.

Posted by: Mstessyrue | July 24, 2007 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Citadel Cadets deserve to hear these candidates answer the questions that concern us, particularly since they are exploiting our school and our distinguished heritage of selfless national service for their own personal political gain.

These candidates all declare to "support the troops," but we need to examine what they have done to see if these oft-heard words ring true.

While dodging the call to serve during Vietnam, Bill Clinton wrote that he "loathed" the military. Have any of these candidates, particularly Hillary, ever publicly condemned Bill's statement or his draft-dodging actions?

What about the words of John Kerry, who has stated our armed forces are in the business of "terrorizing kids and children"?

Posted by: bumper sticker war | July 24, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Not defending Chavez here. But, the fact is that Venezuela is not under a dictatorship. You may have an opinion that he has autocratic tendencies or whatever, but according to democratic standards, the Venezuelan government has not violated the constitution of Venezuela nor the OAS democratic charter. DICTATORSHIP is a loaded word when making reference to Latin America. Pinochet was a dictator - as evidence of thousands of tortured and murdered and exiled can attest to. Stalin was a dictator. Stroessner was a dictator. Musharaff IS a dictator as is the Saudi Arabian monarch. Don't confuse what you "feel" regarding Venezuela for waht legally "is" the reality in Venezuela.

Posted by: Johnny | July 24, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: M.J. | July 24, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

I think that peter dc has a position in the Clinton campaign.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 24, 2007 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

You need to fill out your application for Clinton's campaign because you are her unofficial press secretary. Yes, Clinton did well but so did Obama and Biden. Edwards was okay and the rest well, they are at the back of the bus. At the end of the day, debates and national polls will not decide this election. Message, campaign infrastructure and resources will be the determining factors.

Posted by: RPE | July 24, 2007 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Mike says "I think this whole display was a joke"

I agree completely. It really seemed like all those pathetic desperate people were just trying to get their 15 minutes of fame on t.v. ..and the youTubers were pathetic too. But seriously...

This is Election-tainment at it's worst.

Why CC condisers Richardson a winner of this debacle is beyond me. He got several things completely wrong and was spouting innacuracies left and right! The CNN folks had to publicly correct him in the post-debate show. The man is a buffoon.

What next? Singing and dancing for a talent segment, or (God forbid) swimsuits?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | July 24, 2007 1:24 PM | Report abuse

peter dc's 12:21 post does not hold together. No woman voter should let such vapid "reasoning" sway her from her convictions.

"women like you are the reason"... Red flag, signals the conclusion is baseless.

Posted by: Golgi | July 24, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

"I am now starting to really worry that the nut jobs from the relgious right have only been replaced by the nutjobs from the feminist crowd." - MikeB

MikeB, don't look at the Clinton supporters here, but take a close look at the Senator's campaign staff. That tells you a lot.

BTW all defenders of Chavez, it's his tactics not his politics which is earning him his "dictatorship."

Posted by: Anonymous | July 24, 2007 1:14 PM | Report abuse

The problem with these debates is that, simply put, they're not debates. Nobody is compelled to say anything meaningful, but rather do the best quick regurgitation of their stump speeches. Someone above accused Hillary Clinton of being "canned". But they were all canned.

How about a new format:

1) Each debate is topic specific. One on Iraq, one on the economy, one on the war on terror, one on healthcare, one on education. Should ratings really be that important? This is a group of people all trying to become the leader of the free world.

2) Each candidate gets a two minute opening statement.

3) After the statement, then each of the other candidates asks him or her a question. Has to be on topic, and the moderator has the right to veto any off-topic or inflammatory questioning.

4) If the question is acceptable, the candidate must answer the question, to the satisfaction of the moderator and other candidates.

I know this format would take longer, but shouldn't anyone who wants this job have demonstrate an ability to think on their feet? Canned rhetoric doesn't impress me. Let's see what these people are really made of.

Posted by: JamesCH | July 24, 2007 1:14 PM | Report abuse

I would have loved to see one of the candidates last night when responding to the question from the two women regarding their position on allowing them to marry one another to respond with the following "based upon the power invested in me as an elected official, I now pronounce you Jen and Mary as spouse and spouse and bestow upon you all the rights guaranteed under the constitution of the United States. You may now kiss your spouse."

Posted by: Anderson Hitchcock | July 24, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

As usual, Mr. Cillizza's analysis is restricted to style, fluff and calculated campaign slogans!

For the record, nothing, I repeat nothing, can be done domestically until America extricates itself from Iraq and until American voters repudiate neocon (republicans) and neocon-lite (democrats) neo-imperialism!

Posted by: David G. Ward | July 24, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

It's now quite clear how the results of the surge will be dealt with by domestic opponents of the Iraq war.


They're going to be ignored.


They're being ignored now. Virtually no media source or Democratic politician (and not a few Republicans, led by Richard "I can always backtrack" Lugar) is willing to admit that the situation on the ground has changed dramatically over the past three months. Coalition efforts have undergone a remarkable reversal of fortune, a near-textbook example as to how an effective strategy can overcome what appear to be overwhelming drawbacks.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/07/the_surge_succeeds.html

You will look long and hard to find any of this in the legacy media. Apart from a handful of exceptions (such as John F. Burns of the New York Times), it's simply not being covered. Those operational names would come across as bizarre to the average reader, the gains they have made impossible to fit into the worldview that has been peddled unceasingly by the dead tree fraternity. What the media is concentrating on - and will to continue to concentrate on, in defiance of sense, protest, and logic, to the bitter end - is peripheral stories such as the Democrat's Senate pajama party, reassertions of the claim that the war has "helped" Al-Queda, and the latest proclamation from the world's greatest fence-sitter.

Posted by: good news for US is bad for Libs | July 24, 2007 1:09 PM | Report abuse

I already typed my comment in another spot here but I don't know whether you'll get that, so here I go again. What took place last night wasn't a debate, it was a discussion in which the American people had a chance to ask about what was really important to them, not the nonsense you journalists bring up. In addition, they weren't "gotcha" questions to trip up candidates for a juicy news story. The candidates criticized each other to some extent but the important thing was that they had a chance to voice their views on the really important issues that we are concerned about. The criticisms served a good purpose in that they propelled candidates to go into greater detail, as for example, regarding health care. You're the 2nd journalist who misunderstood John Edwards' joking comment about Hillary Clinton's jacket. The audience present got it as did (probably) most of the TV viewing audience. Hillary Clinton didn't disagree about meeting other heads-of-state. She simply pointed out that lower-level people should first lay the groundwork for such meetings. While this showed that she brings more experience to bear than the others, I have no doubt that, with more time to reflect on this question, the others would come to the same conclusion. Having Anderson Cooper as a moderator was a plus too. Having someone who comes from our "nobility" in that position and who also happens to care about people enables us to have a moderator who doesn't have to worry about what his bosses think. It was great. We need more such candidate discussions. To hell with debates!

Posted by: dansingalot | July 24, 2007 1:08 PM | Report abuse

I wouldn't waste my time, or the gas required, to make a trip to the polls to vote for any of them.

I didn't hear a single solution to any problem.

This country is in a mess because this bunch has been, and continues to, acquiesce to the Republicans and big-business.

Alan L. Maki
Warroad, Minnesota

http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Alan L. Maki | July 24, 2007 1:06 PM | Report abuse


I thought the debate was far better than the others held so far...but I think that only abaout 50% of the questions CNN chose were really provocative questions that would not have been asked by a regular moderator.

Several missed opportunities by CNN.

I think Mike Gravel DOES have some interesting positions that Chris has missed:

-Ending the war on drugs
-Replacing the income tax with a national sales tax (an idea I find interesting if there's a way to make it non-regressive).

I wish some of these topics had a greater discussion....unfortunately, their substance is being overshadowed by the weirdness of the messenger.

Posted by: mbw | July 24, 2007 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Chris

If you are planning to become Hillary's press secretary, don't quit your job now because it won't happen. Obama will win.

Hillary did not answer the question on whether electing her would further the Clinton/Bush stranglehold on the White House over the past two decades, instead saying "I think it is a problem that Bush was elected in 2000." She added that she was "proud" of her husband's time in office and that she hoped she would be judged on her own merits in 2008. What are her merits? She has not done anything meritorious. She voted to authorize the war without reading the critical security report and without seeing/demanding that they had a plan in place to get out of Iraq before getting in. What kind of leadership ability does that show? It shows that if elected she will be just as callous as our current president in his decisions.

Posted by: andy | July 24, 2007 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Let's leave and let the Iraqis kill themselves. I mean that's not the first time we would have turn our backs on genocide, look at Darfur. Oh, but Darfur does not have oil.

Posted by: klove | July 24, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

are you serious....

Posted by: fran | July 24, 2007 1:03 PM | Report abuse

MikeB -- Who said anything crazy in support of Clinton? At best, the consensus about her seems to be that she's prepared and effective in this format. You're obviously free to disagree with view, but that doesn't make anyone else irrational. Moreover, what is with the "feminist" bashing? I'm a man, don't identify as a feminist, and am no fan of Hillary Clinton -- but some of your criticism is just strange. There is PLENTY to dislike about Hillary's policy positions. Why not focus on those instead of bizarre attacks against some unknown "feminist' boogey man?

Oh, and your citations -- which essentially were critical of the debate itself and somehwhat of Clinton -- didn't seem at all critical of Obama in particular. What is your problem with him anyway? His record is a LOT more economically populist than Edwards and he's consistently had a better position on the war.

Posted by: Colin | July 24, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

The offhanded way in which this post deals with the debate illustrates the disconnect with mainstream America and the print and tv media. Gatekeepers such as the author who would exclude this or that candidate from our consideration are part of that problem. While there are many issues with our political process, last night at least showed a recognition and at least an attempt (however still flawed) to try and do something different to recapture the vitality and engagement so desperately lacking of late.

Wins:
* Tougher questions that dealt with issues important to people (as screened by CNN honchos).
* Excitement and interest in the political process for more Americans (we are all talking about it today, no?)

Losses:
*Did not succeed in breaking the sound byte barrier for actual in-depth, give and take dialog.
*Too tight of a time frame (especially with flippin commercials!! Is there anything in this country that can be done without branding/pitches??) for so many videos.
*Horse race pandering to the blessed Cerebrus of Edwards-Clinton-Obama.
* Myopic analysis of the "gimic" factor versus discussion of the bigger problem

Posted by: FortunaSandwiches | July 24, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

As a real Democrat, I will never vote for Clinton. She lies, cheats and she is in the pocket of AIPAC goons.
As a first lady she did nothing good for the people, she only used Airforce 1 to travel around the world with her daughter on taxpayer money.
Her husband sold United States to China.

On other hand, Obama is "unspoiled" by dirty politics of being bribed by other country representatives.

I vote Obama!

Posted by: M.J. | July 24, 2007 12:58 PM | Report abuse

What a joke....
Can you say "President Gulliani"?....
Learn to....

Posted by: Racindavid | July 24, 2007 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Why did'nt you make mention of barack obama? i believe he was a winner too

Posted by: moses jones | July 24, 2007 12:52 PM | Report abuse

When you have people whose business it is to cover the permanent campaign discovering that the "winner" in a multi-candidate program just happen to be the candidates with campaign experience rather than real experience....

Let's just say we have a problem discerning which of Cilizza's conclusions are right and which are just a matter of his finding what he was looking for. Most of the media is like that these days. They wouldn't know the difference between someone who has actually achieved something in public life and someone who has only memorized talking points if their lives depended on it -- because in fact their livelihoods don't depend on it.

So they see what they are trying to see, and report that as news. And America winds up with nothing but Bushes and Clintons, Clintons and Bushes, in the White House as far as the eye can see.

Posted by: Zathras | July 24, 2007 12:51 PM | Report abuse

I AM OUTRAGED at your classifying democratically elected president Hugo Chavez of Venezuela as a dictator. His freely-elected government has been recognized as such by every major international body - UN, OAS, EU, etc. - and even by the US State Department. He certainly has proposed very controversial policies and many border dangerously on an autocratic path...but no more than the Patriot Act does so here in the US and the civil liberties of Americans. You should be shamed of yourself for beating the drums of disinformation and ignorance in this matter.

Posted by: Johnny | July 24, 2007 12:51 PM | Report abuse

JEP: "WE got to ask the questions, WE thePeople."

You are out of your mind. This whole thing was just another CNN trick. You don't think there were THOUSANDS of submissions?

Who do you think selected the questions?

On what basis were they selected?

Just because "normal" people asked the questions doesn't mean CNN didn't pick what questions got asked.

Posted by: Mike | July 24, 2007 12:45 PM | Report abuse

A lot of people just say that pulling the troops out now would be a disaster, without providing any evidence to support that supposition.

Well, let me make a similar supposition: As long as we are in Iraq, things will never get any better there.

Will things get worse in Iraq if we just leave? In the short term, quite possibly. But until the people of Iraq are given the chance at self-determination, things just won't get better. Any government in Iraq that is seen as set up by the Americans, whether that's a fair assessment or not, is doomed to fail. Us staying there is just delaying the inevitable, and, in doing so, helping ferment anti-American sentiment in the entire region that leads to record recruitment numbers for al Qaeda.

So we should get out, and get out as fast as we can, not because it will save US lives (which it would) but because, in the long term, if not the short term, it will save Iraqi lives as well.

Posted by: Artie | July 24, 2007 12:44 PM | Report abuse

The debates served the greater purpose of informing the voting population (even if only informing them of the participants unwillingness to take a stand on a particular issue) and for that I am satisfied. This widening of the democratic (little "d") lens is a definite step forward, in terms of the political process, even if it were a step backward for the Democrats (big "D") themselves. In order to really evaluate these candidates (despite their "tier") one should compare their comments last night with their past voting records and other statements. There is not a legally binding standard imposed on candidates to be consistent, and unfortunately sometimes they are not. One need only to do a simple Google search to find such inconsistencies. But upon their discovery on sites like:

http://www.Senatus.Wordpress.com

one cannot automatically dismiss the candidate as illegitimate. Context, in this context, is everything. One can only hope the Republican party will show their willingness to participate in such a debate, and therefore empower the mere Voter.

PV

http://www.Senatus.Wordpress.com

Posted by: Publius | July 24, 2007 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Last comment, I have to agree wholeheartedly with you Chris, this debate was a home run, for only one reason.

WE got to ask the questions, WE thePeople.

No offense to the pundits (oops, I spelled that wrong) but thier questions never get to the real issues.

The format itself brought the public into the loop, in a way that we might wee become the standard in future debates.

GREAT SHOW, CNN!!!

We only need one thing, now....

MORE OF THE SAME!!!

Posted by: JEP | July 24, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse

What I find most intersting this morining are the comments of the Clinton fanatics. Most of them appear to be self identified "feminists" and they bash anyone or anything that detracts from their candidate. I am now starting to really worry that the nut jobs from the relgious right have only been replaced by the nutjobs from the feminist crowd. Both appear to be unthinking, unquestioning numbskulls. Chris, a topic for debate here might be the political damage done by these blind mobs.

Posted by: MikeB | July 24, 2007 12:40 PM | Report abuse

NG

AK?

You meant AR.

AK is owned by Crooked Republicans (is there any other kind these days?)

Posted by: JEP | July 24, 2007 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Like the focus groups I was ready to declare Hillary the winner, but as it turns out it is not the case. Hillary is skilled at staying on message, but last night her message had an unintended consequence. When does being first lady prepare you to be president? I realized (for the first time) that she overstates her experience. Let's see -she was first lady in AK and was a partner in a law firm and first lady to our nation. She led the fight for health care - that did not go well. Like the other top tier candidates she is a senator and she should be judged on her voting record. She indicated that she wishes to be judged on her qualifications and experience, but yet she ties her experience to former President Clinton. Does being first lady mean that you have the skills to be president? Does that mean Nancy Reagan, Laura Bush, Barbara Bush have the necessary qualifications? Hillary is a talented woman, but she does not have the extensive experience that she claims to have.

Posted by: NG | July 24, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Diplomacy is not the solution to everything, but one does not know it without trying it. If you have to send intermediaries to talk to and screen me before your meet with me then maybe we shouldn't talk.

The reason we are losing in Iraq is that we do not have the "Will" to win. If we had the "Will" to win then our arm forces and military might will not be relegated to a police and peace keeping mission. I say clear out our people and bomb the Sunni Triangle.

Posted by: klove | July 24, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

I don't even like any of these bafoons, but I agree with many posters, that it doesn't make sense that Chris would completely pass over Obama. If I were a lib I might think he was at best the winner, at worst, noteworthy.

Chris -- I looks pretty slanted that you just go ahead and declare Hillary the winner without even mentioning Barack. Are you sure you're not just pushing for the woman you want in office?

Posted by: Mike | July 24, 2007 12:36 PM | Report abuse

"As long as God is for Barack Obama no man or Winner-Loser Poll can be against him...."

Maybe God can move him to quit smoking, so our children have a good example?

Posted by: JEP | July 24, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Like the focus groups I was ready to declare Hillary the winner, but as it turns out it is not the case. Hillary is skilled at staying on message, but last night her message had an unintended consequence. When does being first lady prepare you to be president? I realized (for the first time) that she overstates her experience. Let's see -she was first lady in AK and was a partner in a law firm and first lady to our nation. She led the fight for health care - that did not go well. Like the other top tier candidates she is a senator and she should be judged on her voting record. She indicated that she wishes to be judged on her qualifications and experience, but yet she ties her experience to former President Clinton. Does being first lady mean that you have the skills to be president? Does that mean Nancy Reagan, Laura Bush, Barbara Bush have the necessary qualifications? Hillary is a talented woman, but she does not have the extensive experience that she claims to have.

Posted by: NG | July 24, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

The winner loser is a spin to put Barack Obama in the shadow of other candidates with little to nothing to contribute to the change that this country is so desparately in need of. As long as God is for Barack Obama no man or Winner-Loser Poll can be against him....

Posted by: Michelle Cooper | July 24, 2007 12:34 PM | Report abuse

"After all, if we would just leave Iraq, everything would be OK. Right?"

No, it will just be "better". Much better, especially for those AMerican tropps who don't have to die to protect Bush's bubble.

There is a simple answer to your Al Queda concerns, JB. Republicans SAY they are fighting terrorists, but they ignorantly, and agains their own Generals' advice, abandoned the hunt for Bin Laden just to get Saddam and created this mess in Iraq.

Now they have to conjur up Bin Laden and Al Queda to srit their base into fearful support, suddenly Al Queda is back in the news, reconstituted and ready to kill us all and eart our babies.

Republicans depended on ignorance, deception and fear to gain power. Now those are their only tools.

Don't you bet it JB?

Dems don't need fear to govern.

So in spite of the fact they have every intention of going after Bin Laden and Al Queda like Bush has refused to do, they aren't going to evoke the "B" word (bin laden) just to stir up moblike fear and hate in our people.

Posted by: JEP | July 24, 2007 12:34 PM | Report abuse

The winner loser is a spin to put Barack Obama in the shadow of other candidates with little to nothing to contribute to the change that this country is so desparately in need of. As long as God is for Barack Obama no man or Winner-Loser Poll can be against him....

Posted by: Michelle Cooper | July 24, 2007 12:34 PM | Report abuse

The winner loser is a spin to put Barack Obama in the shadow of other candidates with little to nothing to contribute to the change that this country is so desparately in need of. As long as God is for Barack Obama no man or Winner-Loser Poll can be against him....

Posted by: Michelle Cooper | July 24, 2007 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Yes Cris!
Why didn't you mentioned Barack Obama? He outshoned all of the candidates last night debate, he looked presidential.
Please be fair and balance.
Barack Obama will be the next President of these United States Of America. You mark my words.

Posted by: Marine Utley | July 24, 2007 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Mike, Brooklyn writes
"I want to hear about what Bill Richardson knows and has learned from his decades of service."

I'm beginning to think that Gov Richardson hasn't learned all that much. As someone else mentioned, he wants all US troops out of Iraq by the end of the year. Its not clear if he's merely being a political opportunist with this position, or actually lives in some kind of la la land where just pulling out wouldn't make things worse.

Posted by: bsimon | July 24, 2007 12:30 PM | Report abuse

How can you call this format a winner?

How are we supposed to choose our President, our Commander-in-Cheif, the leader of the free world, when they all look little more than restrained schoolchildren who are made to stand there with their hands folded while asked rediculous questions in laughably (and depressingly) childish formats?

A debate shouldn't be a sound-byte contest, nor should we be concerned with the way someone looks at a certain camera angle (although some of those things contribute to charisma and likeability, which might also be important).

I think this whole display was a joke, and I don't think the Republican debate will be any better. If I were a candidate, I wouldn't subject myself to this game of witty sound bytes and this barrage of obviously-filtered questions.

Sure, some of the questions were "hard(er)", but still no one is asking the hard(est) questions.

This is a serious business and we shouldn't accept this immature, disrespectful, and unprofessional format to choose one of the most powerful people in the world.

Posted by: Mike | July 24, 2007 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Clinton on Darfur - GREAT NON-ANSWER!

Edwards on Gay Marriage - WAY TO HOLD IT UP BUDDY!

Obama on Foreign Policy - WAY TO MESS IT UP, SHOWS HIS LACK OF EXPERIENCE. WHAT OTHER FOREIGN LEADER OF A ROUGUE STATE CAN YOU SQUEEZE IN YOUR 1st YR IN OFFICE? RIDICULOUS!

Posted by: 761-091 | July 24, 2007 12:26 PM | Report abuse

why? you did not address obama in your editorial is to cause confusion? what is your objective for that?

Posted by: on purpose? | July 24, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse

why? you did not address obama in your editorial is to cause confusion? what is your objective for that?

Posted by: on purpose? | July 24, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse


This was no debate; it was a horse and pony show with 3 celebrity-politicians assuming center stage, regurgitating stale Hallmark platitudes and completely avoiding any substantive exchange of ideas. I don't care in the least about what a neophyte like Barack Obama has to say about pretty much anything. I want to hear about what Bill Richardson knows and has learned from his decades of service. Spare me John Edwards and his repudiation of his politically expedient Iraq vote, and let me hear Joe Biden tell me the truth about what we have to do to get out of there.

I'm tired of the media spinning their notion of who is winning and who is a "1st-tier" candidate and pawning it off as debate. The Democratic Party should be ashamed of its complicity in this exercise, and should give equal time to all candidates in future debates as a matter of respect to the participants and as its duty to its constituents.

Posted by: Mike, Brooklyn | July 24, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse

It's great to hear that the youtube debates sparked some sort of activism among citizens (comments above) and gave the chance for candidates to distinguish themselves. John Edwards' strong fight for healthcare was an admirable one, but I wish he focused more on his fight against poverty. According to the Borgen Project, it only takes 19 billion dollars ( a small comparison to the 340 billion spent on the Iraqi War) to end malnutrition and starvation worldwide.

Posted by: Erica | July 24, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Matt & Artie
You are so right. But how about Richardson-Clinton, Richardson-Obama, or even Richardson-Biden (that last would really give us some leadership.) I am old enough to remember what being vice president did to the first George Bush, who started out with some integrity. I would hate to see Richardson as second fiddle to anyone, especially Hillary Clinton. If he can't get the nomination, Richardson should hung back for State or stay in New Mexico where he can do some good.

Posted by: Viejita del oeste | July 24, 2007 12:23 PM | Report abuse

I don't agree with your winners and losers.

Where is Biden, among the winners? Most people came out of the debate with a strong impression of his firmness and experience. He was definitely a presence. He's still a uber-long shot for the nomination, but all of a sudden, there is real enthusiasm for Secretary of State Biden, or VP Biden.

Obama was a winner, too. He has certianly improved his debate performance and gave good, thoughtful answers. I personally think he gave a superior answer to Clinton on the question of meeting with Syria, Venezuela, et. al. His answer was not indicative of naïveté; three former secretaries of states have advocated as much!

I also just don't think Richardson and Edwards came out of this winners. Mind you, I don't think Richardson was a loser either; he came off as a nice, smart, experienced guy. But he wasn't good in this debate. He's done better in this one than in previous ones, but he was far short of stellar. Also his immediate withrdrawal position on Iraq is just foolhardy and unrealistic. He should know better.

Edwards was an outright loser in my opinion. He came across as part of the second tier. He was constantly making fake emotive faces. His answers were lame, over-folksy. He made decent points sometimes, but they were sumerged in his very roundabout rhetoric. Even his "anger" seemed put-upon.

Kucinich was also a loser. Everyone knows that Gravel is too old and too odd to be any sort of a force to be reckoned with. It's almost redudant to call him a loser. The term implies that something was lost. But during the debate it became embarassingly clear that Kucinich, too, was bringing very little to the debate.

In short:

Winners: Clinton, Obama, Biden
Losers: Edwards, Kucinich

Posted by: Antigone | July 24, 2007 12:23 PM | Report abuse

I saw last night's debate, which I don't usually do. But this one was different because it brought the "real self" of each candidate and they were actually forced to take a standpoint. I believe Hillary Clinton proved that she is capable, very, very smart, polished and knows what she is talking about. Sen. Biden is also very, very good. I would love to see them in the same ticket. Hillary for President, Biden for Vice.

Posted by: Wanda Alabarces | July 24, 2007 12:22 PM | Report abuse

I saw last night's debate, which I don't usually do. But this one was different because it brought the "real self" of each candidate and they were actually forced to take a standpoint. I believe Hillary Clinton proved that she is capable, very, very smart, polished and knows what she is talking about. Sen. Biden is also very, very good. I would love to see them in the same ticket. Hillary for President, Biden for Vice.

Posted by: Wanda Alabarces | July 24, 2007 12:22 PM | Report abuse

To Paulet,

I don't know how much of an older lady you are, but the reality is that woman like you are often the reason woman don't break the glass ceiling. I am the same age as Hillary and have supported more women for political office over the years than I am sure you have. Hillary is the smartest and classiest of them all.

I don't know if it's jealousy or what, but when a woman like Hillary Clinton, with a great career, brilliant mind, proven successes and clearly now accepted by a majority of people as all the recent polls show, you find a reason not to like her. You use the word "canned".

You really should get over it. It wasn't canned when she challenged Obama about his saying he would meet with the likes of Castro and other leaders without thinking about his answer. Her answer was what I would expect of the next President, thought out, with the realization that i'ts not about just agreeing to meet them but doing the diplomatic homework first so that you don't give them a public stage for their own propaganda without knowing what they will say.

I am glad that all the polls show that young women are strong supporters of Hillary's and that many woman in the political realm; Mikulski, Ferraro, Albright, and so many others, realize that Hillary will become a preeminent world leader and she will bring credit not only to all Americans, but break the highest glass ceiling in the land at the same time. Something that will benefit all men and women in the future.

It's time to get over your jeolousy, or whatever it is, and join those men and women who will make a statement about what women can do by electing Hillary Clinton.

Your position doesn't make Hillary look bad it makes you look bad.

Posted by: peter dc | July 24, 2007 12:21 PM | Report abuse

These debates are terrible because of the nature of politics. This is because the media as well as the other candidates are just waiting for the single quote they can use to discredit the entire person as a whole. They cant wait to label someone .If you really want to know if Obama can handle the job or how he stands on issues....read his book. He is by far the best choice. I love how right after Obama says he would talk to the rogue nations, Hillary has it everywhere, "naivety of Obama". Of course who would think to solve things diplomatically? Lets just sanction (starve the people of the respective country) and then bomb them.

Posted by: jason | July 24, 2007 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Edwards' "criticism" was not a "foible" it was a not-so-subtle stab at the fashionistas who attacked his haircut, he might have made his point more obvious by commenting on Hillary's "haircut" instead of her jacket.

It was also a humorous way to avoid being negative, but is was by no means a "foible."

Seriously, anyone who thought Edwards really meant to criticize Hillary's jacket needs some sophistication booster shots.

Edwards would never make such a stupid mistake, it takes a pretty thick mindset to perceive his "jacket" comment as anything but contempt for the fasionistas.

IT WAS A JOKE, Chris, intended as a slap to all those fashion-obsessed poundits who want an issue where ther is none...

But otherwise, I think this is one of your most perceptive and downright honest postings for a lng time, maybe there's some hope for resurrecting that political respectability you had before that 2006 event went so differently from your prognostications...

I kid a lot, Chris, your blog is one of the best resources for political information available, adn I recommend it to folks all the time.

So there..

Posted by: JEP | July 24, 2007 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Obviously, Gravel is more of an act than a candidate, but "Does he have a point of view not already represented on the stage?" The answer is simply "yes, absolutely." If you pay attention to the content of what he's saying, one sees that his angle in these debates is to propose the good policies that nobody else will support because they sound bad. Last debate, for example, he advocated "ending the war on drugs." It's a crazy-sounding soundbite, but he's absolutely right by any reasonable evaluation of the policy: treatment is better than punishment in every way. Similarly, I think almost any economist would agree that a progressive income tax is (at least if well executed) both 101 times more efficient than anything proposed by the other candidates, while still allowing equitable redistribution of wealth.

The world would be better off if people could get past Gravel's absurdity and listen to what he's saying. Granted, it's his own fault, but still, he's worth a listen.

Posted by: Chris | July 24, 2007 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Yes, why no mention of anything having to do with al Qaeda or terrorism? Apparently, the Dems believe that Bush will have solved the problem before he leaves office so they can get down to real issues that can destroy the world, like global warming and a lack of affordable health care insurance. Or, maybe they just don't believe that terrorism is a concern for the U.S. After all, there hasn't been another terrorist attack in the U.S. since 9/11, so that must mean there is no war with al Qaeda about which we need to worry. After all, if we would just leave Iraq, everything would be OK. Right?

Posted by: JB | July 24, 2007 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

I also want to know why you discounted Obama in your review?

Posted by: John36 | July 24, 2007 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: | July 24, 2007 11:40 AM, anon idiot: Well let's see...the BBC commentator called the debate and format "hype". They also called Clinton's answers "scripted". The winner, according to BBC commentators and the British viewing public was Dennis Kucinich! The GÖTEBORGS-POSTEN ( Sweden) has a one paragrph summary, calling the "debate" a waste of time and a failure. The Scandinavian view of American's is that we are trivial fools, 'too much addicted to the Jerry Springer format of shows'. The Allgemeine Zeitung (Germany) completely ignored the "debate". The one letter to the editor in todays news paper called it "silly". The Stuttgarter-Zeitung has a lead story this morninging titled "Hillary Clinton: A woman without characteristics".

All of this doesn't much sound like the rest of the world thinks any better of Ms. Clinton than they do of Mr. Bush. Now, Mr. Obama appears to be joining her in the dumster of world opinion.

Posted by: MikeB | July 24, 2007 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Unfortunately the best and most qualified of them all Joe Biden is not mentioned in this review

Posted by: joseph jacir | July 24, 2007 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Chris, How dare you not mention Barack Obama. A stellar performance. Barack addressed the issues. He talked about his personal circumstance and addressed how that fits into the big picture of America.
Interesting that you did not even include him in your article, except a quick mention.

Why? Chris, please answe why you did not address Obama!

Posted by: Courtney from Minneapolis | July 24, 2007 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Unfortunately the best and most qualified of them all Joe Biden is not mentioned in this review

Posted by: joseph jacir | July 24, 2007 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Funny mentioning that Richardson got some questions right in the wheelhouse, because he was absolutely snubbed on his three strongest areas.

On the negotiation question, where Obama and Clinton got so much replay time in the difference between their answers, the one person who has made a career out of negotiations, who has actually personally negotiated with dictators, was left in silence, as if he was unworthy of such an important question.

Similarly, when the global warming questions came up, Richardson was left standing there rather than being able to tout his time as secretary of energy or the bills that he hsa personally signed into law in New Mexico to promote clean energy.

Finally, early in the debate when most of the candidates were asked what would make them different, able to get through the partisan gridlock, Richardson wasn't given a chance to mention that he is the only one on stage who has shown the ability, as governor, to get things done across party lines. His ability to state that he got 40% of the republican vote in his re-election bid is a really good selling point.

I have to wonder, when Richardson isn't given the opportunity to give an answer regarding any of his (in my opinion) top 3 selling points, if there is an actual effort to keep him from reaching the top tier because it wrecks the Clinton-Obama storyline. I'm not saying there IS such a vast media conspiracy, but I just have to wonder.

Posted by: Artie | July 24, 2007 12:13 PM | Report abuse

hilary clinton is a fake!!!

Posted by: logic | July 24, 2007 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Among second-tier candidates, I thought Biden came across as stronger and more knowledgeable than Richardson. Richardson has the best resume by far, but I've still found him a disapointment in the debates, including this one.

Posted by: Eric | July 24, 2007 12:10 PM | Report abuse

I think the fox focus group said it best.....Many people came in supporting Hillary and thinking she'd win, however at the end of the debate some had changed their votes to Obama and the dramatic majority thought he was victorious. Especially when he said that Clinton should have asked for withdrawal plan from Iraq before going in, and it is too late now as well as being willing to meet with leaders of countries that do not like us. Clinton took a Bushian approach and their is no way of knowing for sure what will be used as propoganda.

Posted by: Fred | July 24, 2007 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Be careful about assumed "wisdom." You give Clinton a thumbs-up for her remarks about diplomacy, about not meeting with certain foreign leaders, as if her response was the only true thing to say. But Democrats need to stop imitating a Republican administration whose lack of diplomacy is their main weakness.

Posted by: Justin Baird | July 24, 2007 12:08 PM | Report abuse

I think the fox focus group said it best.....Many people came in supporting Hillary and thinking she'd win, however at the end of the debate some had changed their votes to Obama and the dramatic majority thought he was victorious. Especially when he said that Clinton should have asked for withdrawal plan from Iraq before going in, and it is too late now as well as being willing to meet with leaders of countries that do not like us. Clinton took a Bushian approach and their is no way of knowing for sure what will be used as propoganda.

Posted by: Fred | July 24, 2007 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Alex - this is where the debates actually have value - people are hearing it - what is blogged is meaningless -

I think the more these puppet condidates speak in the debates the more the American people are going to see the Dems and Reputricans are just different patterns cut from the same cloth.

I do believe with each debate more Americans are beginning to see the importance of a highly qualified 3rd party candidate.

With every debate my contempt for the Dems grows - and the Reputricans will never be an option

This is good - the people will be the force behind an indepenndent - the people are tired of these same old recylced trash candidates

Posted by: Bobby Wightman-Cervantes | July 24, 2007 12:06 PM | Report abuse

I'M MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE

Posted by: Howard Beale | July 24, 2007 12:05 PM | Report abuse

I'M MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE

Posted by: Howard Beale | July 24, 2007 12:05 PM | Report abuse

I'M MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE

Posted by: Howard Beale | July 24, 2007 12:05 PM | Report abuse

I liked the format, much better chance for at least some people to ask their own question. Chris, it must be a "Graduate" thing?? -- but Hillary is canned, all the way. As an older woman who would like to see a woman in the Oval office, Hillary is not that woman. These times call for change.
Obama is getting his voice and breaking out nicely --- what no mention!?! He scored well with focus groups. Shame on you -- we are lucky that the democratic party has formidable candidates who also, in some cases, have a sense of humor.
Can't picture what the Republicans will do with this format -- Could you see Bush up there??
Anyway, it's a good start for turning the debating process into something more interesting -- hope they continue in this vein especially after the primaries.

Posted by: Paulet, | July 24, 2007 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Also, what's wrong with a candidate being angry? For those who lurk in the Beltway Bubble (yes I'm talking to you), the people of America are PISSED at their government. They think in the back of their minds that they're all going to get killed (or completely screwed out of something) due to the smoke-filled room decisions of elite bureaucrats and corrupt elected officials. And rightfully so. Why should we trust you anyway? God forbid the candidates would ever answer that first Youtube question posed truthfully...Coors would pull their beloved "21 means 21" ads! ....gag....

Get real Washington, and WAKE UP.

Posted by: jojo | July 24, 2007 12:04 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Lonestar - since when was saying something original the sole criterion for being invited to a debate? It almost seems like you're implying that the more people agree on an issue, the less likely that opinion is to be true.

Posted by: Mike | July 24, 2007 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Did no one even listen to what Sen. Gravel was saying? He was saying that the Democrats on stage are basically the same as the Republican's in that they are owned by Big Business and Wall Street. In a free democracy, should that incredably important information be open to all. And I find it incredible that this point that he kept on bringing up again and again is just erased from the history books by blogs such as this one.

Posted by: Alex W. | July 24, 2007 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Why would we expect to get honest and frank answers from people who are nothing more than mimics to the words handed to them by their handlers.

The American people were the losers - we still have nothing - Both the Dems and Reputricans offer nothing.

The best I can hope for is a truly qualified independent - I do believe America is more than ready for an independent who will speak his/her mind instead of memorizing a really poorly written hollywood script

www.balancingtheissues.com

Posted by: Bobby Wightman-Cervantes | July 24, 2007 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Does CC ever criticize Hillary? According to him, everything she does is fantastic. She was asked a direct question and insulted Bush instead of answering. Brilliant! She said that she'll continue the Bush administration policy of not negotiating with countries we don't like. Masterful! Far better than the "inexperienced" Obama, who naively thinks that diplomacy can solve problems. Hillary is a winner!

Posted by: Blarg | July 24, 2007 11:51 AM | Report abuse

And YES, Mike Gravel does bring a viewpoint to the table and that is the idea that the Democratic party needs to stop the hypocrisy. A lot of them are so compromised and manipulated that it is at least refreshing to see somebody on that stage be honest about something, even if he is senile or whatever. This disparity was encompassed in not his anger, but in his statement that he took the train to the debate rather than some unsustainable private chartered jet.

Posted by: jojo | July 24, 2007 11:49 AM | Report abuse

I see on another blog about this debate on this site that a blogger saw Obama as a combination of JFK, RFK and MLK (he missed out Moses, Jesus, Mohammed and Oprah!)
YET NOT ONE OF YOU HAS EVEN MENTIONED BHO!
What are tou all-partisan?

Posted by: elixelx | July 24, 2007 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Jeez, Chris, you've been manipulated by CNN. You were suckered by CNN's shimmering camera angle of Hilary while shocked at Gravel's uber-closeups. This was not unintentional, people, and this should be obvious. But I guess to some, it still isn't.

The format left a lot to be desired and Anderson Cooper really dumbed things down. Chris, you seem to flip-flop on Cooper in this very post, by the way. There were sound issues with the introductory videos and they didn't need to make the videos so damn small on the screen, but they did for whatever reason. CNN can be really unprofessional in its presentation (and no that does not mean Fox News deserves credit because it is no better). The pioneering format did bring out some more candid responses from the candidates, I'll give you that, but the mediation from CNN meant only one thing: Continue the "conversation/stump speech" response, candidates!

Finally, any debate that has commercials is ultimately doomed. There is an immediate conflict of capital interest that compromises the original intent of the press. That is a grave injustice and the DNC should not have sponsored such a debate. But they did.

Posted by: jojo | July 24, 2007 11:44 AM | Report abuse

I think it is clear from clinton's responses that she has moved beyond the primary and is now courting general election voters. Obama has demonstrated that he is just a little young and inexperienced to be taken seriously. Edwards is fading fast. the rest deserve little mention.

the entire class of Dems is showing their contempt for the economy and individualism. it is clear they will expand government and raise taxes.

why no mention of terror? will the Dems simply ignore the issue if elected, as they did last night? as they did in the 90s?

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 24, 2007 11:43 AM | Report abuse

CORRECTION: I mentioned seventeen debates as having taken place already. That number, as The Fix pointed out, refers to the candidate count, not to the number of debates. I apologize for the misstatement.

By the way, the word for a comment unrelated to a preceding one is spelled "non sequitur," not "non sequitor."

Posted by: LonestarJR | July 24, 2007 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Who cares what Chris thinks? He isn't going to be in the voting booth with any of us so how about we try to make up our own minds?

Posted by: dave | July 24, 2007 11:41 AM | Report abuse

"The overseas news wires report European viewers as pretty much agreeing with this this, too. They wonder if we have lost our minds completely over here."

My overseas news wires say Clinton won. My unidentified overseas news wires are better than your unidentified overseas news wires.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 24, 2007 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Last night was my first chance to see the candidates live in the debates.

Richardson is my first choice still (not great in the debates, but a hell of a candidate), but I have to admit, Clinton comes across as polished, intelligent, and seems to have a strong grasp of the issues.

A Clinton/Richardson ticket would suit me just fine. Throw in Biden as SOS.

Posted by: Matt in Philly | July 24, 2007 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Chris, are you kidding? Clinton a winner? Please, give us all a break! She had all of the personality of a dead fish and the dead fish had better answers to the questions asked, lame though they were. She and Obama looked so scripted, so overly managed, that only a complete fool would consider them "candidates". The overseas news wires report European viewers as pretty much agreeing with this this, too. They wonder if we have lost our minds completely over here. Small wonder that the great unwashed public was bamboozled into invading Iraq.

Posted by: MikeB | July 24, 2007 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Chris, when did espousing a point of view which would otherwise not be represented in the debate become a litmus for deciding who can or cannot participate?

I happen to think we've reached the point where reducing the number of participants in the debates would be a net plus for the candidate selection process, but there has to be a substantially less subjective way of reducing the number than that.

How about this? Let's limit the next dozen debates to the top six finishers in an independent poll of Democrats in states which have hosted the 17 debates so far.

Posted by: LonestarJR | July 24, 2007 11:29 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company