if clinton would answer a direct question with a direct answer once she wouldn't need the boxing gloves

This is a little off subject but I thought it was worth posting since they haven't raised hell about our troops being sent and serving extended duty.
"Diplomats decry being sent against will to Iraq
Hundreds boo State Department, liken policy to 'potential death sentence."

Wow, to paraphrase Stephen Colbert--as all wise men/women do.  'Just add water, because that's concentrated truth.'

GO HILL GO!!!

I like how Obama can't ever give credit to clinton - all he can say is it's because of bill...

Please I think he should give people a little more credit - hey maybe they feel she really is the best person for their causes...

Stop crying BO...

Seems to me that the only reason they are backing Hillary is because of the Clinton name, not because she has ever done anything for unions in general.

If i were Mark Penn, I would be wary of Hillary coming back to the office with boxing gloves on after her performance last night.

AFSCME also endorsed another also-ran 4 years ago.  One of my good friends and his wife are a part of AFSCME and they are absolutely livid.  How can any union look in the mirror knowing that they endorsed a candidate that has corporate america in her pockets.  The same corporate america that wants to see the end of unions.  It's like handing someone a gun so they can shoot you.  

Bring it on, LIAR !!
Hillary couldn't give a straight answer last night.
It's time for the Democrats to stand up to Hillary

What is her position on Social Security ?
First she said she wouldn't raise taxes
Then she said she would raise the income limits on SS
Now she says she'll est up a commission
How slippery can she get ?

What is Hillary's position on IDs for illegal aliens ?
Does she want to negotiate with Iran, Syria and Venezuela ?
First, she says it's 'naive'
NOW she says she will
What's her REAL position ?

Her campaign says she's going from 'primary election mode' and telling primary election lies.
Now she's in 'general election mode'
So she's telling general election lies

As John Edwards asks:
who can you trust ?
who is believable ?
Who has integrity ?

NOT CROOKED HILLARY !!
NOT THE FORKED TONGUE EXPRESS !!

TURN THE PAGE

Hillary Clinton, 15 years of dishonesty, scandal and divisiveness

obama's team whines "that one doesn't  count "

that's what they just said

Told you so ! hillaryclinton.com

Clintons socialist politics would not be good for the country.  She will lose, big time!

No surprise here and this endorsement does not reflect each members vote, but only that of their leadership.  The AFSCME's endorsement of Clinton is because of Bill Clinton's relationship with AFSCME President Gerald McEntee, who endorsed Bill in 1992.  Another example of business as usual in the White House and should be referred to as a "gift" and not a "win."  Hill is not Bill as stated by Joseph Leonardi. Read his assessment of the Hill and Bill game at http://joeleonardi.wordpress.com/2007/10/28/how-to-halt-hillary/#comment-1003

I think that Tim Russert was veering into being quite nasty at the so-called debate last night.
It's clear that the boys are scared and running--while else spend your time attacking Hillary Clinton.
It's become fashionable to see her as a cold and calculating opportunist.  Of course, if she was laid back, they would see her as lame and ineffectual.  
She, on the other hand, only attacks the Republicans and their misdeeds, has specifics and offers real solutions in real time.  Let them attack.  Many folks can see how vicious and lopsided the analysis has become.
As for Chris Matthews?  He's a little petulant child having temper tantrums.  Has become more and more unprofessional.
Keith Olbermann the only guy on MSNBC with any real guts and interesting analysis.

##### Bring it on ##### !!!!!!!!

Here is an intresting Zogby poll tha van failed to published. Clinton's lead has been cut down. She is toasted

Democrats Oct. 27, 2007
Clinton           38%
Obama           24%
Edwards           12%
Richardson    2%
Kucinich    2%
Biden            2%
Dodd           <1%
Gravel           <1%
Someone else    2%
Not sure   18%

I think the two "moderators" also attacked Clinton along with the two boys next to her on the podium. She survived.She was asked more questions than any one else.Next time just have those two "boys" and Clinton. We all will have fun!!

Clinton got cremated in the debate.  Plain and simple.  Clinton is trying to act like she wasn't caught with her hand in seven different cookie jars.  That's just not true.  She stood ALONE on that stage, voting in line with war hawks and Republicans in the senate on the Iran bill.  Why didn't any other democrat on that stage agree with her?  Why won't she admit that "military instruments" are included in the possible list of actions to be taken in the bill?  Why is it "non-binding" with military action, but binding when she says it was a strong vote for economic sanctions?  

How come she refuses to pick a position on social security?  During last night's debate, she said:
Clinton: No, I didn't say that, Tim. I said that I'm in favor of doing something about the AMT. How we do it and how we put the package together everybody knows is extremely complicated....And there are a lot of moving pieces here....There's a lot of moving parts. So I'm not going to get committed to a specific approach...

That's NOT the kind of "leadership" we need in Washington! We need someone with answers.  Everyone is kidding themselves if they think Hillary Clinton will EVER be able to form a "bipartisan" committe with Republicans.  Don't you have any real ideas to -fix- America Hillary?  How about you stop playing hide and seek, and tell the truth to the American Public.  We deserve that much.

Just out of curiosity, do those of you who believe that a union endorsement does not mean anything as it only reflects the leadership feel the same way when John Edwards or Obama gets an endorsement from a union?  

I sure hope so.  

The woman is too fat & ugly to be POTUS.

The views of Obama and Edwards get lost in their attacks on Clinton's views. And talk about standing on principles even if unpopular, Clinton's view on drivers' licenses for illegal immigrants is the epitome of brave.  

AFSCME for Hillary. :: David Yepsen

October 31st, 2007 :: 12:27 PM

Hillary Clinton picked up the AFSCME endorsement on Wednesday.

That’s a good thing for her. It helps her get the focus off her below-par debate performance Tuesday night.

It’s also good news for her in Iowa because in an Democratic family fight, the  American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees endorsement is the single most sought-after nod in the state.

The union has over 16,000 members and represents 40,000 workers in Iowa.  Add in the spouses, partners and other relatives and you’ve got thousands of votes who’ll be influenced by this decision.

In what’s expected to be a close caucus fight with John Edwards and Barack Obama, AFSCMEs endorsement could be what tips Iowa’s caucuses for Clinton.

But AFSCME hasn’t had the greatest track record lately. It endorsed Howard Dean for president in 2004 and Mike Blouin for governor in 2006. Both lost.  That’s evidence of how even the most sophisticated, powerful union can’t “deliver” votes like the political machines of old.

Nobody can do that in Iowa.  But the union has been of help in some big wins - Bruce Braley’s bid for Congress, the Democratic take-over of the Iowa House and Senate - are examples.

And it’s precisely because of those defeats with Dean and Blouin that the union support may really mean something to Clinton this time.

AFSCMEs clout on the line. It can’t afford another embarrassment in Iowa.  As a result, it will be pulling out all stops, pouring in money and workers and everything it can think of to help Clinton."

It's probably not a big deal...


Van

If I had to vote for Edwards or Obama I would not vote at all.They are acting more like Chris Matthews and Tim Russert(both Republicans)than any Democrat that I know.Hillary answered the questions.Where are you people coming from?She answers more questions than anyone of the others.

If I had to vote for Edwards or Obama I would not vote at all.They are acting more like Chris Matthews and Tim Russert(both Republicans)than any Democrat that I know.Hillary answered the questions.Where are you people coming from?She answers more questions than anyone of the others.

Louise,

What?!

Have you been watching ANY of the debates??

There are MANY clips of Hillary's "answers" on YouTube.

Unfortunately, they leave more questions than "answers".

With Clinton holding a huge lead among Democrats in national opinion polls ahead of the November 2008 election, rivals Barack Obama, John Edwards, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson and Joseph Biden all took turns aiming shots at the New York senator in hopes of bringing her back to the pack.

Who do you think won the Philadelphia NBC - MSNBC News Democratic Presidential Debate? ----> http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=842
.

Clinton supporters just don't get it!!  This whole primary election is about ELECTIBILITY.  Not only will 50% of the country not vote for Hillary, 50% of Democrats will not for her!  Why are you all so intent on sending a Democratic nominee into the race that already has no chance.  I hate to say it, but some of fellow Democrats are idiots.  Hopefully, common sense will prevail in Iowa with a big loss for her.

Edwards/Obama '08

Having watched the debate, I really believe that Tim Russert in particular had his mind made up to put Hillary on the spot. Research on her comments were rampant. No questions to John Edwards about support from trial lawyers. Expensive haircuts? Two Americas while living in a mansion?

Consciously or unconsciously, the media (including Russert) wants a horserace. But to probe only one of the candidates is UNFAIR. Clinton won't come out and say it, but I will.

Pew just released its massive national poll, and Clinton trounces Giuliani! Make sure to check the poll because it has a ton of fascinating internal numbers: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/10/of-benefits-of-being-frontrunner.html

Louise Henderson: '...I know.Hillary answered the questions.Where are you people coming from?She answers more questions than anyone of the others...'


Right Louise, Hillary does answer questions....
She just doesn't answer them honestly.
Hillary says whatever she thinks will get her votes...

Really, what was her position on IDs for illegal aliens ?
They couldn't get the answer out of her ?
She said yes, then she said no, now she says yes.....
Stay tuned, maybe next week she'll change her mind, again.

If the Clinton plan for alien IDs had been in place in 2001, all the al-Queda hijackers would have had legal IDs !!

You can't trust Hillary !!
Hillary Clinton, the Forked Tongue Express !!

Go Hillary Go Hillary!!!you know what no matter what Hillary Clinton will win Iowa and the nominee for the Dem.....GO HILLARY...

Go HILLARY?

Edwards and Obama sound and act childish. They attacked in an insecure manner and failed to answer any real questions. The fact of the matter is - Hillary DOES answer the questions...and thoroughly. Those of you who say otherwise sound as bad as Edwards, Obama, and the "moderators" - childish and uninformed.

funny how the press always announces all over the place whenever Hillary receives an endorsement but, Obama gets totally ignored.  Like when he got the endorsement by Deval Patrick.  Not one word on the news about it and nowhere to be found in the newpapers - except Boston.  they had 10,000 attend the rally.
Gee, could there be a Clinton bias in the press??
sarcasm

I AM GOING TO VOTE FOR THE DEMORCRACT WHO IS NOMINATED.  NONE OF THEM SCARE ME. HILLARY AND DENNIS APPEAL THE MOST AS FAR AS ABILITY AND PURPOSE. EDWARDS AND BIDEN ARE CLOSE.  LETS JUST GAITHER AROUND WHO EVER IS NOMINATED AND GET OUT THE VOTE. LETS BURY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY BECAUSE THEY DESERVE IT. SEVEN YEARS OF BAD LEADERSHIP OR NO LEADERSHIP IS REASON TO BURY THEM.

Could we  get commentators who are at least a little unbiased? Tim Russert is awful.  He attacked Hillary as much as the other candidates.

Hillary was terrific.  And the others, except for Biden,Kusenich  and Richardson made fools of themselves.  Those morons will lose the 2008 presidency for the democrats by eating their own.

Hillary keeps saying she has a specific plan for several things. Is she every going to share it with us? it would be nice to know whether that is the direction I would like to go. It sounds a lot like John Kerry. I have a plan, I have a plan. Who cares? quit telling me you have a plan and instead tell me the plan and please don't double talk while you do it! and please stop with the flip flop that went out with john kerry.

With all due respect to David Yepsen, AFSME had absolutely nothing to do with Bruce Braley's primary or general election win. Absolutely nothing! If David said that he is mistaken. Given David Yepsen lives and works in Des Moines Iowa, which is in the middle of the state, and Bruce ran in the 1st congressional district, located in the the far north eastern part of Iowa. The closest county in Bruce's district to Des Moines is 140 miles away from Des Moines, and the Register did not closely cover the race. If Yepsen really believes that AFSME was a key to Bruce's congressional election victory, he is mistaken. No doubt AFSME  members voted for Bruce, as did UAW workers (which is the largest union in Bruce's district, given the three largest cities in Bruce's district Davenport, Waterloo, and Dubuque) all have John Deere factories, and all other unions. And these union workers would have voted for Bruce even if the union hadn't endorsed Bruce. These unions always endorse the democrat over the Republican, and of course they help the Democrats, but the idea that AFSME played a larger role than the UAW, the teacher's union, or SEIU, is a just wrong, both in the number of AFSME members and amount of help they provided Bruce in comparison, to that provided by the other unions in the first district.

Bruce and I have been friends for almost twenty years, I'm well aware of why Bruce won the three way Democratic primary, and the 2006 general election for the open congressional seat. AFSME wasn't a negative, but Bruce won because he was the best candidate in the primary and general election. Bruce won the election, because Bruce worked hard, had actual plans, took positions on all issues, and did not pander to special interest groups. In other words he was the anti-Hillary Clinton candidate.

Bruce's general election opponent also helped Bruce. Mike Whalen a multi-millionaire (estimated worth in excess of 50 million) was against increasing the minimum wage. Claimed he paid all his employees in excess of the the proposed increase in minimum wage, which turned out to be false. Whalen's attacking Bruce as a trial lawyer bringing frivolous lawsuits back fired, not only because the only truthful part of Whalen's claim was that Bruce is a lawyer. And he has not ever brought a frivolous lawsuit. However, Whalen spent about a decade bringing multiple lawsuits against a former business partner, each time the district court threw the case out finding it had no merit (a nice way of stating frivolous), and each time he appealed, and the Iowa Supreme Court agreed the case Whalen (a Harvard law school graduate) filed had no merit.

I was a founding member of a 527 (the name was the committee to expose hypocrites)that produced and aired radio ads exposing Whalen's hypocrisy regarding which of the two of them had filed "frivolous" lawsuits.

I'm sure that Bruce appreciated AFSME's endorsement, and I'm sure, actually I know, he appreciated the support (financial, and on the ground volunteer efforts) his friends in the legal community gave him. But we didn't win the election for Bruce. Bruce would, and does, give us credit. But Bruce won the election in the debates, at the meetings he attended, knocking on doors, etc. And Bruce if you read this (or an aide tells you about this post), I meant to call you Tuesday the 30th to wish you Happy Birthday, but I got busy. Hope you had a nice 50th B-day (Better you than me old man!)

If Hillary Clinton was half the candidate of Bruce Braley, if she had the guts to clearly define her plans, and defend them, and was willing to take questions from Iowans (not 4-5 times over the last 9 months), but at every campaign stp she wouldn't have an "Iowa problem". But Hillary Clinton's no Bruce Braley.  Actually she might be doing worse, if she answered them like she did the drivers license question.

Louise Henderson if you really believe that Hillary answers more questions than Obama or Edwards you either are living in cave, or need some medication, because that is so far removed from reality, it is borderline dangerous! Unless of course you were referring to the fact she was asked more questions, or given more opportunity to talk at yesterdays debate, that's true, but being asked questions isn't akin to answering them.

Edwards is a disgusting opportunist and is doing Republican like attacks on Hillary for his own gain.  The simple fact is that sometimes it is just wrong to lay down very detailed plans about things that are national security matters or cannot be addressed for more than a year from now.  Both Edwards and Obama are hypocrites, especially Edwards the lousy hedge fund lawyer that takes funds from special interests.  At least Obama tried to dispay a little class. Edwards should be tossed out of the room as he is only harming the Democratic Party...........goes back to the spa or your sprawling mansion on the hill.  

The debate was not about anything ...it was about Hillary. Including the moderators ganged up on hillary. It is a shame that after two hours of debate the only thing that stuck to my mind is hillarys views because that is what everybody specially Edwards try to discuss and contradict. I wish the other candidates as good as they  present their own views without trying to compare themselves to Hillary. Sell yourselves candidates and let the people decide on what they want. I guess desperate times calls for desperate measures.Understandable but not good enough for thinking persons.

Hillary was very clear on the illegal immigrants getting licenses in NY. She said that she did not agree in principle, but understood the desperate measures that were taken to identify people who are driving anyway, whether legally or not.  If I get into an accident, I'd like to know the person's name!  If Bush had handled the immigration issue and not dropped the ball, leaving the problem to local law enforsement(who are not trained, equipped, or staffed to handle the issue) then the NY Governor would not be in this position.  Obviously we can't deport 12 million people or jail 12 million people for driving with no license. So, until the Feds do their job, I'd like to know who is on the road...and knowing they've passed a driver's test is even better!  GO HILLARY!!!

Happy Birthday to the Next President,  go HILL.

These kinds of comments seem a little desperate to me:
"Clinton's lead has been cut down."
"She is toasted."
Democrats Oct. 27, 2007
Clinton   38%
Obama     24%
Edwards   12%

A 14% point lead and a *28%* lead... and she's TOASTED?? Whew.
You, my dear, are running with scissors.

Louise Henderson….

Your blind feminism is showing… On Tuesday evening, as always, Hillary tried to dodge her answers, change her answers, or, as in the past, not answer at all…. and this time no one took the bait. Not even the moderators. She continually is showing that she’s part of the past, aligned with a failed political machine that’s rigged by insiders, for insiders…..and she finally stubbed her toe on a hot topic “immigration”…. as Chris Matthew’s said after the debate, They’re (the republicans) are going to ride her like a thoroughbred on this one …if you think Edwards, Obama and Dodd were hard on her you wouldn’t want to see what an opposition candidate would do to her…she has more baggage than Samsonite and they know it…they don’t want to face anyone with “new” ideas….they’d rather rip her apart because she’s such an easy target.

Also,  lest we all forget, one of the main reasons that the Republicans and George Bush were originally voted into office was because the public wanted a CHANGE FROM THE CLINTON’S, a change from the never ending scandals, sexual escapades, dishonesty, impeachment proceedings and general untrustworthiness of the Clintons and their administration. The country was fed up with continually being duped, lied to and led down the path of dishonesty and corruption.....Notwithstanding her husband's inability to keep his penus in his pants, much less to utter the truth under oath, or directly to the American people... Hillary, was more than just an inside party to all of the deceit and scandal. She was much more than a “First Lady”, she played a prominent roll in the back room machinations of that administration.

Unfortunately, the ONLY reason that Hillary is re-surfacing is that the Bush/Republican alternative hasn’t been much better, albeit there haven’t been any Clintonesque sexual exploits or lingering Bush scandals emanating from the past. Those issues aside, the people still feel lied to and duped over the WMD’s and pursuit of Saddam and an ill conceived war….and Bush’s distortion of his executive powers.

Any delineation between Hillary and the truth is mere coincidence, she covets blind partisan politics as her greatest ally… If ever really put to task she’s seriously vulnerable on her lack of resume and abilities to get the job, any job done. Does she ever bring up her failed attempt at putting together a national healthcare program? That notwithstanding, she’s still the darling of the party insiders, Lobbyists, Political Interest Groups that are backing her to the hilt, lining up for their piece of the pie. So much for the transparent government, that she continues to mention, again and again, with no stated plan of any sort to back up her rhetoric.  

There are those, like you, that will probably defend her role in her husband’s administration as that of being the first lady and that Bill was responsible for the negative issues….really? If this woman is as opinionated and tough on the issues as they say, positioning herself as a Presidential Candidate, do you think that just magically became that way after her husband left office? No, this woman was a prime figure in one of the darkest, most deceitful periods in our recent political history,…..All of that aside, evidently, we’re all supposed to conveniently forget those dubious days, and concentrate on her more recent political moves, and statements, that show her true political positioning(s), such as,” Lobbyists are real people too”, or a her pork barrel attempt to have the taxpayers foot the bill for a “Museum to Woodstock”???…To which she doesn’t even offer an explanation, because,  if asked, she’ll side step the issue(s),  much in the same fashion that she’s choosing which questions she’s going to respond to in the debates…if she finds disfavor with a question, she just says, “I’m not going to answer that”…..is anyone fearful, this is just a taste of the future, or more is it more likely , a throw-back to those days when were told face to face, by her husband,…”I did not have sexual relations with that woman”……again, the truth does not have a place in the Clinton gene pool.

I say it’s time to move on, to a newer less tarnished commodity, one that hasn’t already caved in to the leeches and lobbyists, someone who hasn’t already betrayed the publics trust….To that end, I lean towards Obama, he has taken an A-political approach on a number of occasions, only to be initially attacked by Clinton, as naïve, or  uneducated, only to flip-flopped to his view point(s) when its realized that he was gaining popular approval from the voters….He’s the only one to admit his errors, and try new approaches…..truthful approaches.

The members of that union(AFSCME) is at least 40% Republican. A lot of the Dems will not work for her(supporting other candidates). They backed H Dean in 2004 along with the entire SEIU. D Gephardt went into Iowa with over 15 union endorsements in 2004. Thank goodness the actual members have other choices, especially after HER ROYAL HIGHNESS was dethroned last night. I do not care for polls(let the real voter decide in Jan08).

Louise, Please.

Who is Keith Olbermann?

Hillary was very decisive,calme ,strong among all these men that are power anger.she showed one more time that she is a strong leader.one thing i know Obama and Edwards will turn off the democrates base.they have to get they message across without being negative.It was unfortunate all those personal attacks on a women.

Why do the moderators and the two top cry babies gang up on Hillary?  I think she is so much smarter than both of Edwards & Obamba.  I have lost all respect for both them. Instead of talking about the war, and the Bush screw ups they want to live in the past.  Its time to let a woman lead this country, for dang sure cant is any worse than the last 8 years.    

1. I simply could not believe that Russert never stopped setting Hillary up to be personally attacked. I kept thinking, "Well, if that's how he's doing it tonight, he'll blister Hillary and then go on to do the same to the others." NOT.
(Russert: Senator Obama, you said in an earlier debate that you would consider using nukes to attack bin Laden in Pakistan. Now you say that Senator Clinton is inviting President Bush to attack Iran and that her Yes vote for the non-binding resolution risks another war. Would you please state, "yes or no" if you favor using force to protect the U.S. or if you favor using diplomacy.")
(Russert: Senator Edwards, you have consistently portrayed yourself as a candidate of the working people and have used your childhood as proof that you know how the poor, the working poor, and the middle class struggle. Would you please disclose your personal wealth, how old you were when your parents moved into the Upper Class? Does the ability to spend $200 on a haircut put you outside the ranks of the poor and working poor? Or is that $200 a tax write off as "employment costs?")
But Russert never did that, did he? He kept setting Hillary up. Why? Well, Chris Matthews has been totally open about his hostile views of Hillary being the front runner; he's been wanting the others to declare war on her for weeks and weeks. (Funny, I used to think he was a neutral gadfly in politics) Russert gave himself away in the last debate when he tried to do "gotcha" with that bit about reading the presidential views on torture, asking Hillary about it, and then GOTCHA ! Bill Clinton wrote that!)
I have never, in over 40 years of watching debates, seen anything like that. Never.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):