Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Winners and Losers: The Democratic Debate

Last night's set-to between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama was the liveliest of the three one-on-one debates between the two Democratic presidential candidates.

While there were some fireworks, it was by no means the brawl that many people expected, given Clinton's need to knock Obama off his stride before the March 4 primaries in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont.

The Fix watched closely last night, and without further ado, here's our take on the debate's winners and losers:

WINNERS

Barack Obama: The key for Obama last night was to make no news. While he veered dangerously close to doing so with his semi-tepid condemnation of Louis Farrakhan, he was able to clean up the potential mess by using Clinton's emphasis on the difference between "rejecting" and "denouncing" as a foil. He also managed to fudge it well enough on the Russia question -- although, as Chuck Todd of NBC noted, Obama appeared to purposely defer to Clinton when it came to naming the next president of the country. Overall, it was the weakest of Obama's three debate performances since the race narrowed to a contest between him and Clinton, but he did enough right to make it a draw. Tie goes to the frontrunner.

Matt Drudge: Within the first ten minutes of the debate, Drudge's name was mentioned by moderator Brian Williams in a question about a photo of Obama in traditional Somali clothing. "Matt Drudge, on his Web site, said it came from a source inside the Clinton campaign," said Williams. Talk about your free publicity. We know there are a lot of Drudge haters out there, but can you imagine another Web site -- with the possible exception of the Huffington Post -- meriting a mention in a nationally televised political debate?

VIDEO | Health Care Hits a Boiling Point

Health Care: If viewers were looking to understand where Clinton and Obama agreed and disagreed on this key issue, they got a full helping of information last night. The first 20 minutes (or so) of the debate was dominated by a spirited -- though not mean spirited -- discussion over the best ways to ensure universal coverage. According to The Post's recent surveys in Texas and Ohio, health care is the dominant issues on the minds of voters, and it's one where the two candidates have genuine differences.

National Journal: The wonky Washington magazine for which the Fix cut his teeth as a reporter is going to get a A LOT of press over the next eight months or so after rating Obama as the most liberal senator in 2007. It's already become a talking point for Republicans against Obama, and the magazine came up in the debate last night. The NJ sales force must be thrilled!

LOSERS

Clinton's One-Liners: We thought about putting Clinton the candidate into the losers category, but it didn't feel right. Clinton was the dominant force in the debate last night, yet again demonstrating a substantive knowledge of policy that dwarfed Obama's. But if these debates are about moments, Clinton might have doomed herself in the early going with an out-of-place rant about the alleged unfairness in the debate process that concluded with this line: "If anybody saw 'Saturday Night Live,' you know, maybe we should ask Barack if he's comfortable and needs another pillow." Yeesh. That line, much like Clinton's "change you can Xerox" zinger in the Austin debate last week, fell noticeably flat and drew the derision of the crowd. Clinton is at her best when she is drawing contrasts based on her deep knowledge on issues (health care being the most notable example). She is at her worst when she looks petty, and her most memorable one-liners from the last two debates have made her look just that.

Gotcha questions: In a debate generally filled with tough-but-fair questions (tax returns, Farrakhan, NAFTA), the attempt to see whether Clinton or Obama knew the name of the next president of Russia seemed a bit out of place. (For the record, The Fix had NO idea it is Dmitri Medvedev.) Clinton managed to get out the name, although her "whatever" line afterward struck us as a bit strange. Did you wonder whether Obama knew the name? And would it have mattered? Should Russert have thrown a similar gotcha about a world leader at Obama?

The Fix: Just to reiterate -- The Fix dinner was a half block of cheddar cheese and a a handful of chicken fingers. And I missed the Wilco show. ARGH!

By Chris Cillizza  |  February 27, 2008; 12:27 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: For Clinton, What Defines a 'Win' on March 4?
Next: Begich Explores -- Another Senate Seat in Play?

Comments

ibsga wcrbh rdntgeyhb yfgqmdzea erovgifl xmzf meovrwcy [URL]http://www.nkedymb.kcrzgpwj.com[/URL] ydljiomb ugyorfm

Posted by: pzke lacqw | April 16, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

ibsga wcrbh rdntgeyhb yfgqmdzea erovgifl xmzf meovrwcy [URL]http://www.nkedymb.kcrzgpwj.com[/URL] ydljiomb ugyorfm

Posted by: pzke lacqw | April 16, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

xpwan mqkancrb iprjvum bxsf nsxyzqmlk nzra lypcdfwga [URL=http://www.vdet.qwguiyz.com]wdmyq xkshd[/URL]

Posted by: zrton cyvw | April 16, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

xpwan mqkancrb iprjvum bxsf nsxyzqmlk nzra lypcdfwga [URL=http://www.vdet.qwguiyz.com]wdmyq xkshd[/URL]

Posted by: zrton cyvw | April 16, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

xpwan mqkancrb iprjvum bxsf nsxyzqmlk nzra lypcdfwga [URL=http://www.vdet.qwguiyz.com]wdmyq xkshd[/URL]

Posted by: zrton cyvw | April 16, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

fzik zoyg rxou ihvygomcj dnciptes hdqmyxnw rvguxq whudlf aqlyo

Posted by: dstohq ahpqosgk | April 16, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

jpdofk axnml ayrxmbois nvqa kghbycwqr ftuaqnj dgmy http://www.phgbn.qwayrdvp.com

Posted by: uvmyoai odxskntj | April 16, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

rdqjbauf jksbeq hbwtpe efjuqtdi latrfve xhseucr ietudo

Posted by: lfikzq jbdywu | April 16, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

rdqjbauf jksbeq hbwtpe efjuqtdi latrfve xhseucr ietudo

Posted by: lfikzq jbdywu | April 16, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

bjpdkfns lqjfp dcrf rdceyglz mfranvp yctexzbi cxtgvqn [URL]http://www.napoytl.hrcmfvyi.com[/URL] sjwyvqt viebzrfa

Posted by: agevi fhtw | April 16, 2008 9:24 AM | Report abuse

bjpdkfns lqjfp dcrf rdceyglz mfranvp yctexzbi cxtgvqn [URL]http://www.napoytl.hrcmfvyi.com[/URL] sjwyvqt viebzrfa

Posted by: agevi fhtw | April 16, 2008 9:22 AM | Report abuse

qruzn adnl ycimq qdcjfil upmvzs xbgr hgeldip

Posted by: ejzamr mfoygzae | April 16, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse

Why would anyone listen to Drudge? He is an internet blog and he says whatever he feels like or thinks might be. In other words, he writes fiction.

Posted by: katherine11 | February 29, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

JERUSALEM, Feb 25, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Senator helped fund organization that rejects 'racist' Israel's existence

The board of a nonprofit organization on which Sen. Barack Obama served as a paid director alongside a confessed domestic terrorist granted funding to a controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a "catastrophe" and supports intense immigration reform, including providing drivers licenses and education to illegal aliens, according to Aaron Klein, Middle East correspondent for WND.com.

The co-founder of the Arab group in question, Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, also has held a fundraiser for Obama. Khalidi is a harsh critic of Israel, has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and reportedly has worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was involved in anti-Western terrorism and was labeled by the State Department as a terror group.

In 2001, the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based nonprofit that describes itself as a group helping the disadvantaged, provided a $40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN, for which Khalidi's wife, Mona, serves as president. The Fund provided a second grant to the AAAN for $35,000 in 2002.

Obama was a director of the Woods Fund board from 1999 to Dec. 11, 2002, according to the Fund's website. According to tax filings, Obama received compensation of $6,000 per year for his service in 1999 and 2001.

Obama served on the Wood's Fund board alongside William C. Ayers, a member of the Weathermen terrorist group which sought to overthrow of the U.S. government and took responsibility for bombing the U.S. Capitol in 1971.

Ayers, who still serves on the Woods Fund board, contributed $200 to Obama's senatorial campaign fund and has served on panels with Obama at numerous public speaking engagements. Ayers admitted to involvement in the bombings of U.S. governmental buildings in the 1970s. He is a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

The AAAN in 2005 called a billboard opposing a North Carolina-New Mexico joint initiative to deny driver's licenses to illegal aliens a "bigoted attack on Arabs and Muslims."

Speakers at AAAN dinners and events routinely have taken an anti-Israel line.

The group co-sponsored a Palestinian art exhibit, titled, "The Subject of Palestine," that featured works related to what some Palestinians call the "Nakba" or "catastrophe" of Israel's founding in 1948.

Posted by: brigittepj | February 28, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Kansas 28 - you are incorrect. He did indeed make a POINT of bringing up part B when Hillary made the statement that all Medicare was a mandate.
and svreader - this comment "I shudder to think of how we're all going to feel on the day after the election, knowing that McCain will the the President and the the Republicans have used Obama as a motivation to get their voters into the booth and recapture the Senate and the House."
Now, we all know you support Hillary and she is lucky to have such a loyal subject in you. I kind of don't know WHY you feel she would be the better candidate to beat John McCain. She supported the war, so did he. She goes into hystrionics - he is calm and cool. She has a sense of entitlement - McCain is as humble as they come. Every poll shows Obama beating McCain by more points than Hillary.
McCain has had to answer one scandal a day since he became the frontrunner - his memory seems to be going and we are not all his "friends." He is old style politics at their most obvious, my friends.
Personally, I can't WAIT to see McCain debate Obama.
The big scary Republican "attack" machine was able to get at Kerry because Keery is a bit of a milqtoast. Obama is not even close to that. He thinks on his feet, he can remain cool under any given circumstance, he has inspired more than a million people to support his campaign with their hard earned dollars - do you really think this will suddenly change if he is the nominee? Suddenly the Republicans will unite, even though they are coming out to vote only 1/3 as often as Democrats are?
If you really care about our country, let's not lift up John McCain. He would be a continuation of the crap we've been getting for 8 years...my friends.
Support Hillary - but please stop bashing Senatior Obama. You are helping no one's cause. And the same goes for Obama supporters - time to think of the general election and turn your venom toward McCain! But with the respect he is due - if we lose respect for either candidate, we lose respect for ourselves. We can disagree - with respct. That's the tone President Obama will bring to our country.

Posted by: sheridan1 | February 28, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

mahllville is wrong. Obama said "Medicare is not mandatory." He made no mention of part B. He probably does not know the difference since he will never have to rely on it.

Posted by: Kansas28 | February 28, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

I'm still suprised The Fixx isn't CC's favorite group (thoguh before I met my wife, I really didn't think they were anyone's favorite group...)

Posted by: kreuz_missile | February 28, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

chadibuins,
On the Obama foreign policy, I think you are referring to vaidyatk and not me. However, I'll will be glad to put my two cents in. I think that Obama does try to have it both ways (pragmatic pacifist vs reluctant warrior). Your contention that "if he does use military force it will be AFTER diplomacy, not a "dumb" war and not without a plan for getting in and getting out" is something that is typically Obama and part of the problem that many, including myself, have with him. Bush pursued diplomacy (not as much as some would have liked), had a plan to get in, he had a plan to get out (admittedly a poor one), and the majority of Americans and politicians did not think it was "dumb" at the time. The problem is that most of this argument is based on hindsight. To his credit he brought forth concerns about the war at the beginning that turned out to have a lot merit. But guessing right does not a foreign policy make. I think that his answer was actually OK but I still have serious doubts on his foreign policy, and the Russia question only cast more doubts for me.

Posted by: dave | February 28, 2008 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Hillary's claims that she is the most qualified candidate for President, with 35 years of experience. I guess this is what one politely refers to as skirting the truth. Whether it is hidden behind skirts or pantsuits, Hillary offers embellished accounts of her experience when she was "co-president" in the W/H with Bill. Vague references to travel to foreign countries, secrecy, documents, escorts, all that intrigue sounds impressive. The bare truth, however, is that she has no validation to support her claims. Eight years as First Lady, visiting many countries, all expenses paid by taxpayers. No real objectives stated and met, no converts to democracy, no improvements in foreign policy, no real deals revealed. Well......then! No nothing, no vote, no belief, no way, no kidding.

Posted by: Cali-Gram | February 28, 2008 1:48 AM | Report abuse

woo hoo, chris cillizza like wilco!!!!!!

Posted by: jakemartinco | February 28, 2008 12:54 AM | Report abuse

I'm not sure what debate you were watching last night Chris. I watched it with both Obama and Hillary supporters and we all agreed (some reluctantly) it was Obama's hands down. You said it was Obama's worst of the one on one debates - BUT we didn't get that at all. The other two hardly count because they were both Dem love-fests. This was the sharpest and testiest of the one on ones, and Obama was on point. Obama scored on her on her strongest issue: healthcare (pointing out her style in the 90s and why she failed in the past on healthcare and pointing out that people buy medicare part B because it works not because its forced upon them), and he really looked solid on NAFTA, whereas she looked like a hypocrite (Russert read her numerous quotes of her's supporting NAFTA from 1996-2004). Obama has always trumped Clinton on the Iraq War, but this time he managed to get in his very sensible position that the USA should go after terrorists in Pakistan when their government is unwilling or unable to hit those targets (he had missed getting that point in the last 2 debates). So Obama beat her on issues of National Security. He was briefly on the ropes when trying to distance himself from Farrakahn (why cant that guy stay out of this crap - there's no place for his kind of bigoted political views), but Clinton over played that too and allowed Obama to recover and get the clear point of rejection across. And ofcourse Clinton lost big when whining about questions and debate formats. She keeps saying how tough she is, but looked very thin-skinned last night. I'm sometimes troubled that some 'insider' reporters cover this race far closer then it really is - and you're take, Chris, plays into that. Let's face it, if any other candidate, other then Hillary, had lost 11 straight contests by an average of a 33% margin - the media would be all over that person and already calling the race over. As for last nights debate: I think the majority of viewers concluded what my friends and I did: Obama won hands down.

Posted by: the964kid | February 28, 2008 12:08 AM | Report abuse

...And I missed the Wilco show. ARGH!

Stop complaining that you have to cover politics at night when it's your job to cover politics at night. Think of the reporter on the Omaha World Herald who would love to have that job.

Posted by: jr3 | February 27, 2008 11:23 PM | Report abuse

dave--I agree with you on the Russia thing--especially about Biden.

However, I disagree with you about Obama having Bush's war strategy. Obama has said repeatedly he is against the strategy that got us into the war. He has a halthy desire for diplomacy over war--but as Commander In Chief and an intelligent, experienced man--he recognizes military action is not a blanket "no". As much as I may prefer pacifism and diplomacy--I also recognize that may not always be possible and Mr Obama does as well.

What he is saying is that he cannot and will not say absolutely NO, we will never use military force to stop violence or protect american interests in Iraq--however, as he has said over and over--if he does use military force it will be AFTER diplomacy, not a "dumb" war and not without a plan for getting in and getting out.

I don't see why Obama gets a bad wrap for being practical. Its like because he wants to inspire and bring back hope he gets blasted from one extreme and then when he gives an honest pragmatic and practical answer (and not a "political" one--he gets blasted from teh other. If Obama is always constantly viewed through these "extreme" lenses, he will always be seen as how they choose to see him. HOWEVER, if you actually read all of what he says and in context--you'll find that, while he may not convince you to agree with his arguments, that he is extremely common sense and not on an ideological swing.

AND ALSO--The Obama's released Michelle's thesis to politico.com--it wasn't unearthed or dug up--they voluntarily sent it to be available to the public. Again, not a typical political thing to do--which is why I think people are having trouble with him. But I love that he encourages questioning, discourse and examination--it makes him more honest, our process more open and our country more stable.

Posted by: chadibuins | February 27, 2008 11:11 PM | Report abuse

Senator Hillary Clinton is really the one with all speeches and no results. She claims that she has been fighting for poor people for 35 years. According to U.S. Census bureau, Arkansas state ranked 49th in people with college degree (almost deadlast) and 6th in people living below poverty level. The truth is: technology boom did far more for the good economy of the 90's than Bill Clinton. For example, Mark Cuban became a billonaire within 4 years! Billary have nothing to do with it.
Bill and Hillary need to come up with a different line of attack apart from experience. Obama actually have more total legislative experiece (Illinois and Washington) than Hillary. Billary have talked about experience so much, you will think Senator Obama just graduated from college in 2007 instead of 20 years ago.

Posted by: PeterinDallas | February 27, 2008 11:02 PM | Report abuse

CC - "the attempt to see whether Clinton or Obama knew the name of the next president of Russia seemed a bit out of place."

Explain to me how the Russian question was a gotcha one when Clinton sits on the following committees:
Senate Armed Services Committee and the following subcommittees:
Airland
Emerging Threats and Capabilities
Readiness and Management Support

and Obama sits on:
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

I would bet $100 Biden would have gotten it easily. So should those two given their responsibilities in the Senate.

The National Journal ranking has already been "debunked". It turns out according to some gradings that Obama ranks as only the 10th most liberal senator. That said, I think he still has issues with the "one of the ten, if the the most liberal senators" line. You can bet you will hear this from now until election day. This will be one of the main prongs of the Republicans. And it will work to some extent chiefly because it is true.

Posted by: dave | February 27, 2008 10:45 PM | Report abuse

Obama made a huge blunder yesterday. He showed his macho instincts by saying that he will send the troops back to Iraq if Al Queda becomes a threat there. He has always been saying that we are spending billions and billions of dollars in the Iraq war, and it is time for our troops to return so we can invest the money to solve the problems right here at home. Al Queda is fighting the American troops there right now. So this is Obama's anti-war passion from 2002. He has his one foot in Iraq to protect, his other foot is withdrawing. This is the worst possible policy. It is now readily apparent that he can't defend his anti-war stand without a macho posture to fight Al Qeda. In other words his policy is a reactionary policy. If he is willing to defend American interests in Iraq by sending the troops back after a withdrawal, his policy is not very much different from that of George Bush and McCain. So Obama does not promise us that he will withdrw from Iraq if Al Qeda starts ascending in Iraq. He also proposes a surge of American troops in Afghanistan. If he withdraws from Iraq, and reinforces our troops in Afghanistan, Al Qeda will simply move over to Iraq. Then he will send the troops back to Iraq. And, he might even send our troops to Pakistan, as he says repeatedly. It seems to me that Obama may create a bigger mess than George Bush did if he follows through on what he said during the debates. If anybody had any illusion about a steadfast Obama against war, he has completely dispelled it. Hillary has a real opening here because of the mess he is proposing as his Iraq and its neighbourhood strategy. It is clear to me that he can't take the heat on his Iraq withdrawal plan without a promise to send them back if Al Qeda becomes a threat there. So Hillary's point about Obama's weak credentials on the national security front is already finding resonance in his highly reactionary and controversial strategies to solve the Iraq problem. I think that this issue needs a more serious debate, and Obama will come apart defending his posture. After criticizing Hillary all these weeks on her bad judgment on Iraq, I am realizing for the first time that Obama may create a bigger mess because he has no judgment at all.

Posted by: vaidyatk | February 27, 2008 10:42 PM | Report abuse

svreader: Please stop referring to "we." It's not just presumptuous, but wrong, and downright creepy, like McCain every time he says "my friends." You hate Obama; fine, that's your privilege; but if he is the nominee, no real Democrat will vote against him.

Posted by: lydgate | February 27, 2008 10:39 PM | Report abuse

JSnapper: any Clinton supporter who would even think of voting for McCain, given their dramatic disagreements on virtually every issue, would have to be either utterly incapable of understanding even the simplest issues, or so childish that they would, as the expression goes, cut off their nose to spite their face. If you are either that dim or that petty -- although I am guessing that you are actually a Republican troll -- go right ahead and vote for McCain. No one cares, and no one is going to silence themselves to please you.

Posted by: lydgate | February 27, 2008 10:24 PM | Report abuse

About that "pledge"? Obama is taking public money--from over one million contributors. Who are they if not the public?

As for who won--I used to support Clinton, but Obama has won me over more and more since Iowa as Clinton has flailed to define herself and her campaign. Last night she sounded scattered, anxious, and contemptuous.

He seemed calm, presidential, and relaxed. All of which will help him debate McCain who is hot-tempered and a blusterer. Today's exchange about Iraq in which Obama clearly bested McCain is a sign of things to come: he won't let a news cycle pass before striking back, and he won't let himself be lectured by the man whose experience has had him wrong on Iraq from beginning to end.

Posted by: LevRaphael | February 27, 2008 10:00 PM | Report abuse

good comments jd--intriguing

Trace--I don't think that comment is accurate? Obama doesn't know how many countries are in the world and "would he ask Putin and Ahmadinajad (spelling grace)to play nice"

I think he is very clear in his explanations--stating that America needs diplomacy and we need to consult with these leaders for the betterment of our country and the world--hardly makes him ignorant of reality--his opinions are being caricatured.

Posted by: chadibuins | February 27, 2008 9:39 PM | Report abuse

Meanwhile, back in dreamland Obama will be cleaning Washington with the help of the Teamsters! LOL

Posted by: trace-sc | February 27, 2008 9:36 PM | Report abuse

MSNBC is make fox look like good journalism. Russert is a shadow of the man he was- he is very comfortable with his connections now and the gotcha' stuff was very smug. Matthews is literally out of his mind. The non-sequetors and randomness and general commentary from outer-space is very tired. They are all quite anti-Hillary and fairly mysogynst- calling out her change as a woman thing but not pointing out the several times Obama accused her of whining or used other female-stereotype oriented words. Whatever. I guess for now it's just c-span and the BBC.

Leon

Posted by: nycLeon | February 27, 2008 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Would Obama ask Putin and Ahmadinayed to be nice because he wants to build a better world?
Please, don't full yourselves ... Obama doesn't even know how many countries are in the world or who and where are the bad guys!

Posted by: trace-sc | February 27, 2008 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Both looked pretty good in the debate, with the notable exception of an answer apiece. Obama is more than happy to tell us what he will do as the presumptive president, but refuses to tell us what he would do as the presumptive nominee (possibly reneging on his pledge regarding public financing.) Weak, and disappointing.

Clinton tells us she'd love to show us her tax return, but doggone it, she's just so goldarn busy right now. My tax return is in my home office, bottom right drawer; I could fax it anywhere in the world in 10 minutes (and that's without a staff of hundreds at my disposal.) Beyond weak, Hillary--insulting.

We all know why Obama is obfuscating...but we don't know Clinton's motive. The more she stonewalls, the less credibility she can command.

Advantage, Obama.

Posted by: jd5024 | February 27, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

Obama is no World Class Leader ... he is just a simple guy doing OK in the emptiness of American politics.

After George Bush, anybody could apply for the job and America would take him, and that is really scary!

Can you picture Obama during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I can: he would wet his pants!

Obama is no John F. Kennedy ... the bad guys would have him for dessert along with the free World and I don't care if he likes to wear Halloween outfits or how he spells his name!

Posted by: trace-sc | February 27, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

GREAT POST KREUZ!

Wonderfully stated and intelligently delivered.

And I am glad you actually posted what Michelle said about her "blackness".

Earlier someone said she "discovered her blackness"; but MO actually says as you quoted, she became more aware of her blackness.

That is a huge difference! HUGE!

Posted by: chadibuins | February 27, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

Does the writer of this actually watch all of the debate or does he just parrot what is the cliche narrative of the press that Obama is articulate and Clinton 'dwarfs' him on policy issues?

In what way did she do that this time? Specific examples, please.

Posted by: fake1 | February 27, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

The odd thing about conservatives who bash Michelle Obama's thesis, then deride Barack Obama somehow as an affirmative action candidate, I wonder if they've actually read Michelle's thesis.

It seems to me to be an inherently anti-liberal ivory tower, anti-affirmative action passage, the kind that conservatives normally cheer. Her point is that at a place so supposedly enlightened by liberalism as Princeton, she was never more aware of her 'blackness' there than anywhere else due to the treatment of her good, enlightened liberal peers. She sees the current status quo (circa 1985) leading to a white society, a black society, and a subgroup that has been integrated into white society that can never fully integrate, the same basic argument made by Ward Connerly and Clarence Thomas. I suppose their objection is she recommends more effective solutions to bridge the gaps, rather than ignore the problem and telling people to just deal with it as the heroes of the right do.

"I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong. Regardless of the circumstances underwhich I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second."

Read it through links from the Politico Here:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8642.html

Posted by: kreuz_missile | February 27, 2008 8:58 PM | Report abuse

I was halfway watching and listering to one of the Obama networks last night. I heard Olberman ask Russard about one of Obama's answer to a question. He showed Russard a paper with a pre-written answer and asked Russart why Obama didn,t use that answer. I was watching by then. Russard laughed and said that was the answer he expected. Something sounds wrong here. I surely misheard it. Did they asked pre-arranged question written answers. Some one clear this up for me , please. Thanks.

Posted by: bnw173 | February 27, 2008 8:36 PM | Report abuse

The problem with the debate about health care is that Mrs. Clinton thinks everyone should have "Universal Health Care" paid for by the government. Her solution is a top down, force fed to the people approach. As was pointed out last night, it didn't get approved because she and some others put it together, saying, in essence, "This is what you need; this is what it is. My way is the only way." Even today, not everybody wants Universal Health care by the government. Sure, many want it but want it to be free to them. They want the young to pay for it. They want the rich to pay for it. They want the working class to pay for it....Essentially, everybody pays but the person receiving the free hospital bed. Hillary wants this because she thinks it will give her votes. Hillary and Bill already have a superior health plan paid for by We, the People. To me, national defense is a much more important topic to discuss in a debate than "Universal Health care." If you don't have a country, you will be a slave to some other country without any freedoms. Health care is a foregone luxury in slave camps and prisons. Think about it. Mrs. Clinton's priorities are mis-directed, I think.

Posted by: ArmyVet | February 27, 2008 8:25 PM | Report abuse

When the "right" female candidate comes along, she will capture the imagination and votes of the people. I don't believe Hilary Clinton is the "right" female.

Her grasp of the issues may impress, but her willingness to throw the kitchen sink at her opponent shows us more than she realizes. There are many things we want and expect of a president: a grasp of the issues, toughness, intelligence, absolute finesse, the ability to distinguish right from wrong and openess, to name a few. I don't see a balanced mix of these traits in Senator Clinton.

Failing to congratulate or acknowledge her opponent's win on multiple occassions tells us she won't know how to act on the world stage--regardless of her claims of experience. Her actions as a candidate have defined her lack of presidential (even vice-presidential)qualities.

She hasn't been discriminated against. She is down because of her own actions.

The "right" female will exhibit many presidential qualities that Senator Clinton cannot.

Posted by: jmccowan | February 27, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Well, Hillary should not whine. She was the one who claimed and said she is ready on Day One. When she whined that she always got to answer the questions first what does it mean? Does it mean she is not ready to answer the questions? That's paradoxical. If she is ready on Day One she should not be afraid to answer any questions posed to her by anyone. This playing the victim card shows her weakness. By the way, the press didn't not give Obama a pass.

Posted by: sbgamatt | February 27, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

svreader wrote:

I shudder to think of how we're all going to feel on the day after the election, knowing that McCain will the the President and the the Republicans have used Obama as a motivation to get their voters into the booth and recapture the Senate and the House.
----------------------------------
If you think more Republicans would turn out to oppose Obama than to oppose Hillary, than you've just about lost all perspective. No other Dem. would fire up the Republican base than would Hillary.

Posted by: smc91 | February 27, 2008 8:03 PM | Report abuse

WOW! I feel sideswiped :)

my only choices are FOZ or Moonbat?

just playing.

I thank the both of you for your respective comments.

that being said:
Zouk said:"I consider GW bush an honest and reliable man."

I thought that too, I thought he was just misguided by his "mentors" and religious base.

But no more--he has done more to erode the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the power of legislature, independent judiciary, seperation of powers, checks and balances than any other president.

I do not believe he is evil, but I do believe he is responsible for his own actions and dribble.

I agree with the poster that said we should not be worrying about what the other guy is doing--we should be concentrating on why Dems are best suited to lead America at this point.

Obama is HARDLY an ineffective candidate; nor is he completely "media-made". He is speaking to Americans as Americans.

And as far as Michelle Obama as First Lady--as the husband of a strong, smart, independent African-American woman--I think America could really use a dose of that!

Posted by: chadibuins | February 27, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

I had actually sent an email to CNN during the previous debate noting that the questions were all going to Hillary first. It was a problem because when Barak would just reply that he agreed with Hillary or that Hillary pretty well covered the topic, you didn't know whether to take him at face value or whether he didn't have a clue about the subject.

I was glad to see more questions going to him first.

Posted by: llong51 | February 27, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

svreader @2:49:

"there are more and more people like me out there."

for sure, you're out there.

way out there.

Posted by: bhotchkin | February 27, 2008 7:34 PM | Report abuse

Obamaites should be more worried about Michelle Obama's Princeton papers rather than Hillary's tax returns.

They will come out sooner or later before general election. Just watch, they will be more controversial than Professor Lani Guinier's papers on race.

Then, America has to decide - do we really want Michelle Obama as our First Lady in the White House!

Posted by: Alvordton | February 27, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

I thought I had stumbled upon a Barbara Walters Special, then I realized it was "the debate." Way to turn out serious TV, and hard-hitting questions viewers want answers to. I wish Ralph Nader had been the moderator...oh yeah. No tip-toe-through-the-tulips for neither of them.

Posted by: mellowyellow | February 27, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

I think that's right. Somehow, the hardcore Obamaites are seeing a substantial candidate instead of an exalted abstraction.

Lucky for him. Not so lucky for the Democratic Party, however.

The one thing that will pump life back into the deflated Republican Part is an ineffective Democratic president.

Why do we always blow it?

Posted by: BrawleyHall | February 27, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Svreader:

I like your style. It is difficult to tell some people that drinking the "kool-aid" or following blindly because someone sounds great are not the best things to do. I agree with you, eyes will open only after we see President McCain elected.

Posted by: jphoward18 | February 27, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Rush Limbaugh is openly trying to help Hillary. He has deduced, correctly, that she would be a much easier opponent than Obama. Indeed, the GOP would not need to expend one ounce of energy shoring up the base!

Posted by: gmundenat | February 27, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

abdicated oversight on the Afghanistan committee.

He was busy, didn't you hear??? busy, busy, busy.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 27, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Robcmor,

I see Obama's "dodging" but for me, it's more important to see what they're dodging than whether they're dodging or not. Obama effectively dodges the ridiculous attacks on his background, and I think rightly so. The media and his opponents will never stop attacking him for his middle name, his drug use, his loose affiliation with Muslim leaders, etc. and to avoid those confrontations is in his best interest because the country has nothing to gain by him addressing them.

But on the other hand, when he was asked in the debate to reveal a time he made a mistake, he voluntarily offered a point in a Congressional hearing where he should have made a different choice than what he actually did. Time and time again, Obama owns up to the things he should own. He never dodges his real responsibilities to Americans.

And Clinton supporters routinely point out that Obama will not handle the evil/slimy/etc. GOP machine, but look at how efficiently he has overturned her lead in almost every single state in the country. Even in the states he lost, he was climbing closer and closer to her in all of the polls right up to the primary date. I honestly believe that if California, Arizona, New Mexico, etc. were 2-3 weeks later, he would have overtaken her lead, just like in the other states he's won.

He did this not by engaging in mudslinging but by largely ignoring it. This appeals immensely to moderates and nonpartisans who are tired of the hostile nature of politics lately. I am included in that bunch.

I love that he doesn't demonize people, even after they demonize and mock him. Every time Clinton or McCain slings mud at him and mocks his abilities, he ignores it and his poll ratings go up. It's not a coincidence - the GOP machine is not going to take him down because he's not going to fight with it. He'll stay on message, just like he has for six months now, and he'll beat them with ease.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 27, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

This article sounds like straight out of Sen. Hillary's spin-room. Every person I have spoken to so far that watched the debate acknowledges, that except for a couple of cases (Russia is one), Sen. Obama came on top fair and square.
There is one piece, everyone seems to be conveniently ignoring - Tim Russert setting the record straight on NAFTA. Even with her record setting spin capabilities, Sen. Clinton got caught red-handed there. Not one mention anywhere.
I would have liked someone to ask the question about Sen. Clinton's much vaunted health-care plan - If she could not get it done the first time, what makes her think she can get it done this time around?
How can she claim to be so ready on day one and all prepared to take on challenges from day one when she has been outsmarted at every move of a primary election by someone who in her words - "is not ready"? Frankly, if her claim was true, she wouldn't be having this debate.
If that is construed as a proof of management capabilities - I have to admit, Sen. Clinton is treading very thin ice.
Finally yesterday's debate: I saw a calm, collected future president who understands the gravity of his position; behaves with due respect and does not indulge in senseless street-fighting which doesn't help anything anyways. I also saw a Senator, who does not know how to admit mistakes and move on. If she doesn't understand that she has a share in the war in Iraq with her vote; she has to accept her share of the burden of thousands of our troops lost in combat or disabled for life. She has to accept her share of responsibility for extremists taking over Iraq. How difficult is it to say I was wrong on NAFTA, I realize it and I am willing to do everything to reverse its devastating effect on American families? Instead, she keeps spinning - Russert did the right thing there; though I think no one dared to report anything on it - too scared of another volley of the unfair media

Posted by: amitavar | February 27, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

I don't see how testing the future president's basic knowledge of a very important foreign leader, who they will have to deal with substantially in the future, is in any way out of place. At least Clinton answered the question, while Obama did his usual dance of confirming Hillary's answer. On top of that, he answered the question by criticizing Bush's relationship with Putin which was an obvious escape from the original question at hand.

Posted by: wistambouli | February 27, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

The perceptions of "who won" the debate is really an exercise in futility. Hardcore Obamaites can't possibly see their candidate's skillful use of dodging. On the other hand, Sen. Clinton mastered the debate with ease. It was a slam dunk.

As a supporter of Hillary, I would have not advised her to use the pillow one-liner because Obamites have no sense of humor. I liked the sarcasm, but comments like that only tend to boost her appearance as being haughty.

Aside from that, it was clear that Obama is no better prepared to be president now than he was when he entered the race. He gives semi-credible answers to very serious questions, but he never really quite hammers the answer like Clinton.

We're in a heap of trouble if he becomes the nominee. His charisma won't get him through the debates with McCain. The Grand Orator will be toast once the Republican Mean Slime Machine gets into gear. And we'll be stuck with an old hard right hawk that will make Bush look like the Dalai Lama.

Posted by: robcmor | February 27, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

"Special recognition goes to where you suggest he managed the economy well. Pure genius!"

Pretty funny to hear a "small government conservative" praising a president for "managing the economy" LOL

What a moron!

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 27, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse


Why does McCain run from debating Huckabee?


Posted by: valskeet | February 27, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and thanks for the lengthy explanation of why you support Bush. It answers a lot of questions, that's for sure.

Special recognition goes to where you suggest he managed the economy well. Pure genius!

Posted by: thecrisis | February 27, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

thecrisis: Chad appears to be smart enough to figure out that he'll be much better off when he moves from the FOZ (friends of zouk) camp to the moonbat camp.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 27, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

I think that the way Tim Russert treated Senator Clinton, and his self-involved hissy fit following the debate, provided evidence that Russert has jumped the shark as a competent and objective political reporter. As a Clinton supporter, I thought she did very well, and Obama revealed vulnerabilities that the GOP will seize upon. In particular, I wonder how all of you Obama accolytes would be reacting if she were the one who abdicated oversight on the Afghanistan committee. She would be massacred, but since your man can do no wrong, he gets yet another free pass. You people must really be filled with hate against Hillary because you are blind to his flaws. Seriously, how about a realistic appraisal of his abilities and shortcomings. Oh, I forgot---he walks on water.

Posted by: JHRRNMS | February 27, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

I am surprised that the debates did not bring up the subject that will be the centerpiece of the republican party,s platform! " The SURGE has won the war in Iraq!" Of course this view is a lot of crap! And I am wondering why the democrat candidates had not expounded on this false premise! Ethnic cleansing and the tribal war lords with their separatist militias have won the war in Iraq! The few thousand american troops that performed the surge accomplished very little in that vastly populated area of the world! It was like a mosquito biting a elephant The government forces of Iraq with american backing have no real power or much influence within Iraq, or the entire region of the middle east! Only in the minds of Bush and his neo-cons does the irrational thinking that we are winning the war in Iraq exists! The millions of moderates that lived in Iraq and fled to other parts of the world Know the truth! The reason there is a decline in violence in Iraq is because ethnic cleansing was so successful! Tribalism won! Nationalism lost! Iraq is not a nation!

Posted by: mac1maniac | February 27, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Let me amend that last paragraph. I voted Libertarian my whole life. but they have left me with their isolationsism in the new reality.

I never voted for a Democrat in my life.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 27, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

I think that the way Tim Russert treated Senator Clinton, and his self-involved hissy fit following the debate, provided evidence that Russert has jumped the shark as a competent and objective political reporter. As a Clinton supporter, I thought she did very well, and Obama revealed vulnerabilities that the GOP will seize upon. In particular, I wonder how all of you Obama accolytes would be reacting if she were the one who abdicated oversight on the Afghanistan committee. She would be massacred, but since your man can do no wrong, he gets yet another free pass. You people must really be filled with hate against Hillary because you are blind to his flaws. Seriously, how about a realistic appraisal of his abilities and shortcomings. Oh, I forgot---he walks on water.

Posted by: JHRRNMS | February 27, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

I think that the way Tim Russert treated Senator Clinton, and his self-involved hissy fit following the debate, provided evidence that Russert has jumped the shark as a competent and objective political reporter. As a Clinton supporter, I thought she did very well, and Obama revealed vulnerabilities that the GOP will seize upon. In particular, I wonder how all of you Obama accolytes would be reacting if she were the one who abdicated oversight on the Afghanistan committee. She would be massacred, but since your man can do no wrong, he gets yet another free pass. You people must really be filled with hate against Hillary because you are blind to his flaws. Seriously, how about a realistic appraisal of his abilities and shortcomings. Oh, I forgot---he walks on water.

Posted by: JHRRNMS | February 27, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

"don't everybody jump at once to comment or debate the deep philosophy offered by spectartor."

Sit. Roll over. Good zouk.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 27, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

crisis, so you admit the data exists and you just choose to ignore it. I simply picked the latest one that made news today. what did you do, find ones that agree with your preconcieved notions and ignore all the rest.

that's what I figured.

Well I beleive I have answered your question about where I get my ideas. from the news. where do you get yours - Kos, Olbermann, NYTimes, MSNBC, CNN.

I was actually referring to factual content, not stories.
_____________

Zouk, just like a good little piggy you keep making up reality to suit your case.

Sure, you just coincidentally picked the one recent poll that has McCain up by 2 points, while coincidentally ignoring a dozen others that have Obama ahead. That's what I thought.

And I don't have to find polls to fit my "preconceived notions" (learn to spell, by the way). They're all over the news and more importantly, all over realclearpolitics.com, a conservative-leaning site with every statistically valid poll that has ever taken place. Besides, a preconceived notion would be one that is conceived BEFORE (hence the prefix "pre") evidence comes out to push you either direction. If there weren't a dozen polls putting Obama ahead of McCain, it wouldn't be my conceived notion.

"Kos, Olbermann, NYTimes, MSNBC, CNN."

You are a complete idiot. In fact I don't know if I've ever met anyone more ignorant than you. It's not an opinion, this is empirical fact. You have statistically proven via the amount of idiotic comments you've posted here that mathematically speaking, you are a total moron.

I never read DailyKos. I've watched Olbermann probably three times in the past year. I didn't even mention Kos or MSNBC in the list of media I frequent. Yet you randomly make things up to suit your libelous comments. That's what I figured you'd do.

I also find it amusing that you, just like a good Republican, are constantly acting as if you are some authoritative figure, assuming people should desire your praise. You reflect this in your removal of the "moonbat" label for Chad. I am glad you think I'm a moonbat because:

1. It doesn't make any sense, and further proves your idiocy,
2. Any approval from you would suggest I've either lost an immense quantity of brain cells or you were struck by lightning and realized how dull you truly are, only to yield to my supremacy.

You are the dictionary definition of a half-wit and to-date, have not posted one useful, thoughtful or factual thing in any comment section on this site. Instead, you dodge/avoid any valid points and respond with things like "that sounds like something a lib moonbat would say," somehow thinking that is actually a response. Next time I shoot something your way that contradicts one of your inane points, try to address it or concede the point before you attempt to drool all over another topic. Thanks kiddo.

I love having you around here because you give me both a punching bag and a daily source of amusement at which I can heartily laugh. Keep up your drooling nonsense, please, and I'll keep reading!

Posted by: thecrisis | February 27, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

I think that the way Tim Russert treated Senator Clinton, and his self-involved hissy fit following the debate, illustrated that Russert has jumped the shark as a competent and objective political reporter. As a Clinton supporter, I thought she did very well, and Obama revealed vulnerabilities that the GOP will seize upon. In particular, I wonder how all of you Obama accolytes would be reacting if she were the one who abdicated oversight on the Afghanistan committee. She would be massacred, but since your man can do no wrong, he gets yet another free pass. You people must really be filled with hate against Hillary because you are blind to his flaws. Seriously, how about a realistic appraisal of his abilities and shortcomings. Oh, I forgot---he walks on water.

Posted by: JHRRNMS | February 27, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Vegas girl and others. Just to set the record straight, I was never really a strong supporter of GW Bush. I was tepid about his election in 2000 but considered him better than gore or Kerry. I supported his strong stance on terror and war and military issues and thought the tax cuts were appropriate. but little else did I admire or support. the pharmacy give away was wrong, the federal education interference was improper. the spending was abhorent. the signing of Mccain Feingold was criminally neglegent.

but the voters seemed to want more big government intervention and spending at the time and he fulfilled those promises made during the campaign, despite my personal misgivings.

I consider GW bush an honest and reliable man with none of the evil tendencies and biased accusations made by the left. He has a tough job and has done it admirably, trying to consider the nation and not himself in his actions. I know many Libs will disagree but their evidence is very thin indeed, mostly hollow accusations of some nefarious conspiracy which is pretty much laughable.

He may not be the best President we ever had but he is certainly not the worst either. On the national defense, he stood strong, despite polls and pressure and handled the economy well. I think history will treat him favorably after a time. the iraq war seems to be winding down and other concerns will emerge soon to occupy the 24 hour talkers.

I only started voting R when my personal business interests favored it. and they are directly linked to it by monthly pay and individual representatives so there is strong motivation to win elections on my part, although not at the executive branch. but the majority pays much better.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 27, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse


svreader: "When people turn against Obama its going to be very strong, because nothing is worse than finding out that someone who you thought was "magical" is just human."

Do you know what the Obama magic really is? It's a simple little thing that all true leaders master called EMPOWERMENT. He makes people believe in THEMSELVES. He doesn't say, "I will do this"; rather he says, "Together, we can do this" and "We need to work together to build a new America." People are buying into it because they are affirmed as part of the solution and start to believe in themselves.


Yes, Ok, we get it will be "new" in the superficial sense of the first black US president. And after say 100 days or so, after the novelty of that wears off, is there anything Obama's loyal electorate, from liberal to moderate Democrats to Independents and some moderate conservatives, agrees on besides maybe getting out of Iraq ? In other words, please what vision SPECIFICALLY is he going to motivate us all to work in harmony to achieve ?? How many voters does Obama think are going to be willing to pay higher taxes or submit to legal amnesty for illegal immigrants because their guy is SO cool and can give a real good rehearsed speech ?

These are fundamentally opposing agendas for the nation, not misunderstandings to be negotiated away around a big table. Maybe it's just the foil of Clinton that makes people either too desperate for unity or ignorant of political realities to see this charade for what it is right now. But when McCain presents himself as a very reasonable, respectable alternative the sand under Obama's feet is going to start caving.

Posted by: elayman | February 27, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

don't everybody jump at once to comment or debate the deep philosophy offered by spectartor.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 27, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Who won the MSNBC Democratic Debate in Cleveland Ohio?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1788


.

Posted by: PollM | February 27, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

"Shun the bat."

Can you take your own advice, drooler? Of course you can't.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 27, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

(Mea culpa on the second post, people. Thought the first one didn't go through.)
But I'll say it again: Russert is a disgrace! No more debates for him, please!

Posted by: vegasgirl1 | February 27, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 27, 2008 05:40 PM

As is, it is the most empty of rhetoric.

Here is one example that I can readily cite concerning Excelon and mandated reports of leaks from the Nuclear Energy Industry. It was a compromise which has drawn a lot of criticism of him. It wasn't hard to find.

Excelon? Senator Obama got it passed through the senate environment committee. It was the Republican dominated 109th Congress that put up one road block after another. Even the committee forced numerous revisions before passing it to the full senate.

Senate correspondence shows that the environment committee chairman at the

time, Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma who is a strong supporter of industry in battles over energy and environmental legislation, agreed with many of those points and held up the bill. Mr. Obama pushed back, at one point temporarily blocking approval of President Bush's nominee to the nuclear commission, Dale E. Klein, who met with Mr. Obama to discuss the leaks.

But eventually, Mr. Obama agreed to rewrite the bill, and when the environment committee approved it in September 2006, he and his co-sponsors hailed it as a victory. Considering the GOP stranglehold on that Senate, it was.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5087&em&en=f2853a7f59384438&ex=1202101200

You can see his cooperative style in his Campaign that he seeks consensus, not confrontation. Something else he continues to take criticism for.

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 27, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

"Obama was stronger, correcting Clinton's point about medicare (he noted Medicare Part B is not mandatory)"

The only problem is that it is mandatory. I recall when they first instituted it because for the first time since I lost my leg in VN I complained bitterly about it. It comes directly out of the check every month even though I have catastrophic care through the VA. In many ways I didn't mind paying it because I thought it helped the SS problem a bit. But I did disagree with it being mandatory. I notice too that although Williams said HRC would be able to pick up where they left off "for the commercial breaks - ads from the coal industry" he didn't go back when they started airing again. I noticed too that BO deftly did not answer the question from Williams regarding Rev. Wright(sp) and LF instead going to another subject. I do not know why the comments section has me as Anonymous I am RetCombatVet

Posted by: RetCombatVet | February 27, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

If there was any true loser at yesterday, it's that self-righteous windbag, Tim Russert.
Memo to NBC: Please, for the love of democracy and God, find someone with some integrity to ask questions other than this partisan hack who is a disgrace to his profession.
And to kingofzouk: You're actually whining about the GOP being mistreated by the Clintons? Don't make me laugh.
The GOP is plenty capable of nastiness and vindictive behavior; the Bush administration has shown that in spades -- and its actions over the last 7 years make the Clintons look tame, in comparison.
I will say this, though: You ask some good questions of Obama, but the same also apply to John "I Love Lobbyists and War" McCain.

Posted by: vegasgirl1 | February 27, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

You can't be serious, beltway Chris. Obama's WEAKEST of the three? What debate spin koolaid were you sipping. I am the first to say these contrived affairs have not been his strength, but last night he was calm, authoritative, self-assured, humane and very funny. Hillary seemed tense and/or furious most all of the night. She is outraged that the young usurper is going to take the crown that Bill promised her. As for substantive;y dwarfing Obama, are you serious. Again, last night Obama showed himself in command knowledgeable and thorough. Stop regurgitating the MSM spin, you sallow Beltway bottom-feeder, and have an original thought for a change.

Posted by: mike38 | February 27, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

If there was any loser at yesterday's debate, it's that windbag Tim Russet. Please, NBC: Find something with some integrity to host these things. Russert is a hack, and a disgrace to his profession.
And Matt Drudge is a loser, no matter what. He's a scumbag, hypocrite and vulture. He will never be a winner.
And is kingofzouk actually criticizing Bush? Hell has truly frozen over.
And zouk, you actually asked some good questions about Obama; those also apply to John McCain, as well.

Posted by: vegasgirl1 | February 27, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

amitai,

I couldn't disagree with you more.

Was it Clinton who shut down the government in 95? Was it Clinton who appointed Ken Starr to various fruitless investigations?

It was the Republicans who hated Clinton, and the media to an extent, and were the mean spirited ones in the 1990s.

Hillary is not Bill Clinton. To suggest that Hillary cannot reach across the aisle, and offer to work with Republicans is just plain wrong. She can and will reach across the aisle just like Obama.

As to being so polarizing to certain Republicans that she can't work with them leads to these conclusions. First, it's the Republicans fault for being so hate filled as to not work with her, and she should not be held for their sins. If there are Republicans that absolutely won't work with Hillary, you can bet that they will find reasons not to work with Obama, because they are simply mean, nasty, partisans.

But if they don't exist, there is no problem for Hllary to reach across the aisle, her and Obama are equals in that regard.

Also, everyone forgets that the Dems control Congress now, and will likely extend their majorities in 08. Lot's of legislation will get passed by either Hillary or Obama on that alone.

Posted by: camasca | February 27, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

I don't think these "debates" are really win or lose propositions. If there was a winner though, it was Obama, for being calm and level-headed.

I thought when Clinton was asked about her freaking out on camera and she said that she was "just having fun", it pretty much made her the loser of the evening.

As far as her "wonkery", I have always found Mr. Obama's answers more interesting.

And yes, Clinton has made a huge mistake in these last few debates of trying to be humorous. Her jokes are really bad and I doubt she points with anyone but the most die hard supporters.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | February 27, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Obama will work with both parties to get needed changes

how do you know this? he doesn't have a record of doing this ( or much of a record to go on in anything) and his views have a long way to come rightward to be acceptable to Repubs. this seems to be an empty promise. I would like to hear the first thing he will compromise on if elected? Or are all the rest of us expected to make all the compromises?

GW Bush was supposed to be a uniter not a divider and he actually had a history of doing this in TX, but utterly failed at this in DC. what makes anyone realistically think Obama will be different? I really would like to see some actual evidence or arguments. As is, it is the most empty of rhetoric.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 27, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 27, 2008 05:30 PM

Such smallness of mind can never lead a nation.

I agree. Her campaign has been getting more and more desperate ever since her loss in Iowa. It wasn't supposed to be a real contest. After Super Tuesday, the nomination was to be hers.

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 27, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

"I didn't know that and I certainly didn't think either Obama or Clinton really knew, either. "

Mikeb - it takes guts to admit that, especially after your long term stance on this issue. but didn't you notice that big screeen TVS are now 600, down from 4000. everyone is happy and guess who is building them. We move up the food chain and export wage labor. It may be locally tough at times, but in aggregate, it benefits everyone. trade is always a good in capitalism, free trade that is, meaning unencumbered.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 27, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

I have to admit that I find the obsession with the "evil Republican attack/slime/whatever machine" to be quite amusing.

Worrying so much about what the other side is going to do is the first step toward losing. The same has happened to Kerry against Bush. It has now been happening to Clinton against Obama. When you focus primarily on what the other guy is doing, you aren't focused on what you should be doing.

And if the Dems keep running scared from what the GOP might do, they'll keep losing, no matter who the candidate is.

For preemption, I will state that I am an Independent who would be okay with either Obama or McCain.

Posted by: J | February 27, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

It amazes me how the Clinton supporters cannot accept the fact that the CHANGE American voters want is a president reaching across the aisle and bringing both Republicans and Democrats together to get needed legislation passed instead of the Clinton way which is demonizing the opposition, and being totally divisive and polarizing. Hating the Republicans is not going to get our nations business accomplished, and this whining about Russert and the moderators sounds like a sports fan's paranoia that the referees in a game were always penalizing their team. Poor losers make those kind of accusations. Obama will work with both parties to get needed changes and his message is uplifting and working together whereas Clinton's message is tearing your opponent apart. If what you want in a president is a mean, nasty and divisive person then vote for Clinton. However, our nation deserves better and progress never comes from mean spirited, nasty, divisive politics.

Posted by: amitai | February 27, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

"I think the low point of the debate was Tim Russet's attempt to tag Obama with Minister Farakhan."

================

I think it was a legitimate question. Not a high point, but not beyond bounds.

The low point i think was when Hillary used it to take a cheap shot at Barack.

When she began responding, for a moment I thought she was actually going to throw Barack a lifeline, using an example from her own experience...
and my estimation of her began to lift...then, bam!, instead of throwing him a life line, she threw him under the bus....it was at that moment that I definitively knew that I could never vote for her as President.

Such smallness of mind can never lead a nation.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 27, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Glad to know I'm not a "moonbat" :)

Posted by: chadibuins | February 27, 2008 05:13 PM

but here's one:

you first, zouk. Just admit you're a blithering, drooling, subnormal rightwingnut and the rest will follow.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 27, 2008 05:04 PM

his only meaning in life, like his paramoor drindl, is found in insults and random accusations, seldom over two lines of hate and no susbstance whatsoever.

Shun the bat.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 27, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

FreedomFighter1,

RESPECT!


Thanks.

Posted by: YouryellowribbonmagnetwontgetyouintoHeavenanymore | February 27, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

rosalala2000, that was an excellent and insightful post.

I expect that someone will call you shrieking, hysterical, overly-emotional and desperate any moment now.

Posted by: hitpoints | February 27, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: kingofzouk |
"I would be inclined to guess that the
NYTimes for instance is giving him preferential treatment because he is the most liberal candidate."

I am not quite sure where you get your facts from but you seem to be misinformed. The NYTimes strongly backs New York Senator Clinton they just do not care for her divisive tactics.

quote:
As strongly as we back her candidacy, we urge Mrs. Clinton to take the lead in changing the tone of the campaign. It is not good for the country, the Democratic Party or for Mrs. Clinton, who is often tagged as divisive, in part because of bitter feeling about her husband's administration and the so-called permanent campaign. (Indeed, Bill Clinton's overheated comments are feeding those resentments, and could do long-term damage to her candidacy if he continues this way.)
:end quote
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/opinion/25fri1.html?pagewanted=2

I think the mistake some people make about press coverage of the two candidates is due to the fact that Hillary Clinton brings a lot of baggage with her that ensures she will get a lot of scrutiny.
It is Bill and Hillary's legacy.

I do not think that the press is holding Obama to some lower 'affirmative action' standard. As a matter of fact, Hillary got a lot of positive press coverage early in the Primary Cycle. Senators Biden and Dodd have *much* more experience than does Senator Clinton and the press practically ignored them. She draws attention to herself and she shouldn't complain when she gets it. IMO

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 27, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

rpy - I am not whining about the media, it is the clintons. I simply agree with them and feel their pain since the Rs have been treated this way for years.

to deny it is an issue or a topic of conversation is to be ignorant of current affairs.

I am weighing in with some analysis as to why this is happening and when did it start to occur to Dems. I am also asking questions about the results.

If the voters are surprised by positions of the Obama administration after the election, what will you claim then? It is the duty of the voter and the press to flush out expectations, something they have not done with Obama and is now becoming a joke as a result. It isn't a funny joke unless it has a ring of truth to it.

do you realy want another Carter administration through ignorance or subterfuge?

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 27, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

I think the low point of the debate was Tim Russet's attempt to tag Obama with Minister Farakhan.
Farakhan endorsed Obama so what?
He votes and he has a constituency.
This could have been a signal to his constituency to vote for Obama. For Russet and other to try to imply that there is a link
between Obama and Farakhan was disgusting. We have to end this race-bating. Then they are bringing in Rev. Wright a respected Minister who comes to the DC area at least once a year and speaks at Rankin Chapel at Howard University.
Cant they see that Barrack is not going for it and its not working.
Get used to it . He will take the White House.

Posted by: Carprin | February 27, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

I don't get your point about Hillary Clinton's knowledge dwarfing Barack Obama's at all. At some point while Barack Obama was speaking, Hillary looked at him as if though "Wow, this guy really has a good point. I wish I said something like that." Barack Obama was far more statemanlike and succeeded in making Hillary look like a whining, spoiled brat. I'm being convinced more and more of Barack Obama's ability.

Posted by: pelohoki | February 27, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

I am saying OBAMA is NOT the affirmative action candidate. He is not going to win by having a "hand-up"--he is going to win by his own superior campaigning skills and intelligence.

But his success IS an advertisement that the program must have some merit.


really have to run--back in a few. :)

Posted by: chadibuins | February 27, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

It doesn't make her un-American, just honest--we as whites may not always want to hear it; but that doesn't mean it isn't justified.

Posted by: chadibuins | February 27, 2008 04:50 PM


People who truly are honest don't have to assemble a press conference to apologize for their honesty.

Posted by: YouryellowribbonmagnetwontgetyouintoHeavenanymore | February 27, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

"nor is it not about"

should have been nor is it about in my post above

Glad to know I'm not a "moonbat" :)

Posted by: chadibuins | February 27, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Chadibuins,

I am not sure I understand you. You are saying Affirmative Action is doing good, and we should have more of it, but at the same time, you seem to be saying how Affirmative Action actually works is not good.

Posted by: FreedomFighter1 | February 27, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

freedom fighter--it is not about yellowribbon being black or white or latino or asian or purlple--nor is it not about not wanting Michelle Obama as first lady.

It IS about the hateful remarks she/he made and the reaon he/she made them.

I was just pointing out that that kind of talk should not be accepted in intelligent circles and should be shown as what it is.

I'm leaving work now--I look forward to reading more posts when I get home.

Posted by: chadibuins | February 27, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

freedom fighter--it is not about yellowribbon being black or white or latino or asian or purlple--nor is it not about not wanting Michelle Obama as first lady.

It IS about the hateful remarks she/he made and the reaon he/she made them.

I was just pointing out that that kind of talk should not be accepted in intelligent circles and should be shown as what it is.

I'm leaving work now--look forwrad to reading more posts when I get home.

Posted by: chadibuins | February 27, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

MSNBC should change their name to OBAMA NETWORK, they are as biased as FOX is. Both barack and michelle have said "her supporters will vote for us, but our supporters may not vote for her". Not exactly correct and kind of threatening too. So he won't run again if he loses, no loss. Obama should be called "Easy Rider" because he has had the easiest ride from the press of any candidate ever. If barack loses to McCain, guess who will come back to beat him in 2012? The same woman who would beat him in 2008! All you obamaites can sit back and continue to enjoy life in Fantasyland, before returning to the real world where everyone else lives.

Posted by: adfxb | February 27, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

chad - all fine accomplishments and noble but Presidential - I hardly think so. and that is pretty much all there is to it. I look forward to him making another attempt in 8 or 12 years. If the Dems will have him. they normally don't offer second chances like the Rs do.

and I remove you from the category of moonbat and congratulate you on shedding the jackel methods. I will probably never agree with you on much but I respect someone who can hold up their end in an empasioned way without going off the deep end like all the drindls and spectators.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 27, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

**********************
rpy1 - I must assume you have trouble following a logical construction.
**********************

You know what happens when you assume, zouk?

**********************
Regardless of the reason, and the name I have cleverly attached, he is being granted affirmitive action by being held to a lower standard than other candidates. Is that clear?
**********************

What you are saying is clear, and it is wrong. Voters, on the whole, vote based on who they want to be president. Winning the electoral college *is* the only standard there is. For the primaries, winning enough delegates *is* the only standard there is. Whining about the media is like whining about officiating in a game: it just makes you look small.

Posted by: rpy1 | February 27, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

"Now, is he on the record for publicly rebuking Farrakhan, or Nation of Islam, and denouncing them as a racist and anti-Semitic organization?"

What about his own church that swears its allegiance to mother Africa rather than the United States?

Posted by: FreedomFighter1 | February 27, 2008 04:53 PM
___________________________________________

John Kennedy didn't have to answer for the positions of the Catholic Church. Mitt Romney didn't have to answer for the positions of the Church of Jesus Christ/Latter-Day Saints. Obama should not have to answer for the positions of his Church. He need only answer for what he has said, and what he has done.

Posted by: gbooksdc | February 27, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Chadibuins,

Do you know for a fact yellowribbon is a white person? I mean you don't need to be white to not want to see Michelle "Omarosa" Obama in the White House.

Posted by: FreedomFighter1 | February 27, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

you first, zouk. Just admit you're a blithering, drooling, subnormal rightwingnut and the rest will follow.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 27, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

"What about his own church that swears its allegiance to mother Africa rather than the United States?"

What about all those pesky catholic churches that swear allegiance to the Pope in Rome? Or those Anglicans who still can't let go of mother England?

Posted by: bsimon | February 27, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

At my home, we thought Russert was brtilliant. Now, I'm well known for oppossing NAFTA and free trade, and Russert's question to the candidates would have had me screaming* "YES! Abandon NAFTA". I think Russert was actually trying to trap one or both candidates into saying just that. But... then, he had the opposing view that free teade has enriched certain parts of the economy. I didn't know that and I certainly didn't think either Obama or Clinton really knew, either. Wehn Russert as boring in on Cltinon with regards to her earlier enthusiastic support of NAFTA she actually appeared to squirm. In the end, I liked the debate.

One quick note, and you can believe me or not as you like, but we had two women as quests over last night. Both are independents and Christian's (Evalgelical's yet!) and have no idea as to whom they will vote for in November. Now, I purposefully didn't say one thing before or during the debate or analysis (because my wife said she would kill me). But, after the debate, both women said they found Cltinon to be mean and stated they didn't like her. Both were favorably impressed by Obama.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | February 27, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

rpy1 - I must assume you have trouble following a logical construction. I clearly said that the press is treating him differently. It seems the voters are doing it too. It has nothing to do with white or male in my personal view although there may be some justification along those lines as to why the press or the voters treat him that way.

I would be inclined to guess that the NYTimes for instance is giving him preferential treatment because he is the most liberal candidate.

Regardless of the reason, and the name I have cleverly attached, he is being granted affirmitive action by being held to a lower standard than other candidates. Is that clear?

the question I asked was does he need to be treated differently because of some past injustice he is still suffering and is the result a less qualified potential nominee? My take is no and yes.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 27, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

KJBuie writes
"You say the debate is about the "moments"-- but isn't it true that the only "moment" anyone remembers is Hillary's mention of the SNL skit/always being asked questions first? "

The question is whether that was a positive moment for Sen Clinton, or a negative one. It seems that the line did not work for her - particularly the part about asking if Sen Obama needs a pillow. Frankly, its comical that this is now a main theme in her campaign - what's the next step, to tour with Tina Fey & have an opening monologue about how Sen Clinton is a '[b]itch that gets things done!'

Posted by: bsimon | February 27, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Zouk--thanks for the reasoned reply (somewhat) however he is not being treated differently or better by the press--after a year long campaign, he is just in the lead in teh last stretch--he has been a better campaigner and has made the argument he is the better candidate--at this point. As far as what he has accomplished he has a law degree, he had several offers, he waa successful lawyer and constitutional law professor; he was an ardent community activist who helped people and he was elected to the state legislature, addressed the DNC and is running for President--I think that is something to be proud of--definitely an accomplishment--I haven't done any of that.

Freedom Fighter--when I said he should be a walking advertisement--I meant that if having Affirmative Action gives us more highly educated, successful minorities--then that is proof it is working to do what it is supposed to do--level the playing field. I do not mean he is the Affirmative Action candidate and that he is not succeeding on his own merits. I mean he is proof that AA is working--apart from his candidacy.

Posted by: chadibuins | February 27, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

lumi21us says: that internet video of her saying "I'm in it to win it". What the hell does that mean?

"We are the people we've been waiting for!"
What the heck does THAT mean?

I'm one of her "base women" and my vote is not and has never been a "sympathy" vote. I support Senator Clinton because I think she is the best candidate for the job.

I don't characterize Obama's supporters motivations, please don't mischaracterize mine.

Posted by: citizenjane | February 27, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

"I'll try to work on it while I wait for that hateful, American-loathing, neo-Black Panther shrew to voice something other than her utter contempt for our country and the fellow citizens and proponents of affimative action who helped get her where she is today."

================

good to hear you are working on it.

i'm not thrilled with some of Michelle Obama's statements either, but I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, esp since I do not doubt her core patriotism. I do admire her honesty and resistance to be PC.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 27, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

I love Wilco

Posted by: amyuw05 | February 27, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

the venom that spews out about hillary clinton is shameful and much like the narrow mindedness of militant islam and their despise for americans. it is based in ignorance and fear. for what? misogyny? personal grudges? did she do a bad job as a senator? because this is the way that strong women are treated? focus on who you want and why. it's beyond me how this hate is acceptable. is this who we are? is this the kind of change and unity you people think obama is talking about? are you the people that want to be leaders and upstanding americans? is this how he's going to sit down and talk with the palestinians or the pakistanis or the republicans? if he should get the nomination, the same machine will be at work to rip him apart too. she's a democrat and that makes her part of the team to make change from what we've had for the last 7 years. stop being so disrespectful and tasteless. enough. I bet the majority of you didn't go out into the streets to protest the invasion in 2003!

Posted by: rosalala2000 | February 27, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

"Now, is he on the record for publicly rebuking Farrakhan, or Nation of Islam, and denouncing them as a racist and anti-Semitic organization?"

What about his own church that swears its allegiance to mother Africa rather than the United States?

Posted by: FreedomFighter1 | February 27, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

You acknowledge that Hillary can argue substantive issues because of her "deep knowledge", yet she still loses the debate to Obama, who you admit had the worst performance yet. I'm confused. You argue that the "moments" are what determine who wins and who loses the debate. If that's true, what was Obama's "moment"? Lying low? His lack of knowledge of the substantive issues?

I simply do not understand why it was out of place for Hillary to bring up the fact that she is always asked questions first. That's a conclusory statement,and obviously it's your opinion, which you're entitled to. But I am someone who believes it was the perfect time for Hillary to ask why she is always asked questions first, which has given Obama every opportunity to rebut. If the tables were turned you better believe Obama would bring it up.
It was also the perfect time to talk about the SNL skit. That skit has been the most popular video on youtube since Saturday night... millions and millions of people have seen the skit, and agree with her that Obama is getting preferential treatment during the debates. I understand that you are an Obama supporter, so of course you would criticize anything that Hillary said. If she said that she had the cure for cancer during the debate, you would most likely argue that her comments were "out of place."

I content that if SNL had done a skit about Obama this weekend, and it was popular on youtube, and he then brought it up during the debate you would be heralding him for being in touch with the people, having a great sense of humor, and being charming and witty.

So give me a break, and don't tell me she lost the debate because she had a flattering skit done about her on SNL, and she had the guts to bring it up to the American people.

You say the debate is about the "moments"-- but isn't it true that the only "moment" anyone remembers is Hillary's mention of the SNL skit/always being asked questions first?

At the beginning of your article you state that all Obama had to do to win the debate was lie low. Later you say that the winner of a debate is determined by who had the "moment". Which is it? If it's the latter, then Hillary's reference to the skit/being asked questions first was THE moment, and that's why she won (not to mention her "deep knowledge" of the substantive issues.)

Posted by: KJBuie | February 27, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

crisis, so you admit the data exists and you just choose to ignore it. I simply picked the latest one that made news today. what did you do, find ones that agree with your preconcieved notions and ignore all the rest.

that's what I figured.

Well I beleive I have answered your question about where I get my ideas. from the news. where do you get yours - Kos, Olbermann, NYTimes, MSNBC, CNN.

I was actually referring to factual content, not stories.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 27, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

*********************
It is the press which is allowing this, not me. they are clearly holding him to a differtent standard than the other candidates. this is generally referred to as affirmative action although traditionally used in race based cases, this time it may be based on liberalism or some other metric.
*********************

zouk, I guess I wasn't aware that there was a different number of delegates that Obama was expected to win than Clinton.

Oh, you were just spouting off about affirmative action because Senators Obama and Clinton aren't white men? Gotcha. Good luck with that in November.

Posted by: rpy1 | February 27, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

yellowribbon--your retort is disgusting. you should be ashamed.

I suggest you actually go out and find someone of a different color or ethnicity and ask them to honestly tell you what their experiences and feelings are.

It doesn't make her un-American, just honest--we as whites may not always want to hear it; but that doesn't mean it isn't justified.

Posted by: chadibuins | February 27, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

"If Affirmative Action can help us have more Obama's then he sould be a walking advertisement for its success. I believe he worked hard for what he has, regardless of how he got in--the point is he delivered when he got there."

I think when people are saying BHO is an Affirmative Action candidate, they are saying he is being put on the fast track not based on his merits, accomplishments or qualifications, but based on his race. I am not sure how that can be considered a success.

Posted by: FreedomFighter1 | February 27, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

mhallville was the first to astutely point out the peculiar habit of some pundits to say HRC policy knowledge and speak dwarfs Obama. For the author of this article to say this was Obama's worst debate? He performed better than the last one in my eyes. HRC is more forceful about getting her points across especially pertaining to health care but Obama comes off as having a good grasp of the pertinent issues to the Democratic primary.

Once he gets into the general election, there's no doubt that he'll buff up his foreign policy knowledge. That's the genius of his campaign. They prepare for the long haul. He is so cool and collected. He's charming, engaging and funny. I'm afraid McCain will have no chance in a debate format. Obama is the best candidate by far this year.

Posted by: jabreal00 | February 27, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

chad - the point of contention is very simple and it is not sinister as the drindl pack of jackles would have it.

"the point is he delivered when he got there."

Show me what?

I don't know how he became the affirmative action candidate, I would have thought it to be hillary. It is the press which is allowing this, not me. they are clearly holding him to a differtent standard than the other candidates. this is generally referred to as affirmative action although traditionally used in race based cases, this time it may be based on liberalism or some other metric. the reason is irrelevant to the point.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 27, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

aacameron, if you're looking at svreader as support, you're leaning on quite the slender reed. I conclusivly proved that svreader (aka Baghdad Bob) is a liar. It is all at http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/02/democratic_debate_preview_is_t.html#comments (85% of the way down the page). The relevant posts

gbooksdc --

I never said "God is a Democrat"
That's pure BS.

I said I've hired and fired lots of people like Obama over the years.

People who look good and speak well but don't have any substance.

I have had lots of Harvard lawyers over the years.

Don't twist my words.

As far as who I'm going to vote for, I was starting to open back up to voting for Obama until I saw your post.

Obama supporters are going to lose this election by driving people away.

Avalle, you are the most reasonable Obama supporter I've run into.

Its too bad so many of them are like gbooksdc.

Posted by: svreader | February 26, 2008 09:43 PM
_______________________________________
Comment on: The Magnetism of a Message at 1/5/2008 2:35 PM EST
We need to focus on the issues, and I strongly agree with one of the earlier posters here, that we need to focus on the values of the Democratic party, which are the real values of the American people.

If Superman existed, he'd be a Democrat.

God exists, and is.
___________________________________________

Baghdad Bob, you have been caught in a lie.

(The cite _currently_ is at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/community/mypost/index.html?plckPersonaPage=PersonaComments&plckUserId=svreader&newspaperUserId=svreader&plckCurrentPage=161. BB posts so much that the page number could increase.)
______________________________________________

Now -- suppose you/re svreader (or Hillary Clinton). You can

a) admit you're wrong, claim you forgot you posted that God was a Democrat
b) apologize for falsely stating you did not post same
c) blithely ignore the facts, and just sling a baseless accusation at the guy who has the facts

Which one do you choose?

Well, of course, c:

gbooksdc --

You lie every time your lips move.

Posted by: svreader | February 26, 2008 11:26 PM
________________________________________________________
truth hurts, huh, Baghdad Bob?

Anyway, the facts are laid out there. I said you said God's a Democrat, you said you didn't. I said I'd produce a cite, and did. it's there for _anyone_ to check.

Cheer up! Now you have something in common with your heroine -- you're both proven liars who talk out of both sides of your mouth.

Oh, and stop spamming. For just one example, here's how you posted "We'd rather compromise and work together with the Republicans, and God knows, we've tried. But the Republicans not only haven't tried, they've laughed in our face when they blocked health care for poor sick kids." over and over:

Comment on: Kumbaya Caucus at 1/30/2008 10:11 PM EST
Comment on: Democrats Out of the Desert at 1/30/2008 10:08 PM EST
Comment on: Edwards Exacts Pledge as He Leaves at 1/30/2008 7:47 PM EST
Comment on: Billary's Adventures in Primaryland at 1/26/2008 12:34 PM EST
Comment on: Obama Is Big Winner in S.C. Primary at 1/26/2008 12:20 PM EST
Comment on: Billary's Adventures in Primaryland at 1/26/2008 12:12 PM EST
Comment on: Now or Never for Obama at 1/23/2008 7:13 PM EST
Comment on: Bill Clinton, Scoring a 3rd Run at 1/23/2008 8:56 AM EST

That's EIGHT times, including twice in the same article. Don't you think that's a little much? Like the Clintons, you're (a) a liar (b) devoid of original thoughts.

Posted by: gbooksdc | February 26, 2008 11:49 PM
______________________________________________

So the moral is that both HRC and svreader aren't concerned with trivial matters like truth, reality and honor. No, life is a construct to be viewed solely through whatever perspective fits their aims. And they will tell you over and over and over again, as if fatigue is a substitute for logic. In any event, neither HRC nor Bob have any credibility. That's why we are all ignoring them.

Posted by: gbooksdc | February 27, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

One wonders how many years it will take for you to become aware of your human-ness.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 27, 2008 04:32 PM

I'll try to work on it while I wait for that hateful, American-loathing, neo-Black Panther shrew to voice something other than her utter contempt for our country and the fellow citizens and proponents of affimative action who helped get her where she is today.

Posted by: YouryellowribbonmagnetwontgetyouintoHeavenanymore | February 27, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Where do I find the data? It is out there every day if you honestly read and listen to actual news. and by this I don't mean avoding Fox at all costs and watching Maher, Olbermann and Mathews.

New LAtimes poll released:

In head-to-head contests, the poll found, McCain leads Clinton by 6 percentage points (46 percent to 40 percent) and Obama by 2 (44 percent to 42 percent).

and this is before Obama has even answered a single hard question. Just why is it that he wants to invade or bomb our ally Pakistan? that one is a doozy. and the retort to the trade issue in the debate was totally unconvincing. trade is good. that is a fact no matter how Dem Pols want to spin it. his hopefulness is going to have to buckle down and actually answer some questions with something other than "I hope to do good".

I am still waiting for any issue he is going to compromise on to get us all to come together. Will he abandon the teachers union in favor of children? that would be a good start.
____________

Zouk...zouk...come on man. How come you're ignoring the dozen or so polls that have come out in the past few weeks that show Obama beating McCain by commanding margins? You cherry pick one poll from a newspaper the GOP usually accuses of being liberal and use that as your reasoning? Come on man you know better than that.

How about the CBS and Associated Press polls that have Obama beating McCain by 12 and 10 points, respectively? Those are just as new as the LATimes poll, kiddo.

And I can't believe you are honestly bringing up the Pakistan thing. Obama said he would do exactly what the United States ended up DOING just a few days ago and it worked flawlessly. Your ability to stick to irrational Fox News talking points astounds me.

And for the record, I read Washington Post, Politico, CNN, New York Times, Real Clear Politics and a whole pile of syndicated columns from right-wing and left-wing pundits. Don't talk about things you don't understand.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 27, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

I see crisis and simple simon have readily self-identified themselves as moonbat Libs. At least they are more self aware than drindl or spectartor. there may be hope for them.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 27, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

"Awwwww, Why do I always have to answer the first question?" In other words, I am used to getting in the last word.

This is not the kind of leader I want. We have had eight years of a disastrous 'decider' who bases decisions in a vacuum and ignores dissenters.

Barack listens to the question, and upon responding, is willing to then concede points to Hillary after hearing her arguments.

A person who listens to the issue, who appreciates the details, who quickly determines and analyzes based on facts, who takes into account other's opinions (however positive or negative), who is capable of communicating and understanding all parties, and then makes sound judgment calls from all of the above, has the characteristics of a great leader.

Judgment tops experience in my book.

If Obama isn't elected president, I'd be happy to have him as my boss.

Posted by: sloppyawn | February 27, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

I have to agree with svreader's sentiments. Obama supporters seems to think that eviscertaing one of the most high profile Democrats, and disparaging the administration of the only Democrat to have occupied the White House in a 28-year period, is good strategy. But tearing down someone whose policy positions are fairly representative of the party as a whole will only create doubt in the minds of those who might cross party lines.

On a side note, I'd love to see some analysis of those of us who have NOT jumped on the Obama bandwagon. If the big 'Mo is unstoppable, why are there hundreds of thousands of voters who are still casting ballots for Sen. Clinton? We seem to be ignored but in November, I bet we're going to be looked at very closely.

Posted by: aacameron | February 27, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

After this debate, Hillary basically got senator Obama's endorsement to be the next commander in chief. What are we debating here? Your Idol told you that Hillary is trustworthy of being a president. So now it is a matter of who is better, this is a senior position and we are looking at two years of experience vs. twenty! Political decisions are not easy to make. It is enormously based on comprehensive and deep understanding to the issues involved. It is something that clearly senator Obama lacks. I would like to draw attention to a question that was asked yesterday. (if we have proof that alqada is in Iraq planning an attack against the US .would we invade it again ?" and senator Obama's lack of understanding to the queston drove him to answer yes we will bomb Iraq like we did in Pakestan. senator Hillary asnwered it was hypothetical question.however she responded to senator Obama answer trying to explain that it was not the question the question was about invading! Of course the moderator interrupted and they claimed a commecercial break! what does that tell you? there is a huge gap of level of intellgence and comprehension if we are picking up the better then after this debate we certianly know who is !

Posted by: dinainva1 | February 27, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

It seemed clear to me that Obama wanted it both ways with the Farrakhan issue. He quickly pointed out that he had made it clear he denounced Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments. But he hadn't denounced Farrakhan. Russert asked Obama if Obama rejected Farrakhan's support. Obama dodged and deflected! He said he really can't tell Farrakhan to not like him or support him.

Well, that's true, but Obama *could* publicly state "I reject Farrakhan's endorsement and want nothing to do with him."

But if he did that, he'd anger a lot of potential voters, and he knows it. How many are in Nation of Islam? It sure would be nice to get their votes, right? Instead of disrespecting their leader and causing them to stay at home on election day.

Hillary then drew the distinction that she *took the political risk* to reject support from the Independence Party in New York. Not just say she disagreed with some things their members said, not just called some of their beliefs reprehensible. She rejected their support in toto. Obama then tried to blur the two issues into one, saying it was just how you defined two words with similar meanings, and saying ok, I'll use that word too. Reject and denounce.

Now, is he on the record for publicly rebuking Farrakhan, or Nation of Islam, and denouncing them as a racist and anti-Semitic organization?

Posted by: hitpoints | February 27, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

but you won't because you are not capable.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 27, 2008 04:19 PM

and the obamesque non-answer:

"So, you want moonbat libs to ignore your insults, and respond without treating you the way you treat them? Its certainly the right thing to do, but to demand it of someone while casting aspersions is pretty comical.


Posted by: bsimon | February 27, 2008 04:28 PM

Yeah, what she said.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 27, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

FreedomFighter--probably because she has publicly gone by Hillary Rodham and Hillary Rodham-Clinton.

Right on LABC with your comment! Just because white people in general (and yes I am white) may not be aware of what it is truly like to be a minority, especially the black minority; doesn't mean there isn't a point there. Michelle has said nothing in her thesis I haven't heard from other African-Americans, and not a commie or anti-patriot among them--not even elitist--just plain, respectable middle class blacks.

Zouk--what argument are you wanting us to fight against--that Obama is the affirmative action candidate (and I think you do mean, at least partially, race) or that he got his credentials from benfiting from Affirmative Action; or that SNL is the litmus test for the American zeitgeist?

I'll try all 3:
1> this is insulting if you mean it this way, that we are somehow electing Obama on less qualified grounds. You may not like him or his policies, but he is intelligent, and good orator and has parried evry attack, been open about his past and record and has plans for his dreams (again, you may not agree with them, but they do exist)--and if you mean race--then your just so offensive we don't need to justify your argument ata ll--but I will believe you DO NOT mean race and take you at your word.

2> If Affirmative Action can help us have more Obama's then he sould be a walking advertisement for its success. I believe he worked hard for what he has, regardless of how he got in--the point is he delivered when he got there.

3> SNL is comedy; a TV show; and while being mentioned on the show does mean the "framework" is in the minds of Americans (if by nothing else than through the skit itself)--it does not mean the majority of Americans who watch it feel the same way. It was spoof and meant to be funny. An exaggeration, thats all.

And agian--the race between HRC and BHO should not tear us apart or turn us against each other--we should be proud to be supporting the party that gave us the first woman on a nat'l ticket and will soon give us either the first Woman nominee or the first African-American nominee.

Either way America wins!

Posted by: chadibuins | February 27, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

the great Obama come down is in the works. Once you make it to SNL, you are pegged. he now has been shown to be the affirmitive action (and I don't mean race, although it may be related) candidate, the one who can get by with less qualifications and no scrutiny. Of course the problem with aa is that low quality gets by. the advantage is that certain individuals with lesser upbringings can get a fair shake.

Does private school and Harvard sound like a lesser upbringing that warrants an easy ride to you? Hence the downside of aa - lower quality.

I dare one moonbat Lib to refute this argument using no insults or talking points.

but you won't because you are not capable.
posted by kingofzouk
___________________________

You ask for a response from a "moonbat lib" without any insults or talking points? Maybe when you treat people as you'd like to be treated you will stop getting the insults. But for now, you're still an idiot.

Just because Obama has an ivy league education doesn't mean he didn't bust his back to get there. You think he was born into the upper class? He was born essentially fatherless with a single mom and grandparents to look after him. He's had a life of instability and hardship, though he rose above it all with hard work and a commitment to bettering himself. This is why he got into an ivy league school and it's also why he rejected a job on Wall Street, where he could make millions, in favor of acting as a community organizer in Chicago to clean up the streets.

Your attempt to smear him and his race with your affirmative action comments are disgusting and insulting. I am shocked you would publicly degrade yourself with such absurd remarks. The reason Obama has faced little scrutiny is because he has done almost entirely positive things with his life and the few things he's done wrong, he's owned up to long before the GOP or Clinton Machine used them to smear his character.

Is it so scary to have an honest, intelligent candidate running for president? Are you so delusional in your love for GOP scandals that when a real, hard-working individual runs for president, you refuse to believe it's true? After seven years of Bush lies, scandals and dishonesty in the face of overwhelming pressure, I for one will be ecstatic to have a president who doesn't make me ashamed every time I see him on television.

And tens of millions of other people agree with me on this.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 27, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

CC,

You have no one to blame but yourself if you are constipated!

I have one word for you: FIBER!

-E

Posted by: Larsen770 | February 27, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Crisis:

Where do I find the data? It is out there every day if you honestly read and listen to actual news. and by this I don't mean avoding Fox at all costs and watching Maher, Olbermann and Mathews.

New LAtimes poll released:

In head-to-head contests, the poll found, McCain leads Clinton by 6 percentage points (46 percent to 40 percent) and Obama by 2 (44 percent to 42 percent).

and this is before Obama has even answered a single hard question. Just why is it that he wants to invade or bomb our ally Pakistan? that one is a doozy. and the retort to the trade issue in the debate was totally unconvincing. trade is good. that is a fact no matter how Dem Pols want to spin it. his hopefulness is going to have to buckle down and actually answer some questions with something other than "I hope to do good".

I am still waiting for any issue he is going to compromise on to get us all to come together. Will he abandon the teachers union in favor of children? that would be a good start.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 27, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Yellowribbon, I haven't read the essay, but I just want to point out what you're saying:

We should care deeply about the college essay of the spouse of a presidential candidate.

I think that's silly. I promise (promise!) not to pay any attention to college essays by Bill Clinton or Cindy McCain. Okay?

Posted by: rpy1 | February 27, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

"Apprently in Michelle Obama's Princeton 'thesis,' it took five years in an Ivy League university for her to become aware of her 'blackness.'--her word, not mine.

IF you can call that a thesis.."

===================

One wonders how many years it will take for you to become aware of your human-ness.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 27, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

YouryellowribbonmagnetwontgetyouintoHeavenanymore ...I am sure she was aware of it before then...my words you racist...how long did it take Bill to be aware of
Monica?

Posted by: scrappyc20001 | February 27, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

cnick68188...I see you...ya little republican trying to stir the pot...isn't that cute.

Posted by: scrappyc20001 | February 27, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse


Apprently in Michelle Obama's Princeton 'thesis,' it took five years in an Ivy League university for her to become aware of her 'blackness.'--her word, not mine.

IF you can call that a thesis..

Posted by: YouryellowribbonmagnetwontgetyouintoHeavenanymore | February 27, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

" Zouk is open minded ... I dare one moonbat Lib to refute this argument using no insults or talking points. "


So, you want moonbat libs to ignore your insults, and respond without treating you the way you treat them? Its certainly the right thing to do, but to demand it of someone while casting aspersions is pretty comical.

Posted by: bsimon | February 27, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

"Why was HRC's middle name included, but BHO's was left out?"

What is Sen Clinton's middle name? (Hint: not Rodham)

Posted by: bsimon | February 27, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Why was HRC's middle name included, but BHO's was left out?

Posted by: FreedomFighter1 | February 27, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Hey, Messiah junkies,

For a good time, do a Google search on "Michelle Obama" and "Princeton thesis."

And... enjoy your stay in Jonestown.

Posted by: YouryellowribbonmagnetwontgetyouintoHeavenanymore | February 27, 2008 03:47 PM

*********************************
hey, youryellowribbonmagnet, this another lame attempt by you to distract and detract? A college thesis written by an African American woman based her experiences of being in predominately white university? You mean - gasp! - her experiences in this country might be different from you, Johnny white guy? Well, alert the media - they're COMMIES!!

idiot...

Posted by: LABC | February 27, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Ditch is the new black.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 27, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Either way, the Democratic party is waste deep in muck. She's not electable but clearly more qualified. He's more electable but clearly unqualified. Nonetheless, both of them are living in fantasyland.

The party is a mess and we should concede already so that McCain can get busy.

Posted by: cnick68188 | February 27, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

clauida--again we are right there together.

I too removed any of my support from HRC when she started going nasty and pandering to people's ignorance and fear.

That si the politics of Rove, etc . . .

I do not believe the Reps will "roll over and play nice" but I do hope that Obama will cause the intelligent, decent, fair minded Reps to come out and take their party back.

Nothing like a good back and forth to keep us democratic and great. But the Republicans have to throw off the shackles of intolerance and ignorance and fear their leadership has fed them over and over.

Some issues should just be gotten over--that is the nature of society. You don't find people still arguing that we shouldn't examine cadevers (spelling grace) or that the earth is flat or the sun goes around the earth. there might be people who still believe some of that, but as a society we moved forward. It is now time to do that with teh Rove and neo-con tactis and most of the Social Conservative/Religious Right's agenda.

Obama is popular and going to win becuase he helps America (all of us) feel like we can be who we really want to be--benevolent, gracious, fair and strong.

Posted by: chadibuins | February 27, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Zouk,

If you think this is all so hilarious, then can you explain why Obama polls ahead of McCain in RED states like Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, New Mexico and Nevada, some by double-digit margins?

Clinton won blue states in the primary process but that doesn't mean Obama won't win them in a general election. You know that. McCain didn't win Utah but does that mean it's going blue in the fall? Yeah right.

I can't fathom where you find enough information to remain as delusional as you are.

Obama more than doubled McCain's vote count in GEORGIA and VIRGINIA and SOUTH CAROLINA. Please, before you say anything, tell me how Obama got 700,000 votes in Georgia and McCain got 300,000. In a state that has been red since decades before I was born, no less.

Maybe because McCain is a failed GOP candidate? Half the GOP is going to stay home instead of voting in November? Obama pulls massive amounts of Independents from McCain and the GOP? All of these things are true, but I can't imagine you're ready to admit any of it.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 27, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Either way, the Democratic party is waste deep in muck. She's not electable but clearly more qualified. He's more electable but clearly unqualified. Nonetheless, both of them are living in fantasyland.

The party is a mess and we should concede already so that McCain can get busy.

Posted by: cnick68188 | February 27, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

find Zouk to be an ally. If only they knew...


Posted by: bsimon | February 27, 2008 04:08 PM

knew what? that Zouk is open minded and able to debate with rational people and not subject to the closed minded moonbattiness of most of the fix bloggers who reply with dogma and insults.

the great Obama come down is in the works. Once you make it to SNL, you are pegged. he now has been shown to be the affirmitive action (and I don't mean race, although it may be related) candidate, the one who can get by with less qualifications and no scrutiny. Of course the problem with aa is that low quality gets by. the advantage is that certain individuals with lesser upbringings can get a fair shake.

Does private school and Harvard sound like a lesser upbringing that warrants an easy ride to you? Hence the downside of aa - lower quality.

I dare one moonbat Lib to refute this argument using no insults or talking points.

but you won't because you are not capable.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 27, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

...by making these remarks, you are only helping the R's get 4 more years of Iraq, of giant deficits, of billions of taxpayer money disappearing into contractors' unaccountable black holes....

Posted by: claudialong | February 27, 2008 04:14 PM

So, I trust we'll see you outside the Pentagon City Ritz tonight protesting your boy Murtha's $1500/person fundraiser for earmark seekers?

Posted by: JD | February 27, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Absolute OK-
you completely prove my point that the press is "creating" the Obama surge by their unfair treatment of clinton in these debates. You note that only over the last few months has Clinton gotten the first question leaving Obama with the last word. Not a coincidence at all that during the same relatively recent period Obama has risen in the polls and Clinton has dropped. Now that it's one on one, your own read on the behavior of the press confirms that she has been targeted and he has gotten the kid-glove treatment at the debates. And it has worked. Just as the press was able to kill the Gore candidacy, it has done the same to Hillary clinton, at the debates and in the coverage of her campaign.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | February 27, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

svreader, Rush's 'support' for Obama is completely based on his hatred of HRC. Any chance Rush has to stick the knife into the Ice Queen's heart, he's going to grab it.

If McCain were Reagan, or even Rudy, it might be different, but at this point, Rush (and his sizable audience) are only lukewarm for the guy; their passion is better directed at hurting Ms Dirty Tricks.

Posted by: JD | February 27, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Also, Clinton's "whatever" comment was one of the high points in the debate for her. The comment succinctly explained that the new Russian President is actually irrelevant, because he will be a pawn for Vladamir. So, you are wrong here again. I'm not saying you're completely wrong. Maybe some academic tool thinks "whatever" is not very Presidential, but we all know in the real world that isn't true.

Posted by: GoHuskies2004 | February 27, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

So the candidates are expected to know about Cuba, but not Russia, a country that actually matters (geopolitics? nuclear material? oil, natural gas? metals?).

And the FIX admitting it did not know about Medvedev is pretty pathetic.

Isn't Obama the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on European Affairs?

Things like this really matter, people.

Posted by: josiahSchmoe | February 27, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

i would be truly surprised if there were footage of either obama snorting coke or mccain in a prison camp.. so that's highly unlikely. svreader, i have to say, i supported hilary until she started running a horrible, nasty campaign and then switched to obama. by making these remarks, you are only helping the R's get 4 more years of Iraq, of giant deficits, of billions of taxpayer money disappearing into contractors' unaccountable black holes. is that what you want?

Posted by: drindl | February 27, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Kreuz--thanks for the grammer lesson--I was hoping it was just typos.

JSnapper-- as an Obama suporter I agree with you--we do not have to nor should we be petty. It makes us look like jevenile jerks. hillary has her flaws, but she is a great and intelligent lady. She does and would do a lot for our country, and I for one am glad to have her on our side.

That being said--I just think Obama is better at getting us to move forward--he'll need people like HRC on his side to accomplish his goals--but he is the leader we need for such a time as this.

Russert is AWESOME!

HRC was better in her foreign policy answers; but DID NOT "dwarf" anyone--in fact the best she did was to cause people to forget or overlook her out of place whining and SNL remarks.

Posted by: chadibuins | February 27, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Bad analysis on the debate, CZ. Barack won easily. Read the responses by the viewers as you were blogging about the debate. If this is purely a debate-team debate, then sure it might have been a draw, but how one behaves plays a major role in Presidential debates. It's been this way since Kennedy-Nixon.

You blew it again in your analysis. Please explain to me why the media gets everything wrong.

Posted by: GoHuskies2004 | February 27, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

svreader:
"The commercials with parents talking about losing their kids to Cocaine are heart breaking and the contrast between Obaam snorting lines of coke and John McCain in a POW camp are a killer."

Which commercials? Have these been made already? Have you seen them? Not being aggressive, just asking because, holy cow.

Posted by: VegetablesPlease | February 27, 2008 04:07 PM
*****************************
svreader is okay with weed, though. Apparently, he takes big lungfuls of it when he writing his made up drivel. Probably choked laughing during Tool Cunnigham's intro for John McCain...

Posted by: LABC | February 27, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Please note that I meant "They're" not "There"

Posted by: jcw7v3 | February 27, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

bsimon: Would you agree that svreader might want to cruise through old boards to see what his new friend zouk really thinks about Hillary Clinton?

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 27, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

SVREADER -

"Not only won't I go away, but there are more and more people like me out there."

Is that why Clinton has lost every voting bloc to Obama except for old white women? Seriously, check the exit polls, kid.

"We are angry that Obama supporters have torn the heart out of the Democratic Party."

So sleeping with the health care industry while forcing people to buy health care, staying loyal to a cheating husband and changing your core message every day is at the heart of the Democratic Party?

"We will be even more angry if you lose the election for us."

Every single poll released since the beginning of the year has Obama fairing better against McCain than Clinton. I've told you this before and you refuse to accept the truth and the facts. Surprise, a Hillary follower abandoning the truth...I don't believe it!

"We will not be bullied into submission!!!

You leave!!! I'm not going to!!!"

No one is bullying you. We're simply telling you to quit posting unfounded rhetoric in place of real arguments.

You refuse to use logic, reason, statistics or facts in your comments. They consist of "Obama will lose because the GOP will attack him and only Hillary is awesome go Hillary '08 yayyy!!!" and that's the end of your thought process.

Just once give me a factual reason to believe Obama might lose in November. And "cuz the Republicans will attack him!" is not a reason or a fact. No one knows how Obama will handle McCain in the general election, but if he handles McCain like he's handled crazy Hillary lately, then November is in the bag for Democrats.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 27, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Chris, don't worry about Wilco, "Outtasite, (Outta Mind)," right? There my fav also...

Posted by: jcw7v3 | February 27, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

We are negative about Obama because we aren't blinded by his hype.

The current polls are positive for him because Republicans haven't started "vetting" him.

Once they start their attack machine his numbers will drop like a stone.

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

Are you sure about this, svreader?

Obamamania... not even Rove on his best day can stop this tide.

I just don't see it.
But, I'd like to think you are right.

Just the sheer insanity and fainting... it is getting a bit scary.

Posted by: bobbobcat | February 27, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

did anyone notice that all the "red" states went for Obama and all the blue ones went to hillary. doh.

guess what Libs, you've been had, again. you may want to hang on to that blue dress in case you get blamed for it.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 27, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

"Yeah.. What she said, Tim.."

Pretty much sums up The Messiah's end of the debate last night.

Posted by: YouryellowribbonmagnetwontgetyouintoHeavenanymore | February 27, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 27, 2008 04:02 PM

Kerry from MA and gore from greenland never stood a chance, even against the chimp they lost to.

In both cases, it came down to one state. Gore actually had more popular votes than Bush did, and if not for Nader, there would have been no legal question in Florida for the Supreme Court to weigh in on.

Also, Ann Coulter, and this no-name Looney Tune from Ohio that John McCain is backing away have publically said that they would supporting Clinton over McCain. Just for the record.

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 27, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

I have three words for ALL Democrats, whomever you support, who are talking about voting for McCain if your favored candidate is not nominated:

1. Iraq.

2. Roberts.

3. Alito

And as for people who say they will vote against any candidate based on anonymous postings on the internet by his/her ALLEGED supporters, you are beneath contempt and not worthy of the privilege of voting.

Posted by: jac13 | February 27, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

How amusing that the new visitors here who support Sen Clinton find Zouk to be an ally. If only they knew...

Posted by: bsimon | February 27, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

"Clinton was the dominant force in the debate last night, yet again demonstrating a substantive knowledge of policy that dwarfed Obama's."
-------------------------------------------
I see no evidence substantiating this claim.
When you don't provide evidence to support arguments like this, you are opening your self to accusations of tendentiousness and bias.

Posted by: jonathanmstevens | February 27, 2008 03:30 PM
-------------------------------------------
You have not presented any evidence refuting the claim that Clinton was a dominating force in last night's debate therefore, you are opening yourself up to accusations of tendentiousness and bias.

I can present that claim because the focus group said so. They nearly all said that Clinton was substantive and they would vote for her. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 27, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

svreader:
"The commercials with parents talking about losing their kids to Cocaine are heart breaking and the contrast between Obaam snorting lines of coke and John McCain in a POW camp are a killer."

Which commercials? Have these been made already? Have you seen them? Not being aggressive, just asking because, holy cow.

Posted by: VegetablesPlease | February 27, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

We are negative about Obama because we aren't blinded by his hype.

The current polls are positive for him because Republicans haven't started "vetting" him.

Once they start their attack machine his numbers will drop like a stone.

They know Hillary is by far the stronger national candidate.

That's why Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing radio hosts specifically told their listeners to go and vote for Obama.

Do you really think Rush Limbaugh wants to see Obama elected President?

Posted by: svreader | February 27, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

I agree with CC about not placing Hillary in the loser category and about putting her oneliners at the top of that same category.

I agree, and noted last night on here that the Russia question was Obama's weakest.

HOWEVER< I do want to point out that Russert did not aim the question at either--Hillary jumped at it--and did really well until her "whatever" line--Russert didn't have to aim an additional one at Obama--Hillary chose to answer that one.

And I had Ribs last night--they were awesome! :)

Posted by: chadibuins | February 27, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | February 27, 2008 02:28 PM
quote:
Think the media has been fair to clinton in the debates? Get real.
:end quote

There's that Clinton sound bite "Get Real" okay. Why don't we do just that?

quote:
Here's proof, from a USA today analysis:
:end quote

Where is your url reference?

quote:
• There have been six Democratic debates this year.
• One included John Edwards and Gov. Bill Richardson.
• Two featured Edwards, Clinton and Obama.
• Three have been one-on-one debates between Clinton and Obama.
• In five of the six, the first question of the evening was directed to Clinton.
• If you expand the category to examine the first three subjects addressed during each debate, the first questions were directed to Clinton 10 of the 18 times.
• Last night, for the first three subjects, Clinton got the first question each time."
:end quote

First of all, there have been at least 20 democratic presidential primary debates, not six so immediately your facts come into serious question

The debates range in dates from 4/26/2007 to 2/26/2008. Of the debates I could find transcripts of:
Clinton was asked the first question eight times (4-26,6-28,8-19,11-15,12-4,1-15,1-21 & 1-26)
Obama was asked the first question eight times as well (6-3,8-9,9-9,9-26,10-30,12-13,1-5, & 1-31)
Dodd received the first question on just two occasions (7-23,8-7)
There were also some internet "debates".
An interactive "mashup" where there was no first question.
A MTV forum in which Mike Huckabee fielded the first question, but Obama fielded a question before Clinton. That is not included in his eight totals above.
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_presidential_debates,_2008

So it wasn't until the last four debates in which Clinton fielded the first question three out of four times that she finally caught up to Obama's total, but you didn't hear him whining about it. Instead of asking Obama if he needs another pillow, perhaps the press should ask Clinton if she needs another tissue.

quote:
The press has been whoring itself out to the Obama campaign, and selling itself pretty cheaply at that.
:end quote

Well, that is certainly what the Clinton campaign wants us to believe because it portrays her as a victim while she portrays herself as a fighter. It's cheap alright, but the press has nothing to do with it and is certainly not "whoring" itself to Obama or Clinton.

Do your own research, take your own advice and "get real".

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 27, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

As a repub, I am hoping that the loony left of the party nominates Obama. what an easy take down that will be. another landslide in the making just like the last few ultra-libs. the promise of higher taxes, losing wars and big government holds no sway over americans. why do you think Rs have turned out in droves to defeat the hillary beast? she may be nasty but she is substantial.

I would have guessed that after the last two elections you would have learned that ultra-liberalism is not a winning position, Kerry from MA and gore from greenland never stood a chance, even against the chimp they lost to. It was nothing to do with personalities or tactics, it was far leftist policies which are unpalatable to the voters.

just wait for the reply of the invade Pakistan, the chit chat with Castro, the higher costs on everything under the sun. Easy win for us.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 27, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

There is no substantive difference between "denouncing" vs. "rejecting" the comments of others. Hillary's parsing of the terms was strikingly silimilar to the Clintonion politics of parsing what the meaning of "is" is. I am glad the distinguished Sen. from Illinois simply conceded the point rather than joining in the politics of the past to parse virtually identical terms in context. I don't think I can stomach a full general election filled wth the same old politics of the Clintonian fashion.

Posted by: pasifikawv | February 27, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

And this is disturbing too:

'Last Friday, Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ), who is a member of Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) National Leadership Team and a co-chair of his Arizona Leadership Team, was indicted for extortion, wire fraud, money laundering and other crimes. Asked that day about Renzi's indictment, McCain said he didn't "know enough of the details to make a judgment."

Later, on a conference call with conservative bloggers, McCain said Renzi "would probably step down as co-chair of his Arizona campaign." Asked in Ohio today, however, McCain said "it doesn't matter" if Renzi stays on his campaign or not.

McCain has been staunchly loyal to his fellow Arizonian. After the FBI investigation into Renzi was first reported in October 2006, McCain vouched for Renzi's "integrity" in a robo-call to Arizona voters:

'This is Senator John McCain. I'm calling to urge you to support my friend, Representative Rick Renzi for Congress. Rick has represented the first district of Arizona with tenacity, honesty and integrity beyond reproach."

Posted by: drindl | February 27, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | February 27, 2008 02:28 PM
quote:
Think the media has been fair to clinton in the debates? Get real.
:end quote

There's that Clinton sound bite "Get Real" okay. Why don't we do just that?

quote:
Here's proof, from a USA today analysis:
:end quote

Where is your url reference?

quote:
• There have been six Democratic debates this year.
• One included John Edwards and Gov. Bill Richardson.
• Two featured Edwards, Clinton and Obama.
• Three have been one-on-one debates between Clinton and Obama.
• In five of the six, the first question of the evening was directed to Clinton.
• If you expand the category to examine the first three subjects addressed during each debate, the first questions were directed to Clinton 10 of the 18 times.
• Last night, for the first three subjects, Clinton got the first question each time."
:end quote

First of all, there have been at least 20 democratic presidential primary debates, not six so immediately your facts come into serious question

The debates range in dates from 4/26/2007 to 2/26/2008. Of the debates I could find transcripts of:
Clinton was asked the first question eight times (4-26,6-28,8-19,11-15,12-4,1-15,1-21 & 1-26)
Obama was asked the first question eight times as well (6-3,8-9,9-9,9-26,10-30,12-13,1-5, & 1-31)
Dodd received the first question on just two occasions (7-23,8-7)
There were also some internet "debates".
An interactive "mashup" where there was no first question.
A MTV forum in which Mike Huckabee fielded the first question, but Obama fielded a question before Clinton. That is not included in his eight totals above.
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_presidential_debates,_2008

So it wasn't until the last four debates in which Clinton fielded the first question three out of four times that she finally caught up to Obama's total, but you didn't hear him whining about it. Instead of asking Obama if he needs another pillow, perhaps the press should ask Clinton if she needs another tissue.

quote:
The press has been whoring itself out to the Obama campaign, and selling itself pretty cheaply at that.
:end quote

Well, that is certainly what the Clinton campaign wants us to believe because it portrays her as a victim while she portrays herself as a fighter. It's cheap alright, but the press has nothing to do with it and is certainly not "whoring" itself to Obama or Clinton.

Do your own research, take your own advice and "get real".

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 27, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

svreader, I'm not sure which version of reality you are looking at, but polls indicate that Obama is far more electable than Clinton in the general election against McCain.

Your shrill negativity is exactly what some of your cohorts accuse Obama supporters of. Really it all sounds like sour grapes to me. I've gone back and forth between the candidates but overall the messages from Obama and Obama's campaign are far more positive and I guess I'm ready for that.

Now, when it comes to substance, kingofzouk, I reject the notion that Hillary is somehow more experienced. Obama has extensive policy positions on his website. If you took the time to investigate the candidates you'd see they actually agree on most things and have similarly detailed proposals.

Hillary has spent millions and worked with Burson Marsteller, a notoriously right wing PR agency (they were key architects of the Contract on America in the 90s) to get that message across but really I think you'll find it's her message, not his, that doesn't hold water. 16 of her 35 years of experience were as first lady - a position for which she was not elected, appointed or hired. Her performance in that position didn't matter either, she could fail miserably (as she did in the 90s) and it didn't actually matter because technically it was her husband with the responsibility.

Other than that, she has a little bit of time in the senate, similar to Obama, and a few years as an attorney. And through all of it, she has been plagued by scandal and controversy.

Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review - you have to have substance to hold that position. He has demonstrated considerable dedication to community throughout his career, and his ability to inspire civic engagement in a democracy that has failed to inspire much of anything but bitterness and negativity both at home and abroad for a generation can not be overlooked, as much as HRC wants to minimize it.

Or maybe I just like listening to the choirs, who knows.

Posted by: oysterman84 | February 27, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

The way some people can ignore reality is amazing. Hillary cannot win, period. The rules will not change re. Florida and Michigan, and the supers are going against her, not with her.--John Lewis today. Fewer delegates means second place. Wake up and grow up, it's over.

Posted by: gmundenat | February 27, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

New poll from Iraq:

'But Iraqis have actually said the "surge" has "worsened" their lives. According to a September 2007 ABC/BBC/NHK poll:

79 percent oppose the presence of coalition forces, unchanged since winter.

63 percent say it was wrong for the U.S. to have invaded Iraq, up from 52 percent in March and 39 percent in Feb. 2004.

47 percent now favor "immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces," a 12-point rise since March.

Posted by: drindl | February 27, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Ummm..see kingofzouk - 02/27/08 - 3:40 PM posting - that's the rational side of "The Fix" - Sure, throw out all of the washed out talking points of the last decade or so, but c'mon - "60's Lib Causes" - that's just plain weak

Posted by: johndinhouston | February 27, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

'My congratulations to Tim Russert for pursuing the answers we wanted to hear. That doesn't make him a jerk, it makes him a good journalist.'

Only if he does the same thing to McCain. Perhaps hehas, but I haven't seen it.

Posted by: drindl | February 27, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

I keep seeing Hillary supporters (like svreader, gs, among others), claiming that if Obama is the nominee, Dems lose, or that even worse we lose big. Same with these supposed overseas folks.

You want to know the best indicator? Look for the reaction of people with skin in the game- Democrats fighing in Republican districts, and who they want to have on the top of the Democratic ticket:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8711.html

OBAMA 08!

Posted by: kreuz_missile | February 27, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Doesn't matter who you think won the debate last night. Your opinion is based on who you think is the better candidate.

the loser - the american people

why - the press is biased, people are gullible and don't want to think, thats why they like Obama

he has reduced the office of president to an american idol contest

we, the american people will lose if we place this not ready for prime time president in office

it looks like the dems want sell the "whine" before his time

Posted by: lndlouis | February 27, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Chris Cillizza says: The Fix watched closely last night, and without further ado, here's our take on the debate's winners and losers: . . . .
-------------------------------------------

Before I read this article, I want to highlight what the focus panel determined last night.

There were four going into the debate who wanted to vote for Hillary - after they watched the debate nearly all said they were impressed with Hillary, and would vote for her because she was "substantive," and they were not charmed or mesmerized by Obama. He did o.k.

People in Ohio and Texas - get out and vote for Hillary if you possibly can get there. You will be so glad you did. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | February 27, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Doesn't matter who you think won the debate last night. Your opinion is based on who you think is the better candidate.

the loser - the american people

why - the press is biased, people are gullible and don't want to think, thats why they like Obama

he has reduced the office of president to an american idol contest

we, the american people will lose if we place this not ready for prime time president in office

it looks like the dems want sell the "whine" before his time

Posted by: lndlouis | February 27, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

svreader - welcome to the rational side of the Fix. you can expect attacks from all the moonbats, lead by drindl and spectator. they have nothing substantial to offer (sort of like Obama) so they settle for slander and insult and nothing else. they also call for anyone who disagrees to leave. As you surmised, this displays the utter weakness of their position.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 27, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

To all Russert haters:

I think he did a *fine* job of pressing the candidates to answer questions they tried to dodge.

I loved it when he had Hillary against the rope on her NAFTA lies, I mean, she was against it from the start? Please! The hypocrisy...

And she doesn't "have time" to do her taxes? What is she, a CPA? Lies and more lies.

It was good also to see that Russert dished out the Farrakhan question. Good to see Obama respond with grace under pressure.

And the pop quiz-- why not? These people need to be current on their information.

It's nice to see a journalist trying to push the candidates to give a straight answer. I only wish he had asked Hillary if she did her own taxes-- because that "I'm a little busy" excuse was super-lame.

My congratulations to Tim Russert for pursuing the answers we wanted to hear. That doesn't make him a jerk, it makes him a good journalist.

Posted by: alarico | February 27, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

The only dude cooler than Barack Obama is Tim Russert. I hope that Mr. Obama makes Mr. Russert his press secretary. Any guys who put that whiny Hillary in check are fine by me.

Posted by: bondjedi | February 27, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

tasteblind --

Trying to force people who disagree with you off these boards show how insecure you are about your candidate.

I will not be silenced.

Posted by: svreader | February 27, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse


Hey, Messiah junkies,

For a good time, do a Google search on "Michelle Obama" and "Princeton thesis."

And... enjoy your stay in Jonestown.

Posted by: YouryellowribbonmagnetwontgetyouintoHeavenanymore | February 27, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

svreader is either a Clinton campaign mouthpiece or a republican, if you pay attention to some of the posts put up here, it's clear that the person knows jack about anything...talkin loud and saying nothin.

Posted by: tasteblind | February 27, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

While I agree the "gotcha!" questions were unnecessary, I actually think that Russert, and MSNBC in general, were "winners" of the debate last night.

It was refreshing, after so many CNN debates where the candidates simply talked over whomever the moderator was, to have some moderators actually wrapping things up and getting on to other questions.

Now if only they had really asked a broader range of questions...I agree with jxejxe, there were a lot of issues the didn't get touched on, and could have!

Posted by: mtconnelly | February 27, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and Wilco sucks, and your diet is your own fault. Quit whining.

Posted by: tasteblind | February 27, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Obama, wiil be viewed as "the guy who will raise your taxes through the roof"

Posted by: svreader | February 27, 2008 03:30 PM

He will. everyone knows it already. and surrender to al Queda and bomb allies and enhance trial lawyers at the expense of doctors and enhance teachers to the detriment of students and fight the same old 60s lib causes that have failed over and over. He doesn't even deny it like most Dems do before getting elected and flip-flopping, as thay always do.

what ever happened to the ten promises of Pelosi? I can answer that for you. One was kept. and that is a new record in promise keeping from Libs. Usually they just ignore all promises.

Ask what Murtha was sneaking around about today. Nothing ethical I can assure you. tell me about Jefferson's plum committee assignments?

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 27, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Like it or not Hillary is far more "presidental" that Obama. I think the women who hate on her do so because they don't have backbones of their own and the men are angry that she's got bigger ba%&s than they do, lol!

And is it just me, but does anyone else NOT read a comment more than say 10 or so lines long? Or am I the ONLY one who due to the need to read 5+ hours/day for school, can find something else more interesting to read?

Posted by: Justice66 | February 27, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

"Clinton was the dominant force in the debate last night, yet again demonstrating a substantive knowledge of policy that dwarfed Obama's."

Sorry Chris, this just didn't happen last night, not sure what debate you were watching.

Posted by: tasteblind | February 27, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton should stop destroying the Democratic party. How can she unite the country when she can;t even unite her own party? In the debate she kept on saying that she'd a fighter. Haven't we had enough fights the last 8 years? She's just going to bring more years of of vindictive, partisan, and petty politics... Much like her sleazy election campaign.

Posted by: BethesdaMD | February 27, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

claudia: his posts are like the canary in the coal mine. When you see one, the thread will be dead soon so it's time to leave.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 27, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Obama would have said: "Yes We Can" Been Very Very Good To Me.


>>>>I am so disappointed with Hilary Clinton to say whatever for a leaders name of another nation. That shows she is not ready to be the President of this great nation.

Posted by: LoganKalay | February 27, 2008 03:22 PM

Posted by: Alvordton | February 27, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

just ignore him spectator. everybody else does. i've been chastised by numerous posters for even acknowledging his existence -- they ope he'll go away if his frantic cries for help and attention aren't answered.

Posted by: claudialong | February 27, 2008 03:31 PM

this is how drindl ignores people. Can you spell cognitive dissonance?

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 27, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe you left the National Journal for the Post. Yikes. Bad decision.

Posted by: OverworkedUnderpaid | February 27, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

"And I missed the Wilco show. ARGH!"

I realize that this is supposed to be a somewhat edgy blog, but you are also a reporter and working under the Post's nameplate. This is unprofessional.

Posted by: jonathanmstevens | February 27, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Two pieces in a row whining about your dinner. Obviously you're making a point. Is the aimed-for audience your readers or your wife? Or the Washington Post for not providing you with meal expenses?

Whatever - please accept my sympathy and empathy. Just don't expect me to denounce or reject anyone.

Posted by: TomJx | February 27, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

New LAtimes poll released:

In head-to-head contests, the poll found, McCain leads Clinton by 6 percentage points (46 percent to 40 percent) and Obama by 2 (44 percent to 42 percent).

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 27, 2008 03:17 PM

I can only guess that the fact the Libs will lose has "ruined" spectators day. He prefers to live in his fantasy world. does reality always depress you? Maybe you and drindl could get a group rate in group therapy.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 27, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

just ignore him spectator. everybody else does. i've been chastised by numerous posters for even acknowledging his existence -- they ope he'll go away if his frantic cries for help and attention aren't answered.

Posted by: drindl | February 27, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

To conservatives, "Liberal" is a code-word for "Taxes"

When the rubber meets the road, Obama, wiil be viewed as "the guy who will raise your taxes through the roof"

Posted by: svreader | February 27, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

"Clinton was the dominant force in the debate last night, yet again demonstrating a substantive knowledge of policy that dwarfed Obama's."

I see no evidence substantiating this claim.
When you don't provide evidence to support arguments like this, you are opening your self to accusations of tendentiousness and bias.

Posted by: jonathanmstevens | February 27, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

While I appreciate that McCain repudiated the comments of this radio hack Cunningham, his operatives knew he was and the kind of stuff he says [this was less vitriolic than usual] and they still invited him to introduce McCain--and Rob Portman even said that Cunningham was an 'extremely important' part of McCain's campaign. So which is it? it sounds like trying to have it both ways. I hope that McCain is unaware of this sleazy strategy:

'CINCINNATI, Feb. 26 -- A supporter of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) ridiculed Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in an introductory speech at a McCain rally here this morning, repeatedly using Obama's middle name, Hussein, and deriding him as a terrorist sympathizer.

Immediately afterward, former Ohio congressman and former Bush administration official Rob Portman told the crowd that the supporter, radio talk-show host Bill Cunningham, was an "extremely important" part of McCain's presidential campaign.

McCain did not mention Cunningham's comments in his speech to the enthusiastic crowd of about 400. But to reporters afterward, McCain apologized profusely for "any disparaging remarks" made about Obama or the other remaining Democratic candidate, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.)."

On CNN McCain is being roundly lauded for apologizing and "taking responsibility." John King of CNN reported that McCain's staff had no idea that he would be headlining the event. In fact, the Enquirer reported it as follows:

Cunningham, a conservative Republican who also hosts a Sunday night syndicated radio show, said he was asked Monday "by a McCain operative" to introduce the Republican front-runner at Memorial Hall.'

Posted by: drindl | February 27, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Another thread ruined. On to the next one.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 27, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Right wing talk radio desperately wanted Hillary as the Democratic Candidate (Democrat Candidate as they would say in their childish peevishness) because they figured their 15 years of character assassination would be put to good stead. Thus, their unflagging declarations that Hillary would be the candidate ever since they finished with Kerry. Unfortunately for them, they forgot to tell their main stream media colleagues to lay off until after she received the nomination.

Obama will win despite the Republican attack machine, for the same reason Bill Clinton did. 20 year-olds see a person to which they relate. In John McCain, they don't. The personal attacks that are being lined up by the Republicans will simply alienate the younger voters further. They will turn out in droves, and that alone will do it. There will be about 100 Obama supporters for every Young Republican that votes.

Obama is probably the right person for the job. The country will need a person with the charisma and communication ability of FDR to get through the bleak aftermath of the economic, ecological, energy and foreign policy disasters of the last eight years. (Could anyone have done worse? It is truly remarkable, Cheney and Bush took every problem facing the nation, and made each and every situation worse, and just save it if you are trying to give them credit for no post 9-11 attacks, remember that Georg H and his trusted advisors, Cheney and Rumsfeld, didn't do much of a job preventing the first World Trade Center attack despite their years of "success" in their first go-round when they helped the Mujahideen and congratulated Saddam on his use of chemical weapons on the Iranians. Lets see what happens with the new generations of terrorists that Cheney & Bush begat.)

Obama will be the right guy, we are going to need a lot of hope.

Posted by: fk45 | February 27, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

I am so disappointed with Hilary Clinton to say whatever for a leaders name of another nation. That shows she is not ready to be the President of this great nation.

Posted by: LoganKalay | February 27, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Tim Russert said after the debate on MSNBC that the question about Russia was open to both candidates.

Please roll the Tivo. Russert asked Clinton only, not both candidates.

Russert lied again, just like he did on Judith Miller/Lewis Libby case.

Fix is right! If it was specifically addressed to Obama, we may be talking something different today. Well, may be not.

Kudos to Hillary! At least, this lady knew current events in Russia.

>>>>>Clinton or Obama knew the name of the next president of Russia seemed a bit out of place. (For the record, The Fix had NO idea it is Dmitri Medvedev.) Clinton managed to get out the name, although her "whatever" line afterward struck us as a bit strange. Did you wonder whether Obama knew the name? And would it have mattered? Should Russert have thrown a similar gotcha about a world leader at Obama?

Posted by: Alvordton | February 27, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 27, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

I was actually surprised that Sen. Clinton let herself be out-wonked by Obama, and also surprised that Obama was able to keep such composure during her meltdown mode (30 minutes into the debate) and attack mode (40-60 minutes into the debate). He came out the victor of the healthcare portion at the beginning, and was then able to take the high road the rest of the way.

Throughout, he stood toe-to-toe with her on policy specifics, while she seemed to be constantly calculating which Hillary should answer the next question, desperate and flustered by some inner need to apply every aspect of her debate strategy every five minutes. I thought she was supposed to be good at this sort of thing?

If it weren't too late in the game, I really think she needs to fire her campaign consultants (again).

Posted by: ChrisDC | February 27, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

I wouldn't say Obama followed Clinton's lead on Russia, he just went into more depth on the standard ideology of Russia-watchers. He brought up Bush's early kow-towing to Putin, Russia's heavy handedness with Eastern European and former Soviet Republic neighbors, etc. I'm sometimes amazed at the lack of policy knowledge among reporters who focus on politics and the horse race.

Posted by: donjaime37 | February 27, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

I can't wait until the "genius" Libs figure out that is was Red state cons who nominated their guy and who will defect instantly in the general election.

Just wait to see the cries of "no fair". Boo hoo. another presidential election falls away from the McGovern wing.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 27, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

I hope you ate some significant fiber with that half block of cheese Chris. ...Ouch!! lol

Well I'm still riding the fence on Hillary and Obama. The debate showed once again that, for all the hyperbole, they differ little on the issues. I am determined to stay neutral until I vote in the Montana primary, unless it's all over by then.

I agree that no one scored a breakthrough. Hillary's long connection with health care issues certainly showed. If she does not win the nomination, she will be a spearhead for health care in the Senate. Regardless of Obama's campaign position on health care, it will be hammered out with the input of Hillary and the rest of the Democrats in Congress.

If smart, the new president will get together with the Democratic caucus and get a consensus on pushing health care through Congress.

It's looking more like Obama I must say. Bill Clinton already set the bar by calling Texas and Ohio a must win. They will have to do a lot of backpedaling and that statement to keep going if Obama wins on Tuesday.

Posted by: AlaninMissoula | February 27, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Losers - the Dems

Mccain on his way to a landslide. never nominate an ultra-liberal. you'd think after Carter, McGovern, mondale and the others the Libs would learn. they never do.

New LAtimes poll released:

In head-to-head contests, the poll found, McCain leads Clinton by 6 percentage points (46 percent to 40 percent) and Obama by 2 (44 percent to 42 percent).

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 27, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

I'm an undecided Ohio voter, and I was hoping last nights debate would give me a clear winner. No such luck. It is clear that the partisans are the ones who reply in these comments, because to those of us who are not yet supporting either candidate, it was a draw. Clinton clearly knows her stuff, and has the toughness to fight. Obama has great style and oratory. She's too polarizing to me, and he is a policy light weight, at least as compare to the contenders that have already dropped out of the race. And I'm not at all sure how tough he will be with the opposition. I think Obama may have a better shot at the general election, but the rabid anti-Hilary commentators are driving me in her camp. I'm starting to be pretty dismayed by the mesiah like following for Obama - "the movement" - is kind of frightening. And I think he really wanted it both ways with Farakan. Otherwise he would have said straight out he doesn't want the support of someone that he so adamantly disagrees with. So, no closer to a decision today than yesterday, and only 5 days to go before the primary.

Posted by: pmcorwin | February 27, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

That's the same thing my eight-year-old usually has for dinner!

http://punditmom1.blogspot.com

Posted by: djbam | February 27, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

I watched nearly the entire debate, and I don't particularly think that Clinton was particularly good. Full disclosure - I'm an Obama supporter, but I know where he scored poorly (ducking the campaign finance question made him look flip-floppy & unprincipled). But once they were past the extended health care debate (which I thought was a tie for their substantive back & forth), I thought Clinton was just all over the map and highly unfocused compared to previous debates. In every other debate I've watched, as an Obama supporter, I've thought Clinton won all of them - except last night. She seemed petty, and again, after the health care debate was over, her attacks on Obama lacked substance. No one watches SNL anymore, so that attack-joke fell flat, and complaining about the media...? The pathetic-poor-me approach only occasionally works for High School students trying to get a date. By the end, she seemed dispirited and down. Obama by contrast, seemed to be in the exact same mood as when the debate started - relaxed, calm, and in control of his souroundings. I score this one a win on pts for Obama.

Posted by: erikpdumont | February 27, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

dyinglikeflies
-agreed.

Good for Hillary for at least not taking the media crap. I mean seriously Tim Russert asks her a question using not one but FOUR quotes and then when he gets to the same topic to Obama, he uses NO quotes from speeches and articles - which makes it super easy to say, oh well they misunderstood. Way to play softball Russert.

sv-reader: don't be bullied.

Posted by: bravegal79 | February 27, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Whining about getting the first question was not very presidential and whoever told her to say that should be fired. She completely lost all credibility with that whine. If it was meant to be funny it wasn't all it did is show this senator to be a complainer. She complains when Obama proves she supported NAFTA, she complains when Obama points out she forces people to buy insurance or be fined. She complains about everything but complaining about getting the first question is about as childish as I have ever seen. You would think she is running for class president with such a statement and she wants to be president. Having the first question would seem like you can set the debate but having watched Hillary in this campaign if she was always getting the second question she would probably complain about that too.

Posted by: info4 | February 27, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Cilizza is supposed to be watching all things political..but apparently, "We thought about putting Clinton the candidate into the losers category, but it didn't feel right," means that this is a group decision not to call the undertaker for Hillary's campaign.

Why? Who is "we" by the way, the editors?
I thought when "The Fix" started it was supposed to compete with all those "young, hip" blogger sites.

Instead I'm hearing strains of "Macarena" "Don't Stop.." playing in the background.

Posted by: hrayovac | February 27, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

You've mentioned that Sen. Obama has won 10 primaries in a row - actually, it's 11: he also won the Global Primary, organized by & for Democrats Abroad. Thus, he gets the lion's share of our voting delegates at the Convention.

Posted by: 7476 | February 27, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

I'm tired of both of them and the excitement generated by their supporters. They are typical politicians who are human, with faults and positives, and would probably both make mediocre, forgetable presidents. Nothing Lincoln-esqe or FDR about either of them.

Posted by: jwarj1 | February 27, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Not to make you feel worse than you already do, Chris, but the real winner last night was Wilco's transcendent performance of A Shot in the Arm.

Posted by: dc_rez | February 27, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

There is no "magic" there is no "secret" there is only reality or delusion.

Perception is not reality.

The reality of this situation is that Obama and Democtats are being set up for a fall.

I shudder to think of how we're all going to feel on the day after the election, knowing that McCain will the the President and the the Republicans have used Obama as a motivation to get their voters into the booth and recapture the Senate and the House.

I hope Democrats in Texas and Ohio are smart enough to see more than one move ahead.

If we nominate Obama, we're going to lose big. Not only the Presidency, but congress as well.

Posted by: svreader | February 27, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

To bravegal- don't worry, FOX won't go after Obama until they are 100% sure that Clinton is dead first. Last thing FOX wants to do is revive the clinton candidacy while there is still time for her to win.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | February 27, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

"row"...lol

Posted by: divamore2003 | February 27, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

I'm not surprised that a member of the media has to complain about Clinton having the nerve to point out the blatant bias in these debates. Chris, the NY Times checked, and Clinton has been asked the first question in all three one-on-one debates with Obama, and she's been asked more questions overall than he has been asked. No problem, though, right?

On the other hand, I am surprised that no one in the mainstream media noticed that Obama appeared to advocate a preemptive war strategy against other nations in a question about foreign policy - he almost quoted Bush verbatim in his excuse for invading Iraq. To read more, go here: http://katalusis.blogspot.com/2008/02/ohio-debate-raises-question-does-obama.html

Posted by: ichief | February 27, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

OPEN LETTER TO DEMOCRATIC BIG WIGS!I am writing to ask that you publicly support Hilalry Clinton for the Presidency. I watched democrats campaign and my kids and I were very impressed with our candidates. However, I feel that now would be a good time to show that gumption and help re-vitalize Hillary's campaign. She has the experience we need for young families like mine. Unfortunately, due to the blatant media bias, she has not had a fair go at the Presidency!I will soon be sending my oldest son to college, and frankly, it will be a challenge to finance, but we'll do it. I feel that Hillary is in a better spot to fight off the right wing attacks that will hit the democratic nominee. She is in a better spot to help get healthcare. And beyond the issues, I feel she is a good and honest hardworking woman who has been villfied and second guessed by the pundits on TV. I feel that it is fundamentally unfair that Barak has not had to answer hard questions. How is he going to bring people together. We all hunger to be united, as a nation and with diverse ideas. But HOW is Barak going to do this? He is so green behind the ears that I strongly feel he'll take some serious hits before he will make progress. We don't have time for a long learning curve. Again, I am a (relatively) young mother of three, a working woman and a small business owner who works long hours to progress economically. I am not a lobbyist (in the Washington sense of the word). But I guess I am lobbying all democrats for Hillary's endorsement. I thought to reach out because I feel democrats are people of integrity and inner strength, and would likely not bend to the wind, and rash movement toward the Obama campaign, especially at the superdelegate level-make the right choice!We have two choices for the Dem nominee..I feel Hillary is our best & smarter choice, and I feel she needs a lifeline. Please help her out...and by doing so, help her supporters!

Posted by: gs | February 27, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

svreader: "When people turn against Obama its going to be very strong, because nothing is worse than finding out that someone who you thought was "magical" is just human."

Do you know what the Obama magic really is? It's a simple little thing that all true leaders master called EMPOWERMENT. He makes people believe in THEMSELVES. He doesn't say, "I will do this"; rather he says, "Together, we can do this" and "We need to work together to build a new America." People are buying into it because they are affirmed as part of the solution and start to believe in themselves.

Nothing really magical about it.Clinton is a policy maven. Obama is a leader.

Posted by: Schmedley | February 27, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

I have the misfortune of hearing my co-worker listen to Fox News radio on his computer everyday.

And I have got to tell you, they are pumped to have NEW stories. The press has vetted every single Hillary story they can. There's nothing left.

With Obama, they're just starting to take a look.

If Tuesday goes to Obama, I'm worried about November - the press loves to create a front runner falls story.

Posted by: bravegal79 | February 27, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama has had the kitchen sink thrown at him and maybe the basement to: throwing out his middle name in a negative way, accompanied by a picture of Obama dressed in Somali garb, at the same time being endorsed by Farrakhan -- it's called "Got-Cha" politics, which is the worst kind of politics which only tends to divide and incite fear, it's called divide and conquer and/or "Swift Boating", which in reality is an assisination of character insinuating that Barack is a Muslin, even though it is false. I hope we Americans will not allow Camp Clinton and the Republicans to Swift-boat Barack like the Republicans did Kerry, turning a war hero into a deserter.

However, Obama can be of use to America by addressing the need of some to sow divisions and exploit our differences, instead of building on that which unites us, and "The world can use him too, with his reach to the Muslim nations and his middle name making it impossible for the US to walk away from one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in history. A restructuring of this overall policy is due after the demolition of the World Trade Towers. Some people think it's cool to be cynical. They deride those who show overt respect, admiration, and optimism. Those who still believe they can make a difference. Those who know they have power. This campaign has proven that cruelty is no longer desired as political style in the United States. The people now have a choice. A choice between magnifying the negatives or using the positives. I will say this. Obama has the potential to be one of the greats, but only if the people participate in molding his leadership. That's the task at hand. He, himself, invites others to recognize his faults not letting them interfere with the work. You can see how the people's support has molded him already in his quick evolution from weak debating events to the beautiful, strong, elegant, debate he delivered last night.." From: Blogger, J.M., Raging Universe.

We cannot afford to continue to alienate our allies and friends in the Middle East by insinuating that to have the name Hussein means that you are evil, a terrorist, or are to be feared. Do we really want to Convey that? We have to remember, it was not Sadam Hussein who bombed us on 911, though some would have you to think that. And, there are many good and decent people with the name Hussein in the Middle East, some of which have been our allies such as King Jordan Hussein. To continue to ridicule and fear the name Hussein, will only continue to incite hatred and hostility, with the result of no end of wars in sight. America the world is watching and we must decide as a nation what we are going to do.

Hillary Clinton, a consummate actress, represents the old-time party politics, the politics of distort, smear, tear and division. She likes to Fight while Barack likes to Unite. Through this whole campaign, Camp Clinton has been Denounced for being Karl-Rove Republican like which she now tries to throw off on Camp Obama. We all know who has engaged in a destructive, divisive and negative campaign. After 20 debates, and over 4 years, Tim Russert finally got her to come close to apologizing about her 35-year experience Yes vote for the Iraq war. Mature individuals apologize and take responsibility for their mistakes. Mature individuals after losing a primary, apologizes to their winning opponent. America is only as strong and good as her leaders and politicians. America, it is about the Past (fighting, distortion and division and getting nothing really accomplished) or the Future (uniting, goodwill and truth and breaking new ground), that is our Choice!

Posted by: wdsoulplane | February 27, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

One more thing, those that keep moving the bar for Hillary also need to get a grip. If she loses ONE state, it's over! No darn more chances! Her campaign deemed it so. Now that they are scared, it's another scheme. If they try to pull anything ther will be repercussions...she will lose by a landslide in the general. Besides, had he lost 11 states in a roll the media would have steamrolled him out of here! I don't expect the media or her supporters to be fair but don't think we can't see thru your BS! YOU ARE ALL SO FULL OF IT!


Posted by: divamore2003 | February 27, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

To "thecrisis"-
This is something I see as more insidious than immediate profit motive- Every Republican news outlet has been beating the drums for an Obama candidacy. Today he is Jesus to the press but tomorrow, once the press has knocked off Clinton, Obama will be the Golden Calf. The press favored Bush over Gore too. Yes, there is a profit motive, but it is a longer range one. The Republicans have always been more friendly to corporate media in their approval processes (FCC, FTC) than the Democrats. As Obama will find out in November, live by the media crush, die by the media crush.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | February 27, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

I've watched almost all of the 20 debates. They have served wonderfully to introduce the candidates and their views to the voters. Yet there has been one factor that really nags me, the fact that almost all of them were unavailable to those who only watch broadcast TV. Political debates seem like such a natural for public TV and would have a potentially wider audience, yet they gravitate to CNN or MSNBC mostly. I wonder what the dynamic is that keeps these debates off public TV. Is it the politicization of the CPB under Bush? Or that CNN or MSNBC outbid for the rights? And if that is the case, who gets these fees? I'm disappointed in the candidates that they didn't negotiate for wider access, especially for voters who can't afford cable.

Posted by: optimyst | February 27, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

thecrisis --

Not only won't I go away, but there are more and more people like me out there.

We are angry that Obama supporters have torn the heart out of the Democratic Party.

We will be even more angry if you lose the election for us.

We will not be bullied into submission!!!

You leave!!! I'm not going to!!!

Posted by: svreader | February 27, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

"Obama appeared to purposely defer to Clinton when it came to naming the next president of the country. Overall, it was the weakest of Obama's three debate performances...."

Are you channeling McCain?!? Purposely deferring to Clinton is right out of Machiavelli 101! How does Clinton come back to "Hillary would be a great president (but I would be better)."?!

And what about that great line about driving a bus into a ditch? Do you think McCain can handle that better than Clinton?

You need to get some sleep and a better diet....

Posted by: Schmedley | February 27, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

When people turn against Obama its going to be very strong, because nothing is worse than finding out that someone who you thought was "magical" is just human.

Lots of things will be coming out about Obama, any one of which will be enough to defeat him.

But its worse than that. Obama supporters, working in concert with Republicans, have eliminated Democrats biggest strength, the legacy of Bill Clinton and the comparison of what life was like under Clinton as compared to Bush.

In a twist of cruel irony, Obama supporters could very well make Karl Rove's 1000 year Republican Reich a reality.

For all of our sakes, I hope that doesn't happen.

Posted by: svreader | February 27, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

If you're going to call us delusional, please explain why. The bottom line is that last night's debate was largely a nonevent. However, if one blow landed, for me, it was Obama's "driving the bus into the ditch" analogy. I thought it was an excellent answer to Hillary's attempt to use his senate votes--all of which came AFTER the war started, unlike hers--to prove that their records on Iraq are the same. Couple that with her erratic behavior (the pillow gaffe) and I say Obama won.

Also, calling Obama a "Bush clone" is beyond absurd. He is, after all, "the most liberal" senator and clearly far more intellectual than GWB.

Posted by: finkelstein.matthew | February 27, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

A split would make it an even playing field. With everything going for Obama, he has to be able to knock out Hillary, or else he has to face the people again.

Posted by: vaidyatk | February 27, 2008 02:30 PM


Except that Obama has more delegates (and votes, and states).

Pennsylvania is close already. The biggest delegate haul outside of 8 Feb and 4 Mar is 6 May, with NC and IN voting. Obama leads both handily, at last look.

At some point Clinton has to make up the deficit, but the terrain just isn't that inviting for her...

Posted by: J | February 27, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

svreader, you need to go away for good. seriously.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 27, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Flies,

Clinton got the first questions because she was the frontrunner for so long and the media knows that the voters want to hear from the frontrunner first because that's who the most people care about. Quit being so naive. No one wants to see the first slam-bang question of the night go to Mike Gravel when people like Edwards, Obama and Clinton are on stage and are leading in the polls.

The media's job is not to be fair. The media's job is to make a profit, and with the GOP so intent on deregulating every industry, no one can complain that the media chases profits over objectivity and fairness. If a million people tune in to an Obama speech and 200,000 tune in to a McCain or Clinton speech, then they're going to show the Obama speeches more often because it generates more viewers and ad revenue.

It's just how the world works. Everyone needs to shut up, once and for all, about media bias. Media is biased toward money, end of story.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 27, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

For the "media is harder on Clinton" crowd, that is as it should be for someone who has consistently run on the idea that she has the MOST EXPERIENCE ("35 years" if you believe it). So if you're wondering why "the media is biased" whine isn't getting more popular traction it's because it is a non-starter with most objective observers for that ONE simple reason.

If your only qualification is "more experienced," you should be tested on that claim. (You should also make all the documentation - like her WH papers - public and transparent.)

If your qualification is that you "can inspire and bring people together," you should be tested on that one, too. (And staying cool and courteous with someone who's whole gig is to attack you personally serves to prove that point quite nicely, thank you.)

All things are working out just as they should...

Posted by: miraclestudies | February 27, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Hillary clearly won but it won't affect Obama supporters.

This is turning into a replay of the 2000 election.

In today's America, personality trumpts competence every time.

It was painful to see Bush beat Gore and then Kerry both of which would have been much better Presidents.

Obama is unelectable in a general election.

Republicans will beat the "hard drugs" issue to death.

The commercials with parents talking about losing their kids to Cocaine are heart breaking and the contrast between Obaam snorting lines of coke and John McCain in a POW camp are a killer.

I know people on these boards think Obama is Jesus, but he's not, he's just a very good actor when he's reading someone else's speeches.

If we nominate Obama, we're going to lose.

Posted by: svreader | February 27, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Whenever I watch debates, I'm impressed by Obama's knowledge of the issues, and he's always able to credibly defend his positions, even if Hillary disagrees with them. I'm not sure why the media is always, always so ready to give Hillary the most points on policy wonkery. Obama holds his own in every debate I've seen. And now, sadly, I've seen enough of them to last a lifetime. No more debates, please God.

Posted by: Seneca7 | February 27, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

As a frequent guest of MSNBC, I guess your head is up their bums. I'm starting to think the white guys of the news media are becoming increasingly jealous of the black guy possibly becoming the nominee in a presidential race. He's fighting off nine thousand scathing opinions from the lot of you and handling it pretty darn well. Todd is a joke, Olberman is in the tank for Hillary, Matthews hates everyone...Tucker, bless his heart is a hater put at least he's true to himself. Abrams needs to get a grip he'll never be his father.

Anyway, your review is dumb and disingenuous. There was no contest. It was really boring on all counts. Clinton whined, made excuses and played the victim. Obama managed to hold his own in spite of those asinine crap questions that were thrown his way.

Latina for Obama

Posted by: divamore2003 | February 27, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

I disagree with those who say Obama's record has not been scrutinized. I also oppose the criticism of Obama's supporters as some sort of hysteria.

*First - Papers like the Chicago Tribune have been covering Obama intensively. Stories in the Tribune and elsewhere have questioned passages in his first book, noted his previous drug use and cigarette smoking, discussed his upbringing in Indonesia and Hawaii, talked about his poker games in the State Senate, and dealt with lots of other topics. There is no lack of stories on his background and policy views. There is, though, a lack of major scandal.

At this point in Bill Clinton's campaign in 1992, he had already dealt with stories on his purported extramarital affairs, his draft dodging, his marijuana smoking, and a dodgy real estate deal known as Whitewater. So far, all the media has pinned on Obama is Rezko and some unpaid parking tickets. Is it because the media isn't looking? No, a media person could make a career by breaking a big negative story on Obama right now. If the Clintons had anything on Obama--along the lines of the photo of him in tribal dress in Africa--they'd slip it to Drudge in a hurry. All the Clinton whining about the coverage of Obama is just that--whining--and it's mighty unappealing in a candidate.

*Second - How many references to mass hysteria, Kool Aid drinking, and juvenile infatuation will we have to endure? Obama excites people. He gets them cheering at rallies and working for him on cold rainy days and sending contributions. He draws people to come out and vote. And this is bad for the Democratic Party somehow? All these people are just idol worshipers? I don't get it. If Obama can continue appealing to people in this manner, he will win in November and so will lots of Democrats running for Congress.

Posted by: wesfromGA | February 27, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

jsnapper- If you or other Clinton supporters are indeed contemplating voting for McCain, partly because of the comments from Obama supporters on forums like this, perhaps you should reconsider your priorities in a candidate.

Consider:
-You are voting for the president, not his supporters. You don't need to agree with all of the, or even like them.
-The people writing the comments you don't like may be George W Bush for all you know, thats what you get on an annonymous message board, so maybe you're being roped in by a Republican having some fun.

Most of Obama's policies mesh with Clintons; can you say the same about McCain? If you think Obama has been in some way insulting/dirty/otherwise not worthy, fine, don't vote for him. If you are irritated at message boarders who support him- get a thicker skin.

Posted by: drek0002 | February 27, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

The media, with its bias-driven wisdom, had already said that Obama does not have to win, and Clinton needs a knock-out. Such simplistic suggestions remind me of the New Hampshire vote where the media were ready to project a win for Obama based on exit polls. My take is that Hillary had to hold off Obama yesterday because the whole world knows that he is on a roll. But he can be tripped in Texas and Ohio. It is remarkable that with all the divine inspiration and god's words emanating from Obama, no body is yet to predict a knock-out of Hillary from Obama in these states. That should be the logical take because everything is going for him: money, endorsements, crowds and media, and adoration. This shows that Obama is not divine, and he can loose! People are the arbiters in this election, and Hillary or Obama can be knocked out only by the people. Ohio and Texas together can make it or break for either of them. A split would make it an even playing field. With everything going for Obama, he has to be able to knock out Hillary, or else he has to face the people again.

Posted by: vaidyatk | February 27, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Think the media has been fair to clinton in the debates? Get real. Here's proof, from a USA today analysis:

"Here's our analysis -- and a request for more help if you want to weigh in:

• There have been six Democratic debates this year.
• One included John Edwards and Gov. Bill Richardson.
• Two featured Edwards, Clinton and Obama.
• Three have been one-on-one debates between Clinton and Obama.
• In five of the six, the first question of the evening was directed to Clinton.
• If you expand the category to examine the first three subjects addressed during each debate, the first questions were directed to Clinton 10 of the 18 times.
• Last night, for the first three subjects, Clinton got the first question each time."

The press has been whoring itself out to the Obama campaign, and selling itself pretty cheaply at that.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | February 27, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

1. Immigration was only mentioned one time, and that was when Obama himself brought it up and simply to illustrate a minor difference between him and Hillary. Yet, immigration is the Dems' weakest spot, and really pressing them on that topic could show that both aren't fully qualified to be president.

2. The NAFTA bit from the transcript is interesting, as they both dance around the fact that they actually support such trade agreements, they just want to round off the sharp edges and fluff the pillows a bit. It's too bad Russert didn't have the guts to ask about this:

http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007494.html

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | February 27, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

By portraying herself as both a victim of the press and a tough fighter at the same time, Clinton is trying to shore up her core constituency. She explicitly said as much during the debate with her "First Woman President...Sea Change" remarks. She was a victim and a fighter in N.H. too. It seems to play well for her and she may have pulled it off last night.

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 27, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Dyinglikeflies (is that a comment on your candidate?) no need to insult Obama supporters just because you are feeling a bit down. I am a strong Obama supporter but don't relish watching a fine candidate self-destruct. Sen. Clinton's swipe about Saturday Night Live was a whine unbefitting a presidential candidate and by the way, since when is getting first crack at a question, getting to set the agenda and tone, seen as a burden? Every sports team in town always tries to get the ball first -- unbelievable to make your first point of the most crucial debate of your life a rant on ... the questioners! All Sen. Obama had to do was deflect the Clinton attacks and he did that and more; always remaining calm and unflappable, he certainly projected a presidential appearance. And on another point, did anyone else notice that Chris probably gave up alot of information about his internal biases by disclosing above that he cut his teeth at the National Journal -- the rag that each year rates the Democratic candidate as "THE MOST LIBERAL" in the Senate? Interesting ... but Yes We Can!

Posted by: Omyobama | February 27, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Meanwhile, the guy who should be president is making real sense about Afghanistan and Iraq... http://soonerthought.blogspot.com/2008/02/biden-afghanistan-forgotten-war.html

Posted by: soonerthought | February 27, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Three points

1. Senator Obama won this debate because he was cool under pressure. You might even say he was presidential.

2. Denounce (to publicly condemn as evil) versus Reject (to rebuff). Denounce was was appropriate in this context and Senator Clinton only served to make herself seem small and petty.

3. Senator Obama just crossed the one million donor mark. That is an absolutely phenomenal accomplishment.

These points put him squarely in the winner's corner.

Posted by: dnbraggs | February 27, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

I get trying to be balanced, but accuracy has to trump giving some to each side. Hillary whined about the order of the questions, insisted on getting the last word on health care, moderator be d**ned, referred to an SNL skit that (a) nearly everyone avoided viewing and (b) apparently also went unwatched by Hillary, and repeatedly tried to run away from her own statements. She also _finally_ owned up to her Iraq vote being a mistake. Her continuing refusal to release her tax returns made it look like she has something to hide. And as much as she tried, she could not run away from her words about NAFTA. She admits she supported it then, and she admits it's a bad deal now. Just like Iraq.

Obama (a) showed himself to be just as wonky on health care as Clinton with his reference to Part B (b) pointed out that if you're against a law, you should vote against it and (c) deftly avoided being tied to Farrakhan. As someone else said, both got equally hardball questions, but Obama's skill in handling them made them look like softballs in retrospect.

To all but the most committed Clinton partisan, it wasn't close. The MSNBC poll that went for Obama 65-27 as the winner bears that out. And the parade of Dem party leaders coming out for Obama continues unabated. Point being, there's no objective evidence that it was anything other than a decisive victory for Obama.

Posted by: gbooksdc | February 27, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

These "gotcha" debate questions, whether it's the price of milk or the name of the dictator of Pakistan (which Bush the candidate once flubbed), are stupid and meaningless. The real answer to the question about the Russian president is that it doesn't matter who he is, because he's only a figurehead controlled by Putin, who will continue to tighten his grip on power in Russia. I'm sure that both Obama and Clinton grasp this reality.

Russert's question about whether either of them would reserve the right to re-invade Iraq if Al Qaeda took power was even more idiotic. AQI is never going to take power, so the whole premise is wrong.

Posted by: pjkiger1 | February 27, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

If you asked Medvedev who the next president of the US is going to be, I bet he would know the answer was "Barack Obama."

The real winner last night was Tim Russert. The man is a righteous "G"!

Posted by: bondjedi | February 27, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Hoomes -

The press is not biased toward any party or candidate.

The press is biased toward the best story and what makes them the most money. In 1992 it was the story of an upset by a young governor from Arkansas. In 2000 it was the thought of a VP getting knocked off by a young, bipartisan GOP governor from Texas who had a lot of charm and who could relate to average people well.

In 2004 it was Bush defeating the Democrats despite the War in Iraq and gas prices.

In 2006 it was the story of a massive party-flip in Congress.

Now it is the story of Obama, an even younger, more inexperienced black junior senator from inner-city Chicago knocking a household name off the pedestal of presumptive nominee. But running up to November, the storyline will change. A Republican holding on to the White House in such a disastrous year for the GOP would be a huge story, so I'm not too sure the MSM will favor Obama, though Obama's rags-to-riches story will always be popular for getting more viewers and higher ratings.

The media cares more about selling their product than they care about any politician. Right now, Obama's speeches on television bring more advertising revenue than Clinton and McCain combined, I'm sure.

And since the GOP is always pushing for deregulation and "free market" principles in all things, you have nothing to complain about because unless we regulate or federalize the national media, they'll always pay more attention to the candidate that gets the most viewers and brings in the most money for them. Right now that's Barack Obama.

Get over it.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 27, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Good analysis with one exception. Hillary certainly did not "dwarf" Obama on substance. On health care, the converse is true. Obama is the one who goes into some detail on health care (granted, not alot) and last night he was practically pleading with Hillary to offer specifics on how she planned to enforce her mandate, etc. She dodged these points entirely.

Posted by: Republicus1 | February 27, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Good analysis with one exception. Hillary certainly did not "dwarf" Obama on substance, especially on health care. Obama is always the one who goes into some detail (granted, not alot)and last night he was practically pleading with Hillary to explain, among other things, how she specifically planned to enforce her mandate. She dodged these points entirely.

Posted by: Republicus1 | February 27, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Get Tim Russert old fart out of here. Dumbo with an opportunity to test the qualification of the future president you should be asking meaningful questions that matter to American public and about world politics and situations, not about freaking 'are you going to release your tax return by tuesday?', you seem to be aiming to get out gotcha headline. You dumbo, NBC please fire this ass. And you should have least bit respect to candidates instead of cutting them off on their rebuttal. Everyone should get fair chance to answer a charge. Sick of looking at your ugly face Tim. You should retire.

Posted by: hemisphere | February 27, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

I suggest that Obama supports quit seeming petty and vindictive by writing things like "Hillary is baked, Vote for Obama!" and "Poor Hillary. After years of being told again and again that she is the best and brightest, some genial upstart overtakes her with his superior intelligence, his wit and his charm. What's a girl to do?". Believe it or not, many Clinton supporters will consider voting for McCain. These sentiments by Obama supporters don't help.

Posted by: JSnapper | February 27, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Chris, Sorry to rub it in, but the debate was a bore. You really really really should have taken the night off and gone to Wilco!

Posted by: tkinnama | February 27, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

The analysis that Hillary Clinton was "dominant" last night depends on what your definition of "dominant" is, Chris.

Everyone has had to deal with someone who "dominates" the way Hillary did last night (and as she is prone to do), i.e., through sheer determination that she's right and everyone else is a moron. She just can't listen to other people's views because she KNOWS she's 100% right. (Ergo, everyone else is 100% WRONG.)

Hillary grinds every opponent into the ground, not seeing that person as a potential ally if she'd just give them credit for the COMMON ground. That's just how conflict-oriented people "work out" their disagreements with others. Only total submission will do. There is NO room for compromise.

Everyone has had a teacher or a boss like that. Everyone has had to deal with a person with that kind of "dominant" mentality. Most of us have had to live under an "authoritative" figure like that at one time or another in their life. (Some of us have even been married to one.)

It is a conflict-oriented approach to problem solving that leads to highly conflicted RESULTS...and we've had it now for almost 8 long years...and just look at the results we've gotten!

BUT, if that kind of "dominant" is what the American public sees as productive in solving our collective problems (not to mention our problems with other nations), then that is what we deserve as our next president.

LOTS of Americans apparently see the use of dominant force (and not the power of reason and compromise) as the way to solve their own problems, too.

Hillary would make a fine president. For them.

Posted by: miraclestudies | February 27, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

that would be dyinglikeflies...my apologies.

Posted by: jazzgrrrl25 | February 27, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

if the sounds of the celestial choirs weren't making such a racket, perhaps i could better understand droppinglikeflies comment...one contest, are you kidding me?...and by the by, some of us are simply self employed with the freedom to take a longer lunch break...without the 'shrooms.

Posted by: jazzgrrrl25 | February 27, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

I think most of washington journalists need adult supervision. They have behaved really irresponsibly during this election cycle, peddling the Obama mania. If you are convinced watch Chris Mathews, Tim Russert and Chuk Todd on MSNBC or read the columns of Maureen Daowd or Frank Rich in NYT. None these guys have actually analysed Obama's record and what he stands for, while Hillary's whole life has been dissected and vilified by the so called journalists. Now after destroying Hillary and imposing the weakest Candidate as the Dem nominee they satrted asking questions about Obama. I say they should wait till Nov 4th to ask questions, that way they will have another Bush Clone (Obama) in WH. Then after 6 months or 1 year they can turn against him and go to the town and vilify him with eaqual venom and pretend that they are surprised at his in competence.

Posted by: bjoseph1 | February 27, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

I think most of washington journalists need adult supervision. They have behaved really irresponsibly during this election cycle, peddling the Obama mania. If you are convinced watch Chris Mathews, Tim Russert and Chuk Todd on MSNBC or read the columns of Maureen Daowd or Frank Rich in NYT. None these guys have actually analysed Obama's record and what he stands for, while Hillary's whole life has been dissected and vilified by the so called journalists. Now after destroying Hillary and imposing the weakest Candidate as the Dem nominee they satrted asking questions about Obama. I say they should wait till Nov 4th to ask questions, that way they will have another Bush Clone (Obama) in WH. Then after 6 months or 1 year they can turn against him and go to the town and vilify him with eaqual venom and pretend that they are surprised at his in competence.

Posted by: bjoseph1 | February 27, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

I accutely remember the 92 election when Bush 41 never got A break with the liberal MSM. Without their help, Clinton would have never won. Its nice to see the shoe on the other foot. Get over it Hillary, the press is Bias. Something we conservatives knew a long time ago.

Posted by: vbhoomes | February 27, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

There was an interesting moment during one of Russert's long questions. Clinton said something like, You're giving a lot of hypotheticals, Tim.

I wanted Obama to jump in and say, a president has to be ready for any hypothetical situation. Who would have thought in 2000 that someone would try to fly a plane into the Pentagon? If you look at the video of Bush's initial response--dazed--in the Florida school, you realize how unprepared he was to deal with something so far off his script.

There are a lot of things a president can control; there are a lot of things he/she cannot. I don't know how to measure the two candidates on their readiness to adapt to a swiftly changing world, but the debates give you some idea of how they think. Clinton in the debates has said she wants to run the government and manage things. Obama wants to lead the country. Who would be better dealing with the unexpected? It seems Obama is unflappable and calm under pressure. Increasingly, Clinton just seems angry and petulant.

Posted by: wesfromGA | February 27, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

kreuz_missile is en pointe...that neither candidate knew the skinny on something and someone who is potentially a formidable player in the global game is shameful, and, yes, embarrassing...and while they may not be students of russian studies, they should be up on global current events...particularly one as glaring as this...perhaps, they'll take it as a lesson learned and not drop the ball again...russert made his point well.

Posted by: jazzgrrrl25 | February 27, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

can you imagine another Web site -- with the possible exception of the Huffington Post -- meriting a mention in a nationally televised political debate?

Umm...didn't youtube and myspace (websites) both sponsor debates? Politico gets dropped often, too...

While it seems unlikely that the fix will get a plug during this election cycle, if things continue as they have, I anticipate a "fix-based" question in the '12 debates.

Posted by: brianspak | February 27, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Obama wins one contest- he has more bloggers haunting the web with repetitive posts. Makes you think the majority of his supporters are unemployed or home-bound. Anyone who watched that debate who can say Obama won it is either delusional (his word) or should lay off the 'shrooms.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | February 27, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

The biggest loser: Tim Russert.

No contest. What an asinine jerk.

Posted by: jlelijah | February 27, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

I have CNN on - they are reporting that Rep. Lewis from Georgia, a super-delegate pledged to Clinton will switch his vote to Obama. Nothing confirmed, but they are trying to reach his office for comment.

Posted by: goodwater1 | February 27, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

though i don't think clinton will win texas...ohio, maybe...there is a bigger issue at hand...she cannot beat mccain...I don't see how the democratic party can, In good conscience, back a losing horse...she's had ample opportunity to hold her own and, unfortunately, to her demise, she has not played a smart hand...as to the media's scrutinizing attention to her...they are none too quick to forget her past indiscretions, her dubious tactics to achieve her passions, her appearance of secrecy regarding papers, taxes and such and her lack of grace and diplomacy in many general interactions...she has become their fodder..in watching last night's debate, she struck me as a woman of desperation, the little kid in the classroom, overstepping her boundaries, crying "I know, I know, pick me, pick me"...that obama has projected a "cool drink of water" attitude and is winning in the popular poll must be driving her mad...she is a fighter, of this there is no doubt, but her lack of grace and diplomacy are off-putting...obama has held his own...he answered questions specifically and succinctly, directly refuted rebuttals and accusations..refused to "take the bait", as it were, and tended to aim for grace...and in doing so, tempered the tone of the latter part of the debate...for the big win, this is what the democratic party needs...not a blustering gale blowing hither and yon...he has shown himself to be a force to be reckoned with...running a campaign that is focused, determined, streamlined...a fighter in his own right, but of a different ilk...the democratic party would be well served to have a strong leader who comes to grace and diplomacy easily,yet with a firm hand...there is the bigger battle ahead with the republican party , the veritable snakepit that is congress and the global interactions to consider...more bees with honey, baby.

Posted by: jazzgrrrl25 | February 27, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

"We know there are a lot of Drudge haters out there, but can you imagine another Web site -- with the possible exception of the Huffington Post -- meriting a mention in a nationally televised political debate?"

Talking Points Memo, as the first commenter said.

Or Daily Kos.

I agree that Obama has had better debates on policy, but he sure kept his cool throughout this one. Very interesting body language at one point, as he held his hands - palms pressed together - in front of his face.

I'm voting for Obama because of his background, judgment (Iraq), and temperament.

Barack Obama: community organizer, constitutional law prof, lawmaker, zen master.

Posted by: julie | February 27, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

So where does this leave Richardson? He probably hoped the debate would direct him to a sure thing...but he better speak up before March 4th or his endorsement won't mean more than a transparent bid for VP rather than the support either candidate needs.

Posted by: awarnes | February 27, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

hey "the fix"...

are you for real?

senator obama CLEARLY WON the debate last night!

he was very clear on his issues, precise, calm, mature, decisive and much more presidential than senator clinton...

she acted immature, very school girl like and petty, indecisive, agitated, unprofessional, and unpresidential...

i truly think that last night sealed her demise, and the american people were looking at our next President of the United States, Mr. Barack Obama!

i truly feel that if a person was

Posted by: docdwb | February 27, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

LOSE = WHEN YOU LOSE AN ELECTION

LOOSE = WHEN A SHIRT IS TOO BAGGY FOR YOU

COME ON PEOPLE IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE SPEAKING IN HEBREW HERE.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 27, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

The problem with Hillary Clinton through out this campaign was that she wanted to win based on sympathy votes. People can only feel sorry for her for so long, after awhile they begin to demand a reason to vote for Hillary. And Hillary never gave a reason for people to vote for her. If people can remember Hillary never gave a speech about why she was entering the race other than that internet video of her saying "I'm in it to win it". What the hell does that mean? I campaign was doomed for the start. Even her suppossed base women have come to the realization that sympathy alone is not a reason to vote for someone. Hillary lost this campaign before it even begin.

Posted by: lumi21us | February 27, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

B/c all the posters are so snarky--I thought I might balance them out. The Fix is wonderful, the National Journal is simply the damn best publication on politics and DC out there, and missing Wilco is a shame.

Posted by: jb326200 | February 27, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

In the words of one of your favorite candidate's advisors, ENOUGH! Give it up buddy. You are really straining to put a positive spin on HRC's performance last night and its a loosing effort. I mean c'mon - "We thought about putting Clinton the candidate into the losers category, but it didn't feel right." So instead you depicted "Clinton's one-liners" as the looser.

Let's shun the entertainment value of news media for a second and face reality. She lost pure and simple and her campaign is loosing. If Obama were in her shoes and lost 11 contests straight, I can only imagine the outcry from your blog. As evidence of your deep seated bias in favor of Clinton (or maybe against Obama) you apparently can't even admit that she lost, choosing rather to refer to some abstract concept of her phrasiology (which you somehow view as seperate from the candidate herself) as the looser.

The truth that you, the media and HRC's campagin misses is that HRC is simply a flawed candidate. No new strategy, tweaking, or message will change that. Everyone knows that HRC's worst enemy is HRC. Time and time again she lives up to the label (earned rightly or wrongly) of a shrill, petty, one-dimensional politician whose hubris and entitlist attitude is exceeded only by her political ambition.

We know you like her and her brand of politics, just do us all a favor in the interests of full disclosure - drop the impartial journalist schtick - the fix is for the op-ed section of the wapo, not those devoted for fact based reporting squared with objective reality.

Posted by: icr7 | February 27, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Another winner. Judgment.... which trumps experience. Hillary's vote for giving Bush the power to take us to war loses to Obama's judgment in rejecting such a hideously wrong scheme.

Obama won the debate because he displayed the measured temperament of a president, while Hillary (and clips of her previous bi-polar moments) looked flushed, angry and unpresidential.

IMHO, temperament is now paramount in debates and on the stump.

While Hillary supposedly is thoroughly-vetted, her roller-coaster performances raise the question.... "Who ARE you?"

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth_Hunter | February 27, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

To Chris, re: your lack of knowledge about Dmitri Medvedev

A little NPR in the morning can go a LONG way. Medvedev is brought up at least 2x weekly. Perhaps listen during your commute? Or podcast?

Posted by: emmydoll81 | February 27, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Can she pull off Texas? That is now the big question, which at this time looks to be edging towards Obama:

Texas Primary- Hillary vs. Barack:
http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=50

The whole Sat. Night Live bit was just too much though.

Posted by: davidmwe | February 27, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Chris: "Clinton was the dominant force in the debate last night, yet again demonstrating a substantive knowledge of policy that dwarfed Obama's."


I disagree w/the premise; Clinton would have rambled on the entire debate were there not moderators. The moderators should have stopped her. You are saying she demonstrated her substantive knowledge of policy, I say she wouldn't shut-up.

Think likability. It does count. I thought, "Four years of this? Yikes! Eight, double Yikes!"

Hillary does have command of the issues as does Barack. Barack appears in control, even-tempered and unflappable (Give him points for that!). I want those qualities in a leader. Hillary seems erratic, not just at the debate but all week. What will she be like in a crisis if she wins? I know you are discussing the debate, but the debate didn't occur in a vacuum. What kind of leader will she be?

Posted by: claire2 | February 27, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Clinton "dwarfed" Obama on foreign policy? I didn't see it! Clinton appeared "dwarfish" with her niggling over "renounce-reject" and whining over "going first." Her soliciting campaign contributions by advertising her website seemed particularly small-minded, "dwarfish," if you will. One candidate appeared presidential and the likely nominee. The other appeared peevish and angry. Guess which is which?

Posted by: Dahveed1 | February 27, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Like other posters, I agree with mhallville: Clinton did not show policy knowledge vastly superior to Obama's. In fact, they both seemed to know their stuff.

I also do not understand your comment about Obama's "semi-tepid condemnation" of Farrakhan. He made crystal clear that he rejects Farrakhan's anti-Semitism. What did you expect him to do: begin screaming curses about Farrakhan? Make nasty comments about Farrakhan's mother? I am Jewish, and I thought that Obama handled the question in a more than satisfactory manner.

Finally, I do not understand why you think this was the "weakest" of Obama's three one-on-one debate performances. I thought it was his best. He just seems to get better and better at this with each debate.

I don't accuse you of favoring Clinton,at least intentionally, but you do seem to give her peformance more credit than it deserves, while giving Obama's less.

Posted by: lydgate | February 27, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else read about this going on tonight, outside Washington?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1976587/posts?page=14

Seems as though Pelosi (D-CA) has her boy Murtha (D-Abscam) hitting up all the special interests for some bucks in a quid pro quo deal.

What a complete slime bucket. Hard to say I'm shocked, though.

Posted by: JD | February 27, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

I have to agree with the other posters that the statement "Clinton was the dominant force in the debate last night, yet again demonstrating a substantive knowledge of policy that dwarfed Obama's" is wrong on on a molecular, no, a subatomic level. There is absolutely nothing in that statement that can be proven. For your own self-respect, CC, pease go ahead and cross through this vacuous statement.

It IS easy, however, to show where it came from: "The wonky Washington magazine for which the Fix cut his teeth as a reporter is going to get a A LOT of press over the next eight months or so after rating Obama as the most liberal senator in 2007."

Replace 'wonky' with "clearly biased" and you'd have a more accurate statement. Go look at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/spectrum.xpd (thanks, Mark_in_Austin) if you are truly interested in how 'liberal' or 'conservative' anyone's record really is. Otherwise, ignore such made up 'facts' OR just keep on drinking that Kool-Aid!

Posted by: judgeccrater | February 27, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

I think Clinton's emotional roller coaster last night really does her a lot of harm with male voters. I'm not trying to be sexist but when Obama is cool, calm and collected from start to finish, and Clinton is flipped-out angry in the beginning, tearfully sad in the middle and compassionate at the end, it's going to make a lot of people uncomfortable.

If Obama went out there and went through an entire emotional cycle more likely to be on one of Oprah's "coming out" shows, people would think the world had turned upside down.

But people have come to expect emotional instability from Clinton because that's what she's given us. Crying, Hillary's soft side, her fighting side, her angry side, her sad side, I mean give me a break. This kind of emotional instability is going to make a lot of men, who *tend* to like rock-solid candidates, very uncomfortable.

There's only one Barack Obama - relaxed, confident, assertive - and it's the one I am voting for.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 27, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

I thought last night was HRC's best outing by far. But she muffed perhaps her best -- and last -- opportunity. She needed to draw distinctions not only on substance but on style. And that video showing her mocking Obama's "I'd like to buy the world a Coke" approach was served up on a silver platter.

But she didn't go for it. Not one line about, while all the Democrats are sweetness and light, the Republicans fight hard and nasty. Not one pitch that she knows what they're capable of and she knows how to fight them. While going after Obama might not have won her points going after the Republicans would have had the audience standing on their seats and cheering. Pity.

Posted by: anon99 | February 27, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Okay last post -

On health care, I refuse to accept that Hillary "won" that debate. The fact is she still hasn't explained how Obama is "lying" about her plan, even though she continually complains about it. And she said, in the DEBATE, that "we need an honest debate about the facts..." on health care. After 20 debates, Hillary, if you aren't able to fully explain how Obama is "lying" about your health care plan, then you're a pretty sad excuse for a public servant.

The fact is that Obama isn't lying about her plan - it forces all people to buy health care from private companies with no guarantee that prices will come down and no guarantee that coverage will be worth the price we're forced to pay. I'm simply not interested in having Hillary force me to buy health care unless she federalizes the entire system and can guarantee I'll get quality results at an affordable price. Until then, she's just blowing hot air and Obama called her out on it.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 27, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Can't the media and candidates conduct a debate on issues besides health care and NAFTA?

What about global warming, NCLB and education, fossil fuels and alternative energy? What about genetically-modified food and agribusiness and the diminishing family farmer? What happened to that bugaboo from the Republicans, immigration?

I could care less about the distinction between denounce and reject. I doubt anything in the Clintons' tax returns will tell us how well she'll govern.

Last night's debate was revealing in that it showed Barack looking more presidential than before, in my opinion. But the repetitive questions and continued emphasis on unimportant or nonsensical issues serves no one's interests.

Posted by: jxejxe | February 27, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Chris - Wilco are regulars at ACL (Austin City Limits) Festival. Maybe this thing will be over and you can buzz in for SXSW. I love politics but music is my passion. Mean while back at the Ranch..... Barack is back in Texas. A major rally in San Marcos (30k student college 30 miles south of Austin) tonight and a forum at the Austin Convention center in the morning. Barack is now ahead in Texas but within the margin of error. Rock on or should I say Barack on!

Posted by: bradcpa | February 27, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Poor Hillary. After years of being told again and again that she is the best and brightest, some genial upstart overtakes her with his superior intelligence, his wit and his charm. What's a girl to do? Right now, I think she is in shock - this was supposed to be a sure thing for Team Clinton.
Nothing to see here....move along folks....

Posted by: randomsandythoughts | February 27, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Poor Hillary. After years of being told again and again that she is the best and brightest, some genial upstart overtakes her with his superior intelligence, his wit and his charm. What's a girl to do? Right now, I think she is in shock - this was supposed to be a sure thing for Team Clinton.
Nothing to see here....move along folks....

Posted by: randomsandythoughts | February 27, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Nat Journal methods are deliberately flawed. They always find whoever is the leading Dem candidate to be the most liberal in the universe. Please stop repeating this nonsense. Here is source for some serious, non-partisan analysis:

http://voteview.ucsd.edu/sen110.htm

Obama is tied for 10th most liberal, Clinton is 20th most liberal and McCain is 8th most conservative.

http://voteview.ucsd.edu/sen109.htm

Obama is 21st and Clinton is 25th most liberal. Mccain is 8th most conservative.

Please stop re-using dishonest partisan sources with out clearly identifying them as such. Please feel free to use better academic non-partisan analyses.

Posted by: sauerbach | February 27, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for your insights Chris.

I wonder though whether this debate will be like the one before New Hampshire. I thought Clinton came across looking a lot stronger -- especially in the health care section in the beginning -- at time when media stories give the impression that Obama will win. I wonder if this debate will lead to surprise Clinton victories.

One other thing: I think the debate showed the importance of knowing when not to talk. If Clinton had not given an openning to Obama to clean up his answer to the Farakhan question, Obama would have had to answer questions on that issue for the next few days.

Posted by: hochberg | February 27, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, I'm with mhallville, I really don't get the "dwarfed" comment. Clinton is somewhat better at spitting out lots of details at a rapid speed... which buys her what, exactly?

Posted by: Nissl | February 27, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

I agree with mhallville. I thought Obama's answer on the National Journal topic was superb. He is walking the walk - refusing to engage in stupid partisan labeling and bickering and instead exposing the true motives behind all of the controversy today. He completely defused the NJ's "liberalness" study and made the authors of said study look stupid and petty in the process.

One newspaper coming up with arbitrary reasons to label every single vote in Congress as either "liberal" or "conservative" should be wholly ignored. I would say only 25-30% of votes in Congress are partisan issues, the rest have significant overlapping between the parties and one vote can't be labeled simply as black or white.

And it is the attempts to make every single vote liberal or conservative that are aiding in driving a wedge in the middle of this country. Obama pays more attention to unifying issues and simply refuses to openly attack his opponents when such an attack is not entirely called for - in which case he still will give his opponent the benefit of the doubt and just leave it alone (Clinton saying she didn't release the Somali photo; McCain apologizing for his colleagues remarks the other day).

Posted by: thecrisis | February 27, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

ok folks, a quick disclaimer: didnt see last night debate because of work. i did catch some highlights. but from that here's my winners and losers

Winners!
Obama:staying on the high road and landing a couple of hits on hillary.

Drudge Report:(sort of) why do you guys in the media keep giving that twerp free publicity? there are better sites out there! would it make you guys feel better if i started citing from the NY Times politics blog?

Losers!
Hillary: DOWN GOES HILLARY,DOWN GOES HILLARY!!!! look to 3/4 as the end of Hillary

CC Colon: i only got one word for you, Roughage! eat a salad or fruits. i would imagine your pretty backed up eating all that cheese right now.or better yet swing by my house for sunday dinner and have some collard greens and okra. YUM!

Posted by: jaymills1124 | February 27, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

ou say:
"Clinton was the dominant force in the debate last night, yet again demonstrating a substantive knowledge of policy that dwarfed Obama's."

I'm sorry, but I didn't see the same debate, then. On the health care portion of the debate, I thought Obama was stronger, correcting Clinton's point about medicare (he noted Medicare Part B is not mandatory).

Could you look through the transcript, Chris, and point us to the two or three sections where her substantive grasp of policy dwarfed his? I bring it up because I think she gets a free ride on this and some folks go with their pre-conceived notions on this -- look at the transcript, and there is a whole lot less substance there than you think.

Posted by: mhallville | February 27, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

I started to get really sick of Russert's ridiculous questions.

"If a meteor struck New York and decimated all of Manhattan while China invaded California and India and Pakistan went into nuclear war, what would you do to make sure your neighbors don't loot the electronics store in suburban Chicago?"

Hypothetical questions are only worth the likelihood that they will occur and Russert's questions were off-the-charts stupid. And his Russia question was lame and irrelevant. If there were any real challenge in Russia, it would be a more important question. But for now, the new guy might as well be John Goodman because for all intensive purposes, Putin is still the man to watch. Besides, we haven't had any focus on Russia for a decade. Voters are more concerned with Pakistan, Iraq, Iran and North Korea - all countries about which candidates are well-versed.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 27, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

The Medvedev question was a Gotcha question, but I still think it was important and both candidates disappointed. I think Hillary blew it and Obama ducked it, and when talking about a man whose been in all the papers recently who will shortly head the next strongest nation on earth and that factors into so many key decisions, their ignorance was disappointing. At the same time, I study Russia, so maybe I'm just far more on top of it than most others.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | February 27, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Put a fork in clinton's campaign!

HILLARY IS BAKED, FRIED, SERVED FOR LUNCH AND THE SCRAPS ARE ALREADY GOING INTO THE TRASH!

Vote Obama for President!

Posted by: onestring | February 27, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

The NYTimes piece was yesterday, btw...

Posted by: drindl | February 27, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

jeezus, CC-- stop whining. you get paid well for this--don't you know about frozen dinners or something? they don't have takeout in DC? Or delis?

'We know there are a lot of Drudge haters out there, but can you imagine another Web site -- with the possible exception of the Huffington Post -- meriting a mention in a nationally televised political debate?'

I can imagine dozens, hundreds, thousands, with more credibility than Drudge, CC, who is a juvenile gutter gossip. You might try Talking Points Memo, for instance, which was mentioned in the New York Times as the first blog to win a prestigious journalism award.

Posted by: drindl | February 27, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company