Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

'08 Hopefuls To Talk With MTV, MySpace and The Fix

As regular reads of this blog know, The Fix has had the unique opportunity to partner with MTV and MySpace for a series of presidential dialogues with the 2008 presidential candidates.

Tomorrow night marks the culmination of those dialogues with a 90-minute extravaganza featuring four of the six candidates still in the race -- Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) for the Democrats, and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and Rep. Ron Paul (Texas) for the Republicans.

Like the previous presidential dialogues, the goal in this one is to let the candidates directly address the questions and concerns of young voters -- a key voting group whose power has grown exponentially in this election. All four candidates will appear via satellite and will take questions from a live audience from MTV's studio in New York City. The Fix, along with Gideon Yago, Sway, and the Associated Press's Phil Elliott, will moderate the proceedings.

Interactivity is the name of the game in these dialogues. You can submit questions either though MySpace or MTV. You can also post questions you'd like asked of the candidates in the comments section below and we'll do our best to get one or two on the air.

It all gets started at 6 p.m. ET tomorrow night on MTV. We'll also be streaming it live here on

By Chris Cillizza  |  February 1, 2008; 6:00 PM ET
Categories:  Fix Notes  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Florida Prediction Winners
Next: MTV/MySpace Presidential Super Dialogue


Posted by: trisha2 | February 4, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: trisha2 | February 4, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

rfpiktor: James is a guy I like and Mary as well, not at all like Penn and Wolfson. I have had Hillary winning Ca. by seven points for a couple months, and the polls there have been erratic at best, and with my MOE of + or - 4%, lets see how close I come. I'm still a little leery of folks that are swayed by these endorsements in how they vote. I won't be surprised if Richardson does or does not endorse, but from what I have seen and heard, a lot of the political types are in the dark as much as I am.

Posted by: lylepink | February 4, 2008 7:21 AM | Report abuse

Oh, no! He did it again.

Obama 45%

Billarys 41%

Reuters/CSpan/Zogby California poll:

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 4, 2008 4:52 AM | Report abuse

Lyle, let's just say James Carville yesterday reminded us, the adoring public, that he "loves" and "loves" the Billarys.

He also was somewhat stunned for one reason or other. The California and national polls, maybe?

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 4, 2008 4:42 AM | Report abuse

I didn't know hypocrisy had a party affiliation.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 4, 2008 4:37 AM | Report abuse

'drindl, in this world of innuendo that you and "proud" and "spectator" have introduced to my previously unenlightened existence, did Kristol's comment intimate that he is another R on the "d.l."?'

not necessarily mark -- I just don't know what their problem is--I'm not saying they're gay, that would probably be more honest and healthier. all I know that it seems to have to do with a deep dislike, fear and mistrust of women and sexuality in general. there is this puritanical and punitive attitude toward women who are raped, for instance--suggesting that it is in someway their fault. there is this wanting to control women's sexual behavior, by trying to restrict access not only to only abortion, but contraception.

and then there is this totally obsessive reaction to gay people in general -- why should anyone care what other couples do in the privacy of their own homes and lives?

and why are so many republican men closeted gays? and why do so many of them dump their wives and kids, repeatedly, for other, younger women? it just keeps coming out. there are far more republican men who have been outed [as either gay or serial adulterers] in the last couple of years than democrats --and please don't anyone say it's the 'liberal media' or some crap like that--if democrats did the same kind of outrageous mark foley/larry craig, guiliani, gongrich, etc stuff as the R's do, it WOULD come out.

there is some issue with repression, with fear, with loathing of women and sexuality--I don't know. It's just creepy.

Posted by: drindl | February 3, 2008 9:44 PM | Report abuse

rfpiktor: I have been waiting on your comment about my prediction of "A hit job" on Hillary by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. It came when he referenced a story by Don Van Natta Jr., a known "Hillary Hater", when Bubba visited Kazakhstan [spelling] and a Canadian later pledged some millions to his foundation. I recall reading the story and thought it was a bit much at the time, and apparently I was right, as usual.

Posted by: lylepink | February 3, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse


You'd better get on board. MARIA SHRIVER IS ENDORSING BARACK OBAMA! California for Barack Obama! Prediction time: Barack wins CA.


Posted by: GoHuskies2004 | February 3, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton your health care is madatory so what do you say to the person making under $20,000 a year. Who can not afford the neccessities in life housing, food, utilities, car insurance (mandatory)and of course gas to get to work. How can I afford your mandatory health insurance?

Posted by: angelmama5234 | February 3, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

One of the arguments made on behalf of the Clintons is that they know how to win. They do what is necessary. They fight hard. They've shown they can survive the worst the Republican attack machine can throw at them, THIS COUNTRY CAN NOT AFFORD 4 yrs wasted on defending Republican allegations with investigations etc. We somebody who is going to be able to get along with the Republicans and get us out of this mess.

Posted by: angelmama5234 | February 3, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

The New York Times article on Obama and the nuclear bill in the Senate is very interesting. It talks about how he changed the bill and added provisions to it that people in Illinois were very concerned with, that Obama's donor Exelon had interest in the bill and that David Axelrod worked for Exelon. While the Obama camp is arguing these points what they are unable to do is argue abou what Obama has been saying on the campaign trail. He has said that this is one of his greatest accomplishments in the US Senate but guess what? The bill did not even pass in the US Senate. If he claims that one of his greatest accomplishments is a bill that did not pass then why doesn't he let people know that? Why has the media allowed him not to disclose it?

Posted by: ericr1970 | February 3, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse


The first time I saw the abbreviation DL I thought they were referring to the disabled list.

Posted by: jimd52 | February 3, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

drindl, in this world of innuendo that you and "proud" and "spectator" have introduced to my previously unenlightened existence, did Kristol's comment intimate that he is another R on the "d.l."?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 3, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

this is hilarious...

'Mitt Romney and John McCain may be fighting for the front-runner mantle in the Republican presidential race, but it's Texas Rep. Ron Paul who led the field in donor contributions last quarter, according to just-released campaign finance reports. On the back of two record-breaking days of online fundraising, Paul brought in $20 million during the October-through-December period, virtually all of it from individuals. That's twice as much as either McCain or Romney collected from individuals in the same period -- $7 million for McCain and $9 million for Romney.'

even though the media still pretends he doesn't exist.

Posted by: drindl | February 3, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

'On the February 3 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, panelist and New York Times columnist Bill Kristol said the only people supporting Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) presidential campaign "are the Democratic establishment and white women." Kristol then asserted that "it would be crazy for the Democratic Party to follow an establishment that's led it to defeat year after year," and added, "White women are a problem, that's, you know -- we all live with that." After fellow panelist Brit Hume responded, "Bill, for the record, I like white women," Kristol said, "I know, I shouldn't have said that."'

'white women are a problem'. that pretty much sums up the deeply weird, sexually phobic mindset of the radical right.

Posted by: drindl | February 3, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Chris How could you take this weekend off? The political junkies need your blogs every 5 hours this weekend - they don't know what to do, what to think.

How could you even consider not sending in an entry every 5 hours this weekend, including overnight?

The Hoyas won, however that is not a good enough explanation.

Posted by: Miata7 | February 3, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Terrorists in Pakistan, the most dangerous country on earth, happily and freely working to destroy us, while we bleed ourselves to death in Iraq:

'WASHINGTON -- After a U.S. airstrike leveled a small compound in Pakistan's lawless tribal regions in January 2006, President Pervez Musharraf and his intelligence officials announced that several senior Al Qaeda operatives had been killed, and that the top prize was an elusive Egyptian who was believed to be a chemical weapons expert.

But current and former U.S. intelligence officials now believe that the Egyptian, Abu Khabab Masri, is alive and well -- and in charge of resurrecting Al Qaeda's program to develop or obtain weapons of mass destruction.',1,1148872.story

Posted by: drindl | February 3, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

--I guess the safety of Iraqis is more important than the safety of US citizens, right? Because of the IRaq occupation, we don't have enough troops to defend our own borders!

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. military isn't ready for a catastrophic attack on the country, and National Guard forces don't have the equipment or training they need for the job, according to a report.

Even fewer Army National Guard units are combat-ready today than were nearly a year ago when the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves determined that 88 percent of the units were not prepared for the fight, the panel says in a new report released Thursday.

The independent commission is charged by Congress to recommend changes in law and policy concerning the Guard and Reserves.

The commission's 400-page report concludes that the nation "does not have sufficient trained, ready forces available" to respond to a chemical, biological or nuclear weapons incident, "an appalling gap that places the nation and its citizens at greater risk."

"Right now we don't have the forces we need, we don't have them trained, we don't have the equipment," commission Chairman Arnold Punaro said in an interview with The Associated Press. '

Posted by: drindl | February 3, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

'the objective of the war is not specifically to topple Saddam; it is to try to ensure that Iraq does not become a safe haven for terrorists and become a base to operate from, the way Afghanistan was before we went in. If we leave, it clearly will become that.'

The 'way Afghanistan WAS'? You mean the way it IS. The Taliban and al Queda are far stronger now, both in afghanistan and pakistan, thay they ever were before our botched occupation of Iraq, which has given them such a splendid recruitment tool. Why did you never argue this point when we pulled most of our troops out of Aghanistan to send to Iraq. There is nowhere in Afhanistan where it is safe to travel outside Kabul, and even that is becoming increasingly hazardous.

Soon we will have lost the entire country to the Taliban, which has steadily taken over every region. And as, I recall, what we were TOLD the Iraq invasion was all about was to get rid of Saddam -- period. I feel very sorry for people who have such a short attention span that they can beleive a rationale that has changed several dozen times over the last year.

--And I would like to ask Mike Huckabee -- if you believe the Consitution should be amended to fit the Bible, which version of the Bible do you mean?

There are many, often conflicting versions, including the Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish. I think you should make this clear.

Posted by: drindl | February 3, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

On the "it depends what is is" department, Bubba plays the weasel and pretends that what he said was DISTORTED, CNN has this intriguing little article that points to the Billary S.C. primary remarks "that were widely interpreted as racially insensitive."

Bubba "has adamantly denied he was playing racial politics."

Distortions, distortions. One day Bill might reveal to us, his adoring public, that he did distort, or not, whatever -but that it was not a race thing.

As Lyle would say, it is a "black" mcguffin or something.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 3, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

The new Washington Post-ABC General Election matchup poll has all the information Democrats need to decide. Only Obama can beat McCain

Posted by: Trumbull | February 3, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

I am not on speaking terms with my generation right now. I just turned 21 and have been a Hillary supporter since she announced her campaign run. I've never and will never support Obama. If he is the nominee, I will reluctantly slap a McCain bumper sticker on my car and vote for him in November.

Bill Clinton is watching the Super Bowl with Bill Richardson today. Let's hope an endorsement isn't far off. A nonsymbolic endorsement like a deadbeat Kennedy who should give up his seat in Congress.

P.s. you look good with a beard

Posted by: trisha2 | February 3, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

For Senators Clinton and Obama:

If elected, what steps will you take to repair the damage done to the Constitution by the Bush-Cheney administration?

Will you pledged to rescind Bush's signing statements and executive orders which violate the Constitution?

Posted by: donkirk_ep | February 3, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

I usually vote Democrat. As I look at the taxes I pay each week and as prices continue to go up on most everything we need as a family of four. As I watch the candidates talk about raising Federal spending on more social programs. And knowing this is going to raise my tax burden more.

I am tired of paying for every hungry person around the World. My family is pretty hungry too.

I will vote for Ron Paul to lower my taxes to a level that I can still feed my family.

Posted by: acsht | February 3, 2008 10:22 AM | Report abuse

I think Mr. Obama is the superior candidate. But I want to offer a few points as to why that I think are very important for voters to ponder, but have not been widely discussed in various forums so far.

(a) there is very little substantive difference in policy proposals between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton; on the other hand, history has repeated demonstrated that unexpected and other reasons after inauguration can quickly render a large portion of a president's campaign policy proposals to less priorities. As a result, I see preciously little between the two candidates in terms of policy proposals.

(b) it is one thing to propose a set of policy plans, an entirely different thing to be able to build a large enough national mandate -- both in terms of public option / national consensus and in terms of the composition of Congress that the presidential candidate can help shaping. Mr. Obama may help elect more Democratic senators and congressmen, and has the ability to bring more people from different political persuasions to his side; thus he has a better chance to IMPLEMENT these largely similar proposals than Mrs. Clinton. In addition, Mr. Obama seems to have consciously structured his plans in ways that can achieve greater mandate (for example with his non-mandate approach to health care -- no pun intended) during the general election.

Thus, ELECTIBILITY question aside, voters should also consider each candidate's POLICY IMPLEMENTABILITY.

(c) in terms of experience, let's set aside the debate about who has been in public service or elected office longer which is ultimately irrelevant (Biden or Dodd easily have more experience than both of them). Instead I want to point out two facts largely ignored by the media so far. One is that in terms of health care plan (and a couple of other plans), both the Obama camp and Edwards camp published theirs almost two months before the Clinton camp (Edwards plan came out a few days earlier than the Obama plan), and the major Clinton plans look curiously similar to the Edwards plans. The second is that in my judgment (with Ph.D. in macroeconomics years ago), Mr. Obama enjoys the strongest team of economic advisers of all candidates on either side. By this I mean close advisers, not just people who lent their names to a campaign. Often it is not what detailed statistics the candidate can cite from memory (remember Al Gore?), but the competence of his/her adviser team. In both regards, I give Mr. Obama the edge as well.

Posted by: bashuzi | February 3, 2008 10:10 AM | Report abuse

the objective of the war is not specifically to topple Saddam; it is to try to ensure that Iraq does not become a safe haven for terrorists and become a base to operate from, the way Afghanistan was before we went in. If we leave, it clearly will become that.

Posted by: JD | February 2, 2008 03:59 PM

Unfortunately Iraq only became a base for terrorists AFTER we invaded. I agree that we have to achieve some sort of stability in Iraq before we can withdraw troops. I consider the mis-mangagement of the Bush administration in the planning and occupation phases as tantamount to criminal negligence.

Posted by: jimd52 | February 3, 2008 9:32 AM | Report abuse

Lyle,Is Caroline a "hit job"?

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 3, 2008 9:14 AM | Report abuse

rfpiktor: I seen the Rasmussen Report. Dick Morris is one of the premier "Hillary Haters", so I take his comments very lightly. Rasmussen generally tends to favor Repubs by about 3 to 5% in most of his Polls. Hillary will be on Fox News Sunday, watch for Chris to try and ambush her on something by implying a falsehood in his question. This is what is called "A hit job".

Posted by: lylepink | February 3, 2008 8:47 AM | Report abuse

Question to the Democrats: Regardless of the fact that the Bush administration has bungled Iraq, don't we owe the great majority of Iraqi people some type of security/stability guarantee? Why won't your withdraw plans result in even more chaos, death, and anarchy to the many innocent people of Iraq?

Question to Huckabee: Arguably, the United States is one of the most scientifically advanced nations. You do not accept the theory of evolution--a pillar of modern scientific thought. First, do you believe the Earth is < 6000 years old? Second, how will you support scientific endeavor when you disagree so strongly with the basic fundamentals of scientific thought?

Question to Paul: As an alleged supporter of the Constitution, why do you claim the federal agencies are unconstitutional when the Supreme Court has held otherwise? Second, assuming your plan to eviscerate the federal government moves forward, why won't my state taxes jump to an astronomical level to compensate for the missing services/funds?

Question to McCain/Romney: Why won't you participate in this Q&A?

Posted by: seannewengland | February 3, 2008 7:37 AM | Report abuse

The 1000 pound gorilla is named Caroline Kennedy.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 3, 2008 7:06 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 3, 2008 7:02 AM | Report abuse

svreader: I notice support for Obama is coming from the more affluent and highly educated. This should run up a RED flag to the lower and middle income earners, who by definition could not be considered as peers.

Posted by: lylepink | February 3, 2008 1:56 AM | Report abuse

Embedded taxes include all business taxes like corporate and all payroll which up to $90k is 15% then one of them changes. Then there is a significant amount of waste that the AFFT is NOT including in their calculations, playing it safe I suppose:
Small businesses are hit the hardest wasting around $7 to pay just $1 of tax.
Now figure that all those savings add up all through the supply chain of any retail product. Now I put those all together and call them embedded costs.

You're correct that there's no plan to eliminate tariffs.

However, all the embedded costs are passed on into the price of a product no matter how much profit they make. Prices are set by the law of supply and demand. Businesses that can sell at a lower price than a competitor and still make a profit, say they have new fast and efficient machines, will gain market share. We are a very price conscious society. I think the success of Wal-Mart is good evidence of that. So in a free market prices drop.

Government consumption is taxed so there is no advantage over private contractors. Then there is the possibility government employees may try to scam the system. No need to encourage corruption.

States and retailers will get ¼ of 1% of all collected taxes for administration fees.

Retail purchases by businesses will be given credit on future taxes owed so they will know your law firm bought an Abrams tank which would most likely flag an audit. There are people scamming this way now.

The prebate only requires a postcard sized form with the names and SS numbers of any dependants. The numbers will be checked by SSA to see if they have been used by someone else already.

Business to business is not taxed but retail to business is and a credit issued. I'm sure the present system is far more complicated. There will be 80% less people sending in the tax so less auditors needed. IRS costs $10 billion and FairTax will costs $2 billion to enforce.

All homes or cars or whatever used by a business as rentals whenever sold to a non-business must collect the tax on the sale price at that time.

Prices will fall on home and vehicles somewhere around the amount of the tax. Consider too that there is about 10 trillion American dollars hidden in offshore accounts that will come back home for the tax free investments. This will lower interest rates and/or make loans easier to get. Also a lot of foreign money and businesses will come here too for the same reason. How about a Detroit made Mercedes Benz?

Your numbers aren't even close. See:

A growing economy benefits everyone. If you don't believe me read some of Milton Friedman's later work. You can also check out Hong Kong. That tiny crowded little country with essentially no natural resources managed tremendous economic growth because of Laissez-faire economic policy.

The thing is there has never been a country that has freed up the creation of wealth like this. Even Hong Kong has income taxes.

A growing economy increases investment in capital. Increased capital is directly related to increased wages because it helps workers be more productive. All that offshore and foreign money and businesses coming here will help capital formation as well.

Frankly, I'd like to make more money for the rest of my life.

I used to live in Austin. I liked to bike across town to swim at Barton Springs. Lake Travis was nice too. :)

Posted by: daniel6 | February 3, 2008 1:45 AM | Report abuse

I agree Obama Rocks the vote. It's good to see so many people paying attention to this year's election. It would have been exciting evev if it were just Hillary but it's even more exciting with Obama in the picture.

Posted by: Nevadaandy | February 3, 2008 1:25 AM | Report abuse

I am an octagenarian who has voted since Truman and my question is to Mr. Obama.
How do you explain the fact that S.Carolina blacks voted overwhelmingly for you, if you think that race had nothing to do with your candidacy, and also why are so many African-American elite giving so generously to your campaign if race does not matter?

Posted by: kyprios928 | February 3, 2008 1:13 AM | Report abuse

Should read "employer's match of FICA" not "employer's share of withholding" in no. 1].

I apologize for any confusion that may have caused.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 2, 2008 11:49 PM | Report abuse

Don't asume or presume that I have not studied the "Fair Tax", please.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 2, 2008 11:40 PM | Report abuse

For Daniel:

The national sales tax called "FairTax" by its proponents has two virtues on its face that I do not challenge.

One is that it would favor savings, a "good thing"; and the other is that its
monthly "prebate" would keep it from being regressive with regard to the poor
and the lower middle class.

There are other claimed benefits which I will describe, but criticize.

1] claim: The tax merely replaces the "embedded" taxes in everything that we
buy. My criticism: the only embedded federal taxes in what we buy are tariffs, which are not being replaced, and the employer's share of withholding, at most a 3-4% saving, if labor is one-half of cost. Federal income taxation of business is imposed only after a profit is determined and is therefore not a "cost". It cannot factor into pricing of American made goods and services because whatever the highest price the market will bear is the same price, whether the seller pays income taxes, or not.

2] claim: The 23% internal tax rate proposed is sufficient.
My criticism:
First, that is a 30% external tax rate, which is how we think of sales taxes generally, as add-ons. [Boortz, Pp. 151-153].
Second, go look at retail sales in America and compare it with total budgetary
needs and the numbers do not work at 30% add-on. Not close. More, later.

3] claim: There is some benefit derived by taxing the Feds as consumers of
retail goods, while businesses do not pay taxes even for retail items. [Boortz,
P.55]. The plan seeks to move more services to private business. My criticism: If there is any administrative cost to the system, and there is; for the collecting entity to pay taxes is a way to bleed administrative fees for no reason at all except to feather the nest of the administrator. Obviously, the Fed will increase its budget deficit by the difference between its taxes paid and its taxes collected. The exemption of businesses from paying tax is an invitation to me to purchase through my law firm; a loophole so big that an Abrams tank can be driven through it.

4] claim: Simplicity.
My criticism: To figure your prebate, after the first year, will require an annual informational income tax return, because the prebate is per family unit, based on family size. The loophole for "business purchases" will require a complex set of regulations to define every way to close it and a huge team of auditors - or permit the breakdown of the entire system. The Fair Tax is only imposed on new items - thus there will be enormous pressure to devise rental schemes for newly built homes and cars and only sell them as "used" six months later - or the entire homebuilding and auto industries will collapse.

My conclusions:

A Lawyers Civil Relief Act.

A boon to state agencies that are paid to collect the tax.

Creates many more problems than it resolves, even if the theory of embedded

taxes can be verified.

Not a populist scheme - but not pro-business either. Homebuilding and auto

building are key industries in America - This would be deadly to both.


Retail sales from Census Bureau include gasoline, all cars, but not homes:

= about $4.4T in 2007.

Subtract "used cars" at $80B.
Add new homes at $250B [Census Bureau, new homes].
Call the total $4.6T.
External Fair Tax rate = 30%.
30% of $4.6T = $1.4T.
Prebates and the excluded business sales at retail reduce that number, but lets go with $1.4T.

The Prez's submitted Budget is $2.9T.

No getting from "here" to "there".

Its silly. Note on the embedded tax theory:

The Fair tax proponents treat tax as if it were a significant slice of gross revenue to make their comparisons with their proposed system work. I understand cost accounting too, and projections of income and thus of income tax are not unusual. But a 30% income tax on a 10% pretax net income projects as 3% of gross, right? Proponents are playing with the numbers.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 2, 2008 11:39 PM | Report abuse

Daniel6, I see what you are saying. The information I cited is on page 8, not page 7.

"• The majority of homes are used, thus are not taxed."

Homes are appraised, valued, and sold based on demand and supply, not cost. But when you impose a $45k tax on the retail buyer of a home that would have cost $150k that buyer will choose a $150k resale.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 2, 2008 11:29 PM | Report abuse

Let's see, we double the size of the tax base and eliminate all the payroll taxes and a bunch of waste involved in paying taxes and the before FairTax price stays the same?

Your linked article had nothing to do with the point you were trying to make. Maybe Chris should know that before he asks your question?

Please spend at least a little time studying at before you post.

Posted by: daniel6 | February 2, 2008 11:12 PM | Report abuse

"His supporters are more tech-savvy". Give me a break Chris. We aren't any more tech savvy than Obama or Clinton supporters. Huckabee, maybe. The point is, we are MOTIVATED! We never stop working to raise money, support and awareness for the message Ron Paul is carrying. So if you were looking for some excuse to explain away Dr. Paul's support during the it is....WHAT HE SAYS MAKES SENSE, HE ANSWERS HONESTLY AND POINTEDLY, HE WANTS TO GIVE US OUR FREEDOM BACK, AND MASS MEDIA MARGINALIZATION WILL NOT HOLD OUR MESSAGE DOWN!

Posted by: faith77 | February 2, 2008 10:50 PM | Report abuse

"His supporters are more tech-savvy," That was great.

Love the unbiased reporting. You want to know the real reason Ron Paul was getting more positive scores than any other candidate? He wasn't cheating. He inspires people with his message.

Posted by: BillyJoeKoepsel | February 2, 2008 10:19 PM | Report abuse

Daniel6, If you ever took algebra you will understand the concept that everything on the right of the equal sign equals everything on the left. That is how the new home and the resale home compare now. Their prices are determined by supply and demand.

Add in a 30% tax on the new homes only, and the equation is gone. Nobody buys a new home. The 30% discount for one year old resales: too much to overcome. The home building industry DIES. Immediately.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 2, 2008 10:17 PM | Report abuse

For John McCain:

All this talk of victory in Iraq sounds pretty empty; can you describe is something like precise terms what you would regard as a victory worthy of honorable departure? Given all the conflicting reasons for going there in the first place, what conditions would you wait for before bringing troops home, and what is your plan for creating those conditions?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | February 2, 2008 10:03 PM | Report abuse

Good Job, Chris. The polls showed a rough night for Hillary. I wonder how many of the young voters, who I think tend to be more independent, lean Republican.

Posted by: bschick20 | February 2, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse

Clinton/Obama is much stronger than any ticket with Obama at the head.

Obama has way too big an ego to nominate Hillary as VP. He's afraid she'd overshadow him. If Obama is at the top of the ticket Democrats have a BIG problem.

Whoever Obama chooses as VP will have to be a very weak minor player to not overshadow him. That puts Obama at a big disadvantage in a national election.

Vote for Hillary, get both.
Vote for Obama, get nothing.

The choice is yours.

Posted by: svreader | February 2, 2008 8:59 PM | Report abuse

IndyInJapan | February 2, 2008 07:58 PM

And I guess yours is cold, neutral, factual, researched and edited analysis.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 2, 2008 8:36 PM | Report abuse

Ethel Kennedy, Robert Kennedy's widow, announced her endorsement of Obama today- according to the Obama web site.

Posted by: Munir1 | February 2, 2008 8:12 PM | Report abuse

2008 February 3 Sunday 24:22 GMT

Chris Cillizza, speaking as MySpace / MTV moderator/commentator, quote:

"If you are voting for change you are definitley voting for Obama."

This is an inappropritae, egregious, and unacceptable (not to mention untrue) editorialization.

Ron Paul will bring real change. Compare candidates positions on 24 issues here:

Indy (American Voter) in Japan

Posted by: IndyInJapan | February 2, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

Your debate performance was pretty good until you decided to marginalize Ron Paul at the end of his appearance on your forum. How dare you lie to your voters and imply that Ron Paul ordered us to vote in your polls en masse. Ron Paul did nothing of the sort - I tuned in and voted of my own accord.

Also, you said "if you're voting for change in this election, you're voting for Senator Obama". You could not be more wrong.

Ron Paul said it best; if you vote for Obama or these other candidates, you are just voting for someone that wants to tinker with the current system. If you want to reverse the downward course of this
country, you will vote for Ron Paul. You will vote for freedom and liberty, not more of the same BS that is taking this country into a death spiral.

Please stop trying to influence who people vote for, and start impartially analyzing the candidates' proposals and records. That's your job.

Posted by: zf | February 2, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

"If you're voting for change, you're voting for Obama?" What kind of slanted BS is that Chris? Do you ever try to be an unbiased source of information to the uninformed electorate? The same electorate that thinks that government supplied birth control pills is more important than cutting expenses on entitlements that will bankrupt our country. I'm sick Chris.. I'm sick. I'm ****** at my generation right now.

Posted by: jsu8233n | February 2, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

This Question is for Congressman Ron Paul: Bill Clinton, at about the time of his first inauguration, mentioned that a man who had great influence on him was Carroll Quigley, professor of history at the Foreign Service School of Georgetown University. Professor Quigley in his book "Tragedy and Hope" openly advocates the creation of a one-world government, better known as the" New World Order"
Bill Clinton has openly advocated this "The New World Order", Congressman Ron Paul What is your Position on the "New World Order"

Posted by: rynlockwood | February 2, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

This Question is for Senator Hillary Clinton:

Bill Clinton, at about the time of his first inauguration, mentioned that a man who had great influence on him was Carroll Quigley, professor of history at the Foreign Service School of Georgetown University. Professor Quigley in his book "Tragedy and Hope" openly advocates the creation of a one-world government, better known as the" New World Order"
Your husband has openly advocated this "The New World Order", Senator Clinton What is your position on Dr. Quigley and the "New World Order"

Posted by: rynlockwood | February 2, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Senator Obama, Would you like to comment on the endorsement of you by President Eisenhower's granddaughter in which she states that, although a lifelong Republican, she will work to get you elected---in the same way that Democrats for Eishenhower helped to elect her grandfather?

Posted by: carolinwoodstock | February 2, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

My question is for Senator Clinton regarding social security. You criticized the plans of Sen. Obama and Senator Edwards - who both proposed subjecting more of the wealthy's income to the payroll tax. While you have criticized the ideas of others, I have not yet heard any specifics from you. So, what specific ideas do you have for addressing the upcoming social security crisis?

Posted by: JasonT910 | February 2, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

This question is for all the candidates:

If you were to prioritize these as our most important concerns:

1. The threat of recession
2. How to responsibly end our military presence in Iraq
3. Energy and the Environment
4. U.S. Heatlh Care
5. Repair of schools and all levels of education...

In which *order* would you prioritize and adress them, and why?

Posted by: ladyflynn42 | February 2, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

This question is for Mike Huckabee. First of all I am a very big supporter of you. I am bothered by the fact that another Republican candidate stated today that you are a great man but that you do not have enough money to continue campaigning, that a vote for you is a waste. Please tell us that you will continue on in spite of all the nay-sayers. To me it sounds like someone is getting desperate and trying to buy the White House.

Posted by: Martineau1717 | February 2, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Sentor Clinton,
Since you proclaim to be a Progressive and 2 tenets of progressivism are moral relativism and John Dewey's claim that all rights come from the government, why should we trust you not to suspend our rights? Or even tell the truth?

Posted by: daniel6 | February 2, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

I would ask Governor Huckabee why the AFFT appears to only offer a worst case scenario and not a best case one.

You obviously haven't read much of anything at New home prices have some of the highest embedded costs and should drop in price the amount of the tax and possibly more.

Also home resales are not taxed unless it was a business purchase then it's taxed based on current value. Your reference shows nothing that you claim. That's ok, I know most Americans went to government school.

Posted by: daniel6 | February 2, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Nevadaandy | February 2, 2008 02:46 PM

Short answer:


Posted by: rfpiktor | February 2, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Vrinda, yes we can.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 2, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Lyle, it is the bean counter versus the big picture guy.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 2, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Nevadaandy, the answer to your 2:46 question is obvious - People are not excited by HRC's candidacy - she's only running against the Bush legacy. Obama is actually running on some ideas.

The answer to your 3:52 question is, the objective of the war is not specifically to topple Saddam; it is to try to ensure that Iraq does not become a safe haven for terrorists and become a base to operate from, the way Afghanistan was before we went in. If we leave, it clearly will become that.

Note that I don't necessarily agree with the policy to keep our boys (and girls) there, but it clearly it's a defensible position.

Posted by: JD | February 2, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Question for Hillary: When your husband left office in 2000, he said he believed marijuana should be decriminalized. Do you agree with him? Why or why not?

Question for Ron Paul: Shouldn't marijuana be regulated like alcohol currently is? Please elaborate.

Question for all: What's wrong with Ron Paul's plan for marijuana?

~~ John Thomas

Posted by: JohnThomas1 | February 2, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Too bad McCain isn't going to be participating. I'd like to ask him what he means by "we are winning the war"? I thought the war was started to get rid of Sadaam - we did that, and now we're caught up in another war for which there no clear objective.

The price for a war with no clear objective has left scars that will go beyond this generation - thousands of children are without a father or mother; thousands of men and women have lost wives and husbands; thousands of patriotic americans and their families have been traumatized and suffer daily by the injuries inflicted as a result of this war; not to mention the debt America has established that will be left to future generations to pay off, as well as the expenses associated with taking care of our brave men and women who suffer from traumatic injuries and pschological problems as a result. So why if we are winning this war does he envision we will have to be there for another 100 years?

Posted by: Nevadaandy | February 2, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Sorry wrong link above! Here is the right one

It is worth the effort.

Posted by: vrinda_23 | February 2, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Have folks seen this Please check it out.

Also, do the democrats really want another 8 years of the Clintons?

Posted by: vrinda_23 | February 2, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

OK, I'll play along, although I'll bet Chris Cillizza $100 that he doesn't have what it takes to ask one of my questions.

For Huck:

For Hill:

For Obama:

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | February 2, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

USMC Mike: I hope you are letting your wife watch some of our discussions. I am going to try and sway her into the Hillary camp. rfpiktor: What does the Berlin Wall have to do with the price of beans??

Posted by: lylepink | February 2, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

When it the Post going to pick up the story of the video that is sweeping the country? this may become the fastest viral video ever.

I look forward to this event.


Posted by: thetomswift | February 2, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Why is it that when Hillary gives a stump speech, like the one she just gave at San Diego State University, the people in the audience appear subdued and bored; whereas when Obama gives a speech you feel and see the energy in the crowd and they appear to have a look of hope in their faces?

Posted by: Nevadaandy | February 2, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

lylepink | February 2, 2008 12:58 PM

The best time of my life was when the Berlin wall came down in 1989.

Tell Bubba to top that.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 2, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Bill Richardson is probably more popular in Mexico than in America.

He is seen as a do nothing governor when it comes to the invading hordes of undocumented folks.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 2, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Mike keep up great work! We are supporting you all the way thru this.

Mike Huckabee reminds me of a great marathon distance runner. While other leaders in the race drop out from the shear fatigue, Mike keeps hanging in the race like a real runner does to the end.

While the other runners have gold plated shoes on that cushion each blow, Mike has his worn out Dollar store running shoes still on with holes in it keeping up with them with shear guts and determination.

While others are out there with the spotlight on them as the perceived winners, Mike is hanging on like a world class runner within striking distance.

Mike Huckabee is in the Olympic Race like underdog runner American Bob Schul was in the 1964 Tokyo Olympics on that rainy day on the track. This is Mike Huckabee in the race to the finish. Watch this video:

Keep up the great work Mike!!!

Go Mike Go!!!

Posted by: vote4mikehuckabee | February 2, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

This question is for all the candidates.

A recent Business Week article said that among young voters, education is one of their top three concerns.

In a world where American students are competing with students worldwide for the best jobs, how would you improve our educational system so that America won't fall further behind in a flattening world?

Posted by: oriolefreak | February 2, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

American prisons held about 2.3 million people in 2006. If you were elected president, would this number grow, shrink or stay roughly the same? And are you, in general, happy with the way America treats its prisoners?

More questions:

Posted by: Mike107 | February 2, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

lylepink is delusional (once again)

"Now I have seen hundreds of reports about how his [BR] endorsement has been sought and how much he could indeed play a role in cementing the Latino vote for Hillary,..."

If that's true, why did BR never win any hispanic votes? My wife didn't even like him - and she's a hispanic democrat.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 2, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

I know it was an earlier thread (on VP's), but I'm predicting a place for Mark Sanford, governor of SC somewhere in the mix. Probably Romney's VP pick.

Could it be that after the first vote at the convention, with no 50%+1 winner, a dark horse named Mark Sanford comes out of nowhere?

"Sanford has sometimes had a contentious relationship with the South Carolina General Assembly, even though it is controlled by his party. The Republican-led SC House of Representatives overrode 105 of Sanford's 106 budget vetoes on May 26, 2004.[3] The following day, Sanford brought live pigs into the House chamber as a visual protest against "pork projects".[4]"

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 2, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

My questions go to Hillary, in a debate in Philadelphia a few months ago MSNB's Tim Russert asked you whether you were for Illegal alliens getting driver's licenses and your response was "YES", barely weeks after, in the debate that followed you were asked the same question only to say "NO", still in the CA debate the same issue came up and you said "NO", Don't you think that i have reason not to vote for you as you often change positions on issues of national concern just to score political points?

QTN II, Why don't you honestly look into that MTV camera and apologize to not only the American people but also to the Democratic voters in particular for voting for the infamous and costly Iraq war?

QTN III, What's your response on your spouse's "Jesse Jackson" comment after Obama's win in SC a fornight ago?

Posted by: s_baguma | February 2, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

I find the critics of the eight years of the Clinton Administration somewhat laughable in that those were the best years most of us have seen in our lifetimes. Seems as though there are those that cannot accept success.

Posted by: lylepink | February 2, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

"What do you believe are the reasons that a constitutional amendment was passed to prevent a US president from serving more than two terms"

Historically, the reason was a Republican Congrss exacting posthumous revenge on Franklin Roosevelt.

Posted by: jimd52 | February 2, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

For Senator Clinton:

Since your campaign is predicated on the experience you gained as First Lady, I presume you are willing to own the actions that took place during the Clinton administration. You and your husband presented yourself as business friendly Democrats. This had many impacts, but the most galling to me was FCC deregulation, which meant that radio stations were allowed to be bought and controlled by huge corporations, like Infinity and Clear Channel, that control content and editorial decisions. These large corporations have homogenized content (like banning John Lennon's Imagine after 9/11) and been hostile to Democrats (look at their contributions to Republicans, I can't imagine all of things that have landing on the cutting floor because they would be hostile to the conservative or Republican cause). Your husband's actions as President led to higher degree of control over musical and political content that benefited corporations more than diverse interest in music or diverse political views (If I turn on the radio one more time and have to hear Phil Collins....). With a friendly Democratic Congress, would you move to re-regulate radio, break up Infinity and Clear Channel and diversify content and editorial decisions or do you believe that corporations deserve the same free speech rights as individuals and therefore support FCC deregulation?

Posted by: bradleyhirsh | February 2, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

I have just seen Bubba will be watching The Super Bowl with Bill Richardson. Now I have seen hundreds of reports about how his endorsement has been sought and how much he could indeed play a role in cementing the Latino vote for Hillary, which is pretty strong around the country. From everything I have read and heard, the Richardson endorsement has been the one most coveted, and this could mean a great deal in all but assuring Hillary will have the nomination wrapped up for all intent and purposes.

Posted by: lylepink | February 2, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

To all the candidates:

If you are elected president will you raise taxes? If elected will you cut spending by cutting out some of the government programs that are sucking the middle class taxpayers dry?

Posted by: tess101 | February 2, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Huckabee,

Do you think keeping our troops overseas, and in Iraq is helping our economy? If yes, please explain how. If no, please explain why you would help to collapse our economy financially, and increase threat to our national security by doing so?

Posted by: tess101 | February 2, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

bokonon13 | February 2, 2008 10:09 AM

Boko, as C. Cillizza has posted before, the Obama game is a movement thing. If he is to prevail, real history will be made.

If Hill gets to the White House, does anyone expect anything other than congress gridlock?

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 2, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Why are we still in Iraq, if "Mission Accomplished" was declared by Bush a couple of years ago? And if you voted yes on keeping our troops there, please explain why, and how did you propose that the American taxpayers pay for it if we are broke?

Posted by: tess101 | February 2, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin | February 2, 2008 08:49 AM

Mark, I like your style.

Question for Hillary:

If you were a tree, what tree would you be?

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 2, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Question to all the Candidates: With the Chinese and Saudi Arabians owning so much of our debt and inflation (lowering interest rates by Federal Reserve) creeping up making those Treasury Notes less attractive investments, how do you propose to pay for the healthcare, veterans assistance, and needed infrastructure improvements without hefty tax increases on all Americans and businesses, including the so-called wealthy?

Follow-up: Why does the federal government feel it necessary to play Robin Hood and take the fruit of one's own labors and give them to someone else?

Posted by: Freedom_Guardian | February 2, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

This is for all the candidates:

With so much of a American commerce moving onto the internet, will you support the implementation of a national sales tax on online purchases?

Posted by: corridorg4 | February 2, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

sorry, this is off the MTV reservation, but I thought it was worth sharing.

from the New Yorker:

"One of the arguments made on behalf of the Clintons is that they know how to win. They do what is necessary. They fight hard. They've shown they can survive the worst the Republican attack machine can throw at them, next to which the relatively mild roughing-up they're giving Obama is downright Gandhian. But there are hard-nosed arguments for Obama, too. Nothing would energize the dispirited, disoriented Republicans like running against Hillary Clinton. And a late-entry challenge from Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his billions would be far less likely if Obama became the Democratic nominee.
Obama's Democratic critics worry that his soaring rhetoric of reconciliation is naïve. But, as Mark Schmitt has argued in The American Prospect, Obama's national-unity pitch should be viewed as a tactic as well as an ideal. It might lengthen his coattails, helping Democratic candidates for the House and the Senate in marginally red districts and states. It would not protect him from attack, of course, but it would enable him to fire back from the high ground. And, as a new President elected with a not quite filibuster-proof Senate, he would be in a better position to peel off the handful of Republican senators he would need to make meaningful legislative progress than someone who started from a defensive crouch. Hillary Clinton would make a competent, knowledgeable, and responsible President. Barack Obama just might make a transformative one. "

Posted by: bokonon13 | February 2, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Is MTV still *music* television? I'd like to know what theme song the various campaigns are planning to use (which will then be overplayed, until the song and the group become unlistenable in any context).

I'm not entirely joking; "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" still makes me want to drive into a bridge abutment when it comes on the car radio, and I generally supported Bill Clinton. I would hate to see this happen to a song/artist I really like.

Posted by: KSVA | February 2, 2008 9:02 AM | Report abuse

Dr. Paul,

For those of us who have more knowledge of finance and economics than you, when you have collapsed the money supply and production and employment by a factor of ten by adopting an asset based standard, do you propose that you and your Congress be hanged, shot, or given lethal injections by the coup d'etat that ends the American dream?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 2, 2008 8:49 AM | Report abuse

Congressman Paul:

The effects of fiat currency and the role of the federal reserve are poorly understood by many Americans and, it seems, many candidates for president.

With the economy now first in voters minds, would you please explain this in greater detail for those of us without your depth of knowledge on these most important factors in the US economy and elaborate specifically on what your policies would be to return America to fiscal responsibility , pay off the more than $60,000 share of the national debt my two young children have inherited, and to strengthen and grow the American economy so that they'll have every opportunity to achieve the American Dream when they graduate college.

Posted by: zen269 | February 2, 2008 7:34 AM | Report abuse

Question for Hillary Clinton for MTV Debate
What do you believe are the reasons that a constitutional amendment was passed to prevent a US president from serving more than two terms?
If this question is posed to Hillary, I would love to see a follow up question of why these reasons do not also apply to a husband and wife returning to the white house for another term?

Posted by: terifarkas | February 2, 2008 7:06 AM | Report abuse

Sen. Clinton:

You're campaigning that your time in the White House as 1st lady qualifies as experience for the job of President of the United States but you've sealed hundreds of thousands of documents, which are ready to be made public and which would greatly illuminate what that experience actually entailed, in the Clinton Library until after the election.

Aren't you trying to eat the experience cake and have it too?

Posted by: zen269 | February 2, 2008 7:00 AM | Report abuse

According to Rasmussen's daily presidential tracking poll, HUCKABEE HAS GAINED 5% NATIONALLY just in the last five days. In that same time, Romney has lost ground.

Mike Huckabee, the candidate interested in all segments of American society, has the momentum--and just in time for Tsunami Tuesday.

Mike Huckabee may surf this swell all the way to the Republican nomination!

"Give Hope Another Chance"

Posted by: johnpmorris | February 2, 2008 1:55 AM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton: in Thursday's debate, you claimed credit for your work on foster care issues, including commenting specifically on your role in creating the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA). But was the Clinton Administration really successful in protecting children and supporting at-risk families? In 1992 there were 427,000 children in Foster Care, but by 2000 the population had exploded--growing 29% with 552,000 children in care. (Federal Green Book, 2007) It took more than 10 years for ASFA to reduce the Foster Care population, by 7,000 children (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Trends in Foster Care and Adoption).

In fact, Welfare Reform legislation passed in 1996 broke apart tens of thousands of poor families, forcing children into foster care. Will you be able to lead real reform of our child protection and family support systems if you become President?

Posted by: elanmel | February 2, 2008 12:41 AM | Report abuse

MTV just kicked off the Choose or Lose Street Team 2008. It's truly incredible what they're doing on behalf of the youth vote for 2008, along with the progress they've made in the past to get out the vote.

Street Team '08 is a project between MTV and The Knight Foundation that involves 51 young journalists from each state, and D.C., to cover the 2008 election from their state's individual point of view.

To read the phenomenal stories these young journalists are telling (and to find the journalist representing your state) you can go to:

Check their profiles! Comment on their stories, suggest ideas, give feedback to the author, or just watch to see the stories that the mass media are not covering.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 2, 2008 12:14 AM | Report abuse

Ask all four candidates if they agree with the theory of the "unitary executive."
Ask any who hedge to explain the theory and defend it.

Ask all four candidates if they think the Prez can make a binding agreement with another nation without the advice and consent of the Senate.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 11:59 PM | Report abuse

If he argues that home resales are taxed, cite him to page 7 of

or have it printed out and hand it to him before hand.

Do not let him off the hook.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 11:54 PM | Report abuse

If he needs a cite for the 30% add-on rate, tell him to read pp. 151-153 of Neil Boortz's book.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 11:35 PM | Report abuse

Third line says " new..." where one "new" will do.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 11:33 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Huckabee: You support the "Fair Tax", a national retail sales tax on all personal consumption of new items, only. The tax would instantly increase the price of new new homes by 30% above the price of similar homes at resale. How would you deal with the implosion of the homebuilding industry in America caused by the arbitrary government tax on new homes, only?

[FYI, the 23% "internal" tax he talks about is a 30% add-on - $100k + $30k tax = 30tax/130total price = 23% "internal" rate]

Then follow up with the question about the implosion of the American auto industry caused by taxing only new car sales...

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2008 11:31 PM | Report abuse

Question for Hillary and Barak: Governor Huckabee has been asked many times about his religious beliefs so I would like to ask both of you one. Do you believe that the biblical account of creation is a myth or a true account? In short do you believe that God created the universe?

Posted by: jjoelsusan | February 1, 2008 10:51 PM | Report abuse

How do you propose to rebuild US credibility around the world? More specifically, in what way do you plan to show other nations that we are once again relying on diplomacy over force?

Do you intend to stick to the black + white world view exemplified by the phrase "with us, or with the terrorists," or will you - to everyone's relief - once again acknowledge shades of grey?

Will you commit to both observing and promoting international agreements which commit the US to drastic reductions in CO2 emissions?

If not, why not?

How do you propose to address climate change?

Will you make this issue a high priority in your administration?

When and how will you close the Guantanamo camp?

What will you do with those held there?

Will you unequivocally renounce the use of torture, as defined by international agreements?

When and how will you leave Iraq?

If there is to be a residual force left in Iraq, would you agree to a multinational force with a rotating command structure?

How will you address the increasingly wide gap in income between the wealthiest 2% of Americans and the remainder?

Posted by: bokonon13 | February 1, 2008 10:13 PM | Report abuse

For Sen. Clinton:

You have often cited 35 years of experience as your strongest qualification for the presidency and greatest advantage over Sen. Obama. Those 35 years, to my understanding, include periods practicing law in both the public and private sectors, service as First Lady to the State of Arkansas and our nation, and official foreign travel. Why, specifically, do you believe that those experiences outweigh or are more substantive than Sen. Obama's service as a community organizer, civil rights lawyer, and state legislator?

Elroy John, 28
Coconut Creek, FL

Posted by: ELROY | February 1, 2008 10:03 PM | Report abuse

Congressional races? Are they even happening? Who would know? Come on, Chris, give us your analysis of what's going on.

Posted by: rlalumiere | February 1, 2008 9:54 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton, would you please clarify your quote from Thursday's debate about your vote for the Iraq resolution. "Knowing that he (Saddam) was a megalomaniac, knowing he would not want to compete for attention with Osama bin Laden". What did you mean by this?

Sean Holland, 22
Billings, MT

Posted by: seanholland85 | February 1, 2008 9:47 PM | Report abuse

For Paul:

Is there a group left that you haven't pandered to?

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 1, 2008 9:37 PM | Report abuse

For Huckabee:

You haven't won since Iowa. Will you please withdraw now and spare your wife the humilliation?

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 1, 2008 9:35 PM | Report abuse

gwynwick | February 1, 2008 09:15 PM

Don't you know she is the Western Hemisphere's answer to the Kremlin's "Iron Pants".

I'm guessing her answer would be "I'm into Victoria's Secret kevlar line of knickers"

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 1, 2008 9:30 PM | Report abuse

A question for Obama:

The day of your inauguration, would you please skip the fancy balls and order the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to immediately draw up a plan for withdrawal from Iraq?

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 1, 2008 9:21 PM | Report abuse

So if Hillary appears on MTV and gets the same infamous "The world wants to know" question her husband did years ago, is she going to answer "thong" or something else?

Posted by: gwynwick | February 1, 2008 9:15 PM | Report abuse

A question for Hill:

What is the meaning of is?

Also, When and a very doubtful IF you are elected president, will you order a Special Counsel investigation on the Clinton Library Foundation and Friends of Bill's shady quid pro quo multi million-dollar contributions?

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 1, 2008 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Are Romney and Mccain are too busy at each other's throats to be on this?

Obama Supporter Map:

Posted by: ObamaForPrez | February 1, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Very interesting. Huckabee will be the lone candidate opposing quit-'n'-run in Iraq. Could be a long night.

Posted by: daniel | February 1, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Where are McCain and Romney? Do they think they don't need the young adult vote, or have they already written it off to the Dems?

Posted by: c_w_bennett | February 1, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Segregation in American schools is now at its highest point in 40 years for blacks and Latinos and the schools are profoundly unequal. What do the candidates think about the Supreme Court decision last summer banning most forms of voluntary integration and what would they propose to do about the problem.

shorter question option--

what policies do they propose to reverse deepening polarization and inequality as American youth become half nonwhite in the next few years?

Posted by: orfielga | February 1, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company