Yesterday's debate (D)

PJ — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:30:16 GMT

I'm glad that Kuccinich & Gravel are in these debates. Of course they don't have the remotest chance of actually gaining the nomination but their presence in the debate is valuable. Gravel, while coming off a little whacky, has the guts to speak the truth about things the others are afraid to touch upon. He brought up how the neo-cons (PNAC) have sought to destabilize the middle east for their own goals of world hegemony, and THAT is what has brought us to where we are now. (If you found that your neighbor was plotting to destabilize your family so he could take what's yours, what would you do?) Of course he got cut off and no one else picked up on it. I applaud him.

Yesterday's debate (D)

Lyn, MD — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:44:13 GMT

Let us not forget the very influential Yespen's other comments . Wasn't he the other moderator? And of course the Iowa Independant. Time magazine gave him the highest score(Halpren). The real shocker is Chris C at Washington Fix.

Click here: The Fix -- Chris Cillizza's Politics Blog on washingtonpost.com :

WINNERS

Barack Obama: We've been critical of Obama's debate performance in the past -- too ponderous, not sufficiently to the point. On Sunday Obama was able to show the thoughtfulness that his campaign believes distinguishes him from the rest of the field without seeming as scattered as he has in past debates. Obama was consistently on message, pushing the idea that he alone can change the way business is done in Washington and pushing back on attacks on his experience by pointing out that he was the only one of the frontrunners to oppose the war in Iraq from the start. Obama's answer on the decisive moment of his life -- the last question of the debate -- showed the candidate at his best. Rather than an entirely canned answer, Obama cited his transition from high school to college, noting that he was at times "an angry young man" who found what he had to give in that tough period of his life.

The Des Moines Register's David Yepsen writes:

Obama may be the biggest winner...

He was in the cross hairs for much of the early part of the session and he stood up well to the scrutiny over his foreign policy positions and questions of whether he¹s qualified to be president.

He came off as knowledgeable and temperate. He looked presidential...

And check out this post-debate wrap-up from the Iowa Independent:

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama showed this morning why he's in the presidential race with his best debate performance to date, one in which he commanded details, looked Oval Office ready and effectively made the case that he is indeed the candidate of true change -- and that instead of polarizing GOP voters in the fall of 2008 he may be able to pick off some of them.

Obama gained the most ground of any of the candidates in the debate...

Want a change? "I'm your guy," said Obama. "We're going to need someone to break out of the political pattern we've been in the last 20 years," Obama said.

The Democratic Candidates1 of 8 Charlie Neibergall /APBarack Obama
Grade: A
Article ToolsPrintEmailSphereAddThisRSS
His best debate performance so far. Stood up to sustained questioning on his alleged inexperience, which led the first seven minutes of the event, without losing his cool or backing down. He even made a well-received joke about preparing for the debate by riding the bumper cars at the Iowa State Fair. Tripled down on standing up for his recent controversial foreign policy statements on nuclear weapons, meeting with foreign leaders, and hunting al Qaeda, with firmness and good humor. Drew audience applause for again playing the I-opposed-the-Iraq-War card to tout his judgment. Sounded almost (Bill) Clintonesque in talking about trade and merit pay for teachers. Displayed the confidence of a leader.

—Mark Halperin

Why is it everyone except the people at First Read and MSNBC can give him credit when he wins?

Chuck I was disappointed with your performance on Morning Joe, your comment half handily that "obama probably thinks he won" is belied by the above. But to get on that show you have to be willing to bash Obama. MSNBC should rename it to Fox and Friends II.

Yesterday's debate (D)

jerry/corpus christi texas — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:49:41 GMT

So John Edwards has a problem huh?

www.nypost.com/.../edwards_hedge_fund_oaks_cane_victims_nationalnews_andy_soltis__post_wire_services.htm - 42k

John Edwards talking about two americas while his hedge fund investment kicks people out of the homes in the Katrina zone.....CLASIIC! Talking about stepping in it!

Yesterday's debate (D)

MK,MO — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:52:43 GMT

And the Des Moines Register’s Beaumont leads his dispatch with Edwards, saying he “worked carefully” to paint Clinton as a “Washington, D.C., insider.”

wouldn't have to be much of an artist to paint that picture, hillary reeks of washington insider, she’s part of the problem not the answer

Yesterday's debate (D)

john san antonio — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:52:47 GMT

From a common sense standpoit having little experience has to be a big plus. The U. S. has been in steady decline for several years now, all under the control of experienced parasites, er I mean politicians.

Yesterday's debate (D)

Emmy Jacobson, Wheeling IL — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:56:19 GMT

Neither Hillary or Barack have a chance in the general election. By their position, they are two Washington insiders, which the Democratic base detests. The Republicans on the other hand are all outsiders. Even Fred Thompson has been away from Washington long enough to not be 'dirtied up' with the insider label. Maybe Edwards could pull off being the Washington outsider candidate, but even 2nd tier candidates Dodd and Biden are insiders. Richardson and Kucinich have executive experience, but neither has a chance to move on past January of '08.

It's not clear why the Democrats are fielding such a Washington insider field. It nearly guarntees they will not win next year.

Yesterday's debate (D)

Ed, Watertown, MA — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:06:04 GMT

I thought Richardson was much better than he's been in the previous debates. It always seemed like he was winging it previously but no matter how bright you are, you need to prepare in order to get your message out in 30-60 seconds. He did put pressure on Biden and Clinton to explain why keeping forces in Iraq is a good idea and I don't think they could justify it. As far as the issue about how fast you withdraw, that's just a logistical problem and I think Richardson has shown too much competence in his career to do anything reckless. He just feels you need to keep the timetable as short as practically possible and leaving it open ended is just a way to kick the problem down the road without committing to any particular action. With this performance and his double-digit polling in both Iowa and NH, I think it's time to start including him in the top-tier. He probably needs a front runner stumble to pass them but at least he's positioning himself to take advantage of an opening if it occurs.

Yesterday's debate (D)

Robert Catalano, Salem, OR — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:12:42 GMT

I never thought I'd say this but I agree with Karl Rove. Hillary may be too polarizing to win.

Yesterday's debate (D)

Paul, OH — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:13:53 GMT

FIRST THOUGHTS:

OBAMA was fabulous. He gave a very presidential answer and also demonstarted the core of US philosophy in the answer regarding the IRAQ seperation. Even Biden, the expert had his jaw drop. Obama said, we should split but that decision has to be taken by the IRAQI's (reflecting on the value of freedom of expression which is a constitutional value). Nothing works out if we act as BIG BROTHER and breathe down others neck. He has the vision to see that. It was fantastic that no one even was aware of such things. I GOT TO GIVE IT TO HIM.
I think its time to take out Graveland DODD. Dennis can stay becos we need voices to question the big dogs. The deabte appeared like a pack of hyenas attacking a lion. It appeared like an orchestrated effort from Hillary, Dodd, Biden to tear Obama but he stood his ground. I can see they shake when he brings up IRAQ.
I can understand their frustration. they must be thinking..Man..."who is this dude who comes from nowwhere.. while WE GREY HAIRED TRIED POLITICIANS HAVE PAID OUR DUES IN POLITICS" Thats what irkes them the most. They forget that JFK, Billy Clinton were all 45+/- 2 yrs when they became president. HRC canot stand Obama given his popularity and charisma. She can never accept defeat and thats why she will dance along biting her teeth to every scathing attack. Go OBAMA .. Shoot staright for the Oval office. The people are with you and prove to the DC "pundits" that you are smarter than they are.

Yesterday's debate (D)

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:19:40 GMT

Obama performed admirably and truly is maturing in this debate forum. However, Hillary's responses were hackneyed and shallow. Edward's was trying for attention grabbing sound bites and fell short. Biden was solid as he usually is (I appreciate his self-deprecation). Richardson was sharper than his usual presentation, which is good because he has been the underachiever in the debates so far.
Although I have always wanted to see more head to head confrontation among the candidates, these forums with their 60-90 second sound bites are getting to be fairly useless. I would like to see a series of one on one (or at most three at a time) events that would allow the candidates to present meatier presentations of their positions. Then there might be less of the showboating that occurs as each tries to go for 'the moment' in the debate.
Moderators would be able to probe the candidates for their inconsistancies if there were a more limited field (and all of the candidates should be involved in this series). I also think that it would give the so called second and third tier candidates to be better heard (or confirm their lunacy).
Anyway, as time goes on, Obama's intellegence and judgment seems to become more apparent (as realized by the Iowans, evidenced by the pre-debate ABC poll) and the talking heads may have to re-assess their coronation plans for Hillary. Biden or Richardson may be the vice-presidential pick.

Yesterday's debate (D)

Bee — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:23:34 GMT

No spin can stop this. Barack is the right guy for the job. We need thoughtfulness and Judgement not sound bite. Obama is surely going to win this primary race.

Yesterday's debate (D)

Asad — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:38:01 GMT

Emmy, why are the Republicans fielding outsider candidates? You people have been saying that the last 7 years have been some of the best years in the history of this country. So wouldn't you proudly elect someone who is part of this current establishment? Like a Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz ticket?

Yesterday's debate (D)

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:40:53 GMT

The MSM is owned by Clinton and is not to be believed, unless the coverage is pro-Obama, then it is impartial.
The polls are all fixed, unless they favor Obama, then they are credible. lol

Van

Yesterday's debate (D)

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:43:47 GMT

The only people who think Hillary is a "polarizing" figure are people who either;
a) support a different Democratic candidate, and who are using the "polarization" thing as a political weapon (which is ignominious, by the way),
or; b) are republiCANTS who are scared to death she'll win the nomination. Because they know that if she wins the nomination, she will win the election.

Yesterday's debate (D)

bahahahahaha — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:56:26 GMT

Karl Rove won the debate

Yesterday's debate (D)

Susan, Miami — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:03:09 GMT

Hillary isn't nearly as polarizing as Bush. She will win the election whether she's as insider or not. Obama is really an awesome candidate, and Hillary is impressed by him because he is a hardcore democrat, like herself.

Yesterday's debate (D)

Delaware Republican — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:03:51 GMT

I concur. Karl Rove did win this debate. Senator Clinton cannot win the general elecction.

Yesterday's debate (D)

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:15:27 GMT

Monday, August 20, 2007
Advertisment

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows New York Senator Hillary Clinton at 42% in the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. She is trailed by Illinois Senator Barack Obama at 22% and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards at 14% among Likely Democratic Primary Voters (see recent daily numbers). Delaware Senator Joe Biden and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and are at 4% and 3%"

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/daily_presidential_tracking_poll__1

But it's a very loud, Twenty-Two percent.

Van

Yesterday's debate (D)

Emmy Jacobson, Wheeling IL — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:40:07 GMT

Emmy, why are the Republicans fielding outsider candidates?

Most likely because those are the type of candidates that win. And not just for the Republicans. The last insider candidate to win the Presidency was George the First, and he went in on Reagans coat-tails. George the Second (outsider, and beat two insiders (Gore and Kerry), Clinton (outsider, and beat two insiders (Bush and Dole), Reagan (outsider, and beat two insiders (Carter and Mondale), Carter (outsider, and beat an insider (Ford).

Now the Democrats have nearly all inside the beltway candidates:

Clinton - two term Senator
Obama - first term Senator
Edwards - left the Senate 4 years ago
Dodd - five term Senator
Biden - six tern Senator
Kucinich - six term Representative
Richardson - NM Governor and Clinton Sec of Energy
Gravel - long ago a Senator - most outsider of all the Democrats

Starting to see a trend?

Using history as the indicator, the Democrats are doomed

Yesterday's debate (D)

HMT-MI — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:47:59 GMT

Karl Rove stepping down?It was Karl Rove all the time on Sunday and I am sure he will given the chance to spew and smear for the rest of the season.Just a regular citizen now?Give me a break.Clever and cunning and seems to work---calls on c-spann this morning sucked in by Karl again----oooh Karl is right about Hillary.Hard to believe people are so patheticly stupid to believe a word that comes out of his rancid mouth.Here we go again with the same crooks liars and thieves making the sheeplepeoples decisions.

Yesterday's debate (D)

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:40:51 GMT

Delaware Republican.....imagine the sight of yourself, wearing Ruby Slippers, standing in the middle of an open field while clicking your heels together three times and whispering to yourself "Senator Clinton cannot win the general elecction."
Well, for as silly as that particular scene might "look" to anyone; likewise, your assertion in and of itself is just as preposterous.
If Hillary runs, Hillary wins. It's as simple as that.
Don't worry, she'll be a good President.

Yesterday's debate (D)

H.R.C.,...vote for me , hillaryclinton.com — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:41:13 GMT

Sure got the Republicans scared, don't you Hillary ? yes, thanks G.W. !

Yesterday's debate (D)

MK,MO — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:55:01 GMT

Yesterday's debate (D)

jerry/corpus christi texas — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:10:39 GMT

Yes merle, she will run the country like she runs New York LOL.

Yesterday's debate (D)

Sierra, San Francisco — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:28:45 GMT

Actually, Obama is learning to stand up to attacks on his foreign policy by babbling opportunists (hello. Hillary, Joe, Chris, Bill).
That will helop him in the general election against the Republicans.
I just wish he'd do more attacking of Hillary.
It's time to put her away.
Hillary is the past !!
Let's get on with the future

Hillary Clinton
15 years of dishonesty, scandal, and political polarization !!

Hillary Clinton, the Republican's ONLY hope !!

Yesterday's debate (D)

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:31:50 GMT

vanreuter, NY NY / sorry van the polls are meaningless, get a grip hillary can't win the general election no matter how much you blather on about her,I can't understand why any dem would vote for her anyway other than the mommy parts deal, she's as deeply indebted to corporate america as any repub candidate, remember the cover story about how big business adores her so? that would be reason enough to declare her an enemy of any real dem, but you keep posting your cannon fodder, I know you have to pay the bills, but you ain't fooling anyone, sorry

MK,MO (Sent Monday, August 20, 2007 12:55 PM)

You sir, are an arrogant fool.

"she's as deeply indebted to corporate america as any repub candidate."

I dare you to produce anything from a reliable source, with attribution, that disputes this;

Most of Clinton's money comes from finance insurance real estate lawyers lobbyists Most of Obama's money comes from, (surprise) finance insurance real estate lawyers lobbyists, Most of Edwards money comes from; Lawyers and lobbyists.

Finance isnurance re

Clinton, $7,781,040

Obama,$6,717,962

Edwards,$1,661,100

Lawyers and lobbyists

Clinton, $6,582,595

Obama,$5,636,443

Edwards,$6,559,042

Misc. Business interests;

Clinton, $5,184,947

Obama,$4,105,528

Edwards, $877,601

Lawyers and lobbyists make up 10.4% of Clinton's, 9.567% of Obama's and, TWENTY-EIGHT point 32 percent for EDWARDS! contributions.

Here are the sources;

http://www.fec.gov/index.shtml

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.asp?id=N00002283&cycle=2008

The info is there for anyone with eyes and a brain to see.

and this is just BIGOTED gender-hate speech, clap-trap;

"I can't understand why any dem would vote for her anyway other than the mommy parts deal,"

Because you are a sexist bigot, based on your comment.

Your opinions are for the most part, vile, and without a single fact to support them, yet you try to cast doubt on statistics from the FEDERAL ELECTIONS COMMISSION that DESTROY many of the lies you repeat ad infinitum on this site as fact.

You have no credible support for your contentions, meaning you have no CREDIBILITY, with me, or the reality and fact based community.

Come back when you have something of substance, that you can back up, otherwise, you don't merit any response.

Van

Yesterday's debate (D)

Steve Turner Cedar Falls Iowa — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:46:34 GMT

Asad. Actually the Republicans Are fielding 'Outsider' candidates. They are all 'Outside' of the world most of us live in.

Yesterday's debate (D)

CD, NC — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:54:01 GMT

Yesterday's debate (D)

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:54:38 GMT

MK - Just out of curiosity, who do you support and why? Mostly I see you going on and on about the evils of Hillary, but I have yet to see you clearly articulate your reasons for supporting another candidate. I'd love to hear it.

Emmy - Carter cannot be considered an insider. He won as an outsider in 1976. He ran as an incumbent, which is not the same thing. Clinton and Bush would have been insiders their second terms under that thinking.

Yesterday's debate (D)

Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:58:03 GMT

MK, why don't you tell us who you are voting for and if you'll vote for a repub when the time comes?

Yesterday's debate (D)

Pat P., Huntington Station, NY — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:08:58 GMT

If Hillary is indebted to big business, then, the logic is that she'll do what she can for big business growth. Isn't this what republicans want?

Yesterday's debate (D)

Mark Bradley Elgin.il — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:13:34 GMT

You people got it all wrong. Senator Obama has great ideas, he is telling you what you already know. And
it sounds good but remember the President still has to deal with Congress and the Senate to get his ideas done. Senator Obama is fool of PURE PROPOSITION of ideas & words. American people need to wake up and read the Constitution.We need a person who will use the laws of this country and enforce what on the books already.

Look at Obama's record as a U.S.Senator he's done nothing but be a follower of Ted Kennedy he's done nothing for Illinois or the U.S.Senate

Yesterday's debate (D)

Emmy Jacobson, Wheeling IL — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:22:56 GMT

But Carrie, do you see the point? Outside the beltway candidates win the Presidency. If they do a half way decent job, they then get re-elected. The Democrats that are currently running are all insiders. That's a lot of history to be running against and have any expectations to win.

Yesterday's debate (D)

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:40:40 GMT

"...Yes merle, she will run the country like she runs New York LOL.
jerry/corpus christi texas ..."

Hillary doesn't RUN New York, jerry
She represents it in The United States Senate.
Didn't you know that's what U.S Senators are supposed to do?
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.
(pssst, jerry.....we won't tell anyone you failed civics. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha)

Yesterday's debate (D)

Josh — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:51:12 GMT

"You people got it all wrong. Senator Obama has great ideas, he is telling you what you already know. And
it sounds good but remember the President still has to deal with Congress and the Senate to get his ideas done. Senator Obama is fool of PURE PROPOSITION of ideas & words. American people need to wake up and read the Constitution.We need a person who will use the laws of this country and enforce what on the books already.

Look at Obama's record as a U.S.Senator he's done nothing but be a follower of Ted Kennedy he's done nothing for Illinois or the U.S.Senate"
Mark Bradley Elgin.il (Sent Monday, August 20, 2007 2:13 PM)

That is exactly right, Mark. The President does still have to work with Congress to get things done. Why do you think nothing gets done in Congress now? It is because: 1) Bush continues to push for divisive policies, and 2) Congress is so closely split that no divisive issues can get through the process.

Having said that, I don't understand how you come to your conclusion that Obama would not be able to get things done. Since he has a record in the Illinois Senate of working WITH Republicans and not (necessarily) AGAINST them, it would follow that he would be logical to predict that he would at least try to do the same as president.

Of course, it is impossible to predict how things will actually proceed regardless of who is in office, other than that Congress will most assuredly still be split in 2008. But it would seem that important policies have more of a chance of passage if the President is working WITH both parties, and not AGAINST the "right-wing machine" as Hillary has pleged to do.

I am an Obama supporter, but that does not mean I am anti-Clinton, nor am I anti-Republican (barring a selct few Republicans). My views just happen to align with Democrats in general, and with Obama's in particular. I think those that attack others, even fellow party members, based not on fact, but simply on uneducated emotion, are childish and should form a blog of their own so that we can proceed on this one with intelligent, civil commentary. Your immediate compliance would be appreciated.

Yesterday's debate (D)

vanreuter, NY NY — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:05:56 GMT

VAn...let's see which part of the focus group results did you enjoy most:
- the part when almost everyone believed Obama won
- the woman said she was changing from Clinton to Oama
-When all the hands went up saying clinton was the worst LOL

Just in case you havn't seen it yet

CD, NC (Sent Monday, August 20, 2007 1:54 PM)"

"The MSM is owned by Clinton and is not to be believed, unless the coverage is pro-Obama, then it is impartial.
The polls are all fixed, unless they favor Obama, then they are credible. lol"

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Monday, August 20, 2007 10:40 AM)

You'd have to say that your post pretty much proves my point.

Good for Obama,that he got a lot of support in a focus group. I don't dispute the outcome. Now how about ALL OF THE OTHER POLLS POSTED HERE? Which ones do you enjoy most?

Once again, there are reasonable people who disagree on the issues, and then there are people like you. I leave it to the fact based, reality based community, to weigh the information and the source)s) and reach an informed decision.

Van

Van

Yesterday's debate (D)

Sierra, San Francisco — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:15:45 GMT

Van, Van, Van:
'"she's as deeply indebted to corporate america as any repub candidate."

I dare you to produce anything from a reliable source, with attribution,'

Van, did you happen to see the July 9, 2007 issue of Fortune magazine ??

"Business Loves Hillary!"

'...One of Hillary Clinton's most important courtships began early last year, around a formal dinner table at Georgetown's Four Seasons Hotel. Her targets were Morgan Stanley CEO John Mack and his wife, Christy. Mack was already active politically - but on behalf of Clinton's political opponents. A Bush "Ranger," he had raised at least $200,000 for the President's......'

A Bush Ranger, huh ?
Just turn you jacket inside out, it's business as usual in DC.
The insiders are getting ready to carve up the carcass !!

"Business Loves Hillary!"

Why, Van ??
Why does: "Business Loves Hillary!"

Yesterday's debate (D)

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:15:55 GMT

I see Lyn, and Sierra are at it again today....only Sierra learned a new word. "Polarization."
Aren't you sort an "opportunist" yourself, for gratutitously using a word that you didn't know the meaning of three days ago?
You just don't get it, do you?
Well, Let me spell it out for you.
Ready? Here it is; Barrack Obama will get his head handed to him on a silver platter by the G.O.P. in a general election.
Obama's inexperience at the national level, along with the recent gaffes' he made while speaking about foreign policy (statements which will surely be turned into Republican bumper sticker slogans, and TV commercials) will cost the Democratic Party any and all gains it made in 2006.
In that sense, The Democratic party will lose states that are presently leaning towards becoming "blue" (again), and it will set the party back to where it was in 2002.
We simply don't need that.
Oh, and I'm just curious Sierra....what "scandal" was Hillary ever involved in for 15 years?
Not one, but TWO seperate grand juries (Little Rock Ar, and Washington D.C.) refused to charge her with any wrongdoing whatsover in connection with Whitewater.
The worst that can be said of her is that she didn't keep very good track of her business papers when she left Little Rock in 1993.
So what? Bush couldn't even produce his Air National Guard discharge!
I am sick and tired of disnegenuous Republicans and Nader supporters, pretending to be Democrats who don't like Hillary.
I'm telling you here and now folks.....if she runs, she WINS.
Pure and simple.

Yesterday's debate (D)

no -converts — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:32:55 GMT

Van... if your objective is to persuade one/any non-Hillary supporter to now support her you are wasting your time here.

Go back to your day job...Hillaryis44

Yesterday's debate (D)

Ed, Fresno Ca — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:39:54 GMT

Hill can not win?

A yellow dog would win this next prez election against any repub.

The people have had enough.

Yesterday's debate (D)

MK,MO — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:42:50 GMT

Carrie, Eastern Iowa / I will be voting for john edwards in the primary, why? because he's the only dem that can win the general election despite all the faux data van whatever his name is regurgitates constantly, edwards does not embrace the political machine in washington, he is the only candidate who has consistently opposed the pac and lobbyist system currently running our nation unlike hillary whom openly admits she thinks lobbyists and pacs are the greatest thing since sliced bread, edwards is the only candidate that has a healthcare plan that will benefit every american that is financially feasible, hillarys healthcare plan is the same as rudy giuliani's, it does nothing to help the uninsured and is taylor made to keep the money flowing to the insurance and drug companies that hillary serves, despite van's attempt's to wow the mindless sheep that continue to follow hillary off the cliff, anyone that takes a good look at hillary will see her for the dishonest business as usual republican clone that she is, and all the numbers van can concocted ain't going to change that, it’s laughable how hillary supporters refuse to debate hillary’s stance on anything, because they don’t know what her stance is on anything, she purposely avoids answering any direct question, her cloak of secrecy and deception is a typical ploy taken from our current commander in chief, anyone care to argue about that? I didn’t think so. Maybe van can get out his calculator and come up with some more bogus numbers to keep us entertained in the mean time, by the way van pointing out the fact that some females insist on voting for hillary for gender only reasons doesn’t make me a bigot it just makes some women seem rather foolish, actually who is being the bigot? Or is that another one way street?

Yesterday's debate (D)

Richard Fifield, Easton, PA — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:53:26 GMT

Josh--

It would be great if Republicans and Democrats could work together on things, and if Sen. Obama can do that, more power to him.

I'd like to see him do some of that while he is in the Senate (working in a bipartisan manner with his Republican counterparts), rather than stating he'll do that if elected president. All candidates pledge to work with the opposition while campaigning, but they often forget that pledge once ensconced in office.

Saying you'll do it is a lot different from actually doing it. If Sen. Obama can demonstrate his willingness and ability to do something like that, my feelings toward him will improve markedly.

Yesterday's debate (D)

H P Boston — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:57:57 GMT

Van do not ever, ever go away. You are good enough to do our work for us by giving us FACTS.
Some poster here do not want to accept facts but that is their problem. So many lies so little facts is the recipe they prefer.
God loves stupid people he made so many of them.

Yesterday's debate (D)

Susan, Miami — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:59:03 GMT

J Merle and Van, you are great! keep it up!

Yesterday's debate (D)

Marcus Mahada — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:23:38 GMT

Ed - A yellow dog would win this next prez election against any repub.

So, you are saying that Hillary will win. She's more beige though then yellow.

Yesterday's debate (D)

Blue state baby — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:42:42 GMT

Ed, Fresno.. Hillary can and will win!! Another frightened repub.

Yesterday's debate (D)

Arshad, Newburgh, NY — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:53:29 GMT

Experience is not measured by how many years someone has been around in politics but what he/she has accomplished during that time, how he/she conducted herself during that time and how people's lives in the country have been impacted by his/her accomplishment.

So, Senator Clinton does have experience in terms of being around for a while. Being a 1st lady and accompanying the president to 82 countries does not create foreign policy experience. Failing in only significant effort on healthcare reform during her time as 1st lady did not accomplish anything. Getting elected in a democratic state like New York, with a last name of Clinton defeating an unknown light weight in Rick Lazio is not a huge success. She did not get elected in a Republican state defeating an incumbent Republican senator to claim "she can withstand the relentless right wing attack machine". As a 2 term senator from New York, what legislature she passed in US senate that have improved lives of American people. Her only significant bills had to do with addressing needs of 9/11 victims which is logical and right thing to do.

So when we talk about Mrs Clinton's "qualification and experience" as the most qualified democratic candidate, what the main stream media really means? Do you guys know something more that people don't?

Yesterday's debate (D)

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:07:34 GMT

So I take it Susan, that you are an enthusiastic Hillary supporter, who believes in her vision and leadership, and will be voting for her at primary time and again in the fall of '08.'
Keep it up Susan, and keep letting everyone know you support Hillary! We need to break down the G.O.P. rhetroic about "polarization" that doesn't exist, and scandals that never happened.
We need to show the country that the only people saying these things are Hillary-haters. (republiCANTS and Ralph Nader-third-party-types who can't win.)

Yesterday's debate (D)

lyn, MD — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:12:30 GMT

J Merle...not with my vote. I believe you are the real Troll trying to get people to support Hillary so the democrats will not win. Only someone who does not want the democrats to win would support Hillary

Yesterday's debate (D)

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:14:15 GMT

".....'...One of Hillary Clinton's most important courtships began early last year, around a formal dinner table at Georgetown's Four Seasons Hotel. Her targets were Morgan Stanley CEO John Mack and his wife, Christy. Mack was already active politically - but on behalf of Clinton's political opponents. A Bush "Ranger," he had raised at least $200,000 for the President's......'....."

Sierra, I notice you rather selectively edited this piece to make it look like Hillary took money from this guy.
Well, did she?
Also, if Big Business Loves Hillary.....what's wrong with that? Does a candidate have to be hated by business interests to get your vote? That's kinda' silly isn't it? (shaking my head!)

Yesterday's debate (D)

Ed, Fresno Ca — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 22:13:39 GMT

The repubs are just jealous. Any one of the dems top 4 would make a good prez. They on the other hand can not total all 4 of theirs and get 1 good one.

I for one do not care at this point who wins the dem nomination to run for prez. They will win and be MUCH better than what we have now.

The people have had enough.

Yesterday's debate (D)

H P Boston — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 22:39:45 GMT

NO, NO, Nope! Lyn MD you are the TROLL!! J. Merle is the real Democrat here. Susan, Amy and Blue State Baby are the real deal. MK MO is the bigot and sexist jerk
we hope forgets to vote.
Thanks J. Merle for all your great insights.

Yesterday's debate (D)

HOT DAM — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 22:42:17 GMT

LYN MD AND MK MO can stick their votes where the sun don't shine.

Yesterday's debate (D)

Ashe, SF CA — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 23:20:57 GMT

Hey wait a minute....just because some sensible Democrats are not in lock-step with Hillary Clinton does not make us TROLLS. We consider ourselves open-minded....let the process play itself out without media bias. I believe the American people will come to the right decision when choosing the next president...and many Hillary-lovers will be in for a rude awakening.

Yesterday's debate (D)

Paul, OH — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 07:31:30 GMT

WHY DONT SOMEONE LAY THE DIFFERENT POLICIES HERE>

IRAQ WAR:

Hillary: Voted for and refuses to apologize
Obama: VOTED AGAINST
Edwards: Voted for BUT AT LEAST APOLOGIZED

PAC/Lobbyists:

Hillary: Accepts
Obama: Refuses
EDwards: Refuses

Please list them and soon you will see why HRC is a nasty dirty pathological liar. I ma trying to understand why she is getting endorsements. It is true the whole DEMOCRATIC establishment fears her. SHE RULES THEM. Cant believe this is USA. IF democrats are dumb to vote her as nominee, then I go republican.

Yesterday's debate (D)

Jeff Morgan, Austin, TX — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:32:21 GMT

Van and friends:

You know, right now where I am it's 75 degrees. I'm definitely not going to suppose it's going to be 75 degrees in 12 hours. It'll be in the 90's.

In the daytime it'll be in the 90's over and over again. Every time I check the thermometer, it'll bounce around the high 80's and sometimes the low 100's. But I'm definitely not going to suppose the daytime temps will be in the 90's in 5 months. It'll be in the 40's, 50's and 60's.

Sound familiar?

Polls are a lot like thermometers. They tell you the climate of that moment, but sadly they can't be used to predict future conditions.

Yesterday's debate (D)

Jeff Morgan, Austin, TX — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:33:05 GMT

Van, the problem with your 'facts' isn't that the polls are wrong. It's that you use them to suggest things that the polls do not predict.

For example, the focus groups and polls of people who watch a debate are relevant because these are people who we know are exposed to the candidates. What they show is people who see Obama, Clinton, Edwards, et al. Obama is favored.

When you cite a national poll to try to suggest something else, you are getting a majority of people who have not seen the candidates side by side. So it's apples and oranges, yet you still try to imply that it counters the focus group/viewer polls.

By the primaries and caucuses, the voters of the early states will have been spammed with campaign messages through mail, door-knocking, telephone, tv ads, radio ads, and newspaper editorials.

At the very least, you'll have to counter with data of voters who have had a strong degree of exposure of the candidates and their messages, if you want to predict some outcome.

Also I don't suppose the national polls you cite are necessarily crooked. But people expect early state results to be a strong determining factor in national polls, which will be much more relevant come Feb. 5. To predict what the polls will be then, on Feb. 5, people look to predict early state results.

Today's national polls don't predict national polls of next February.

Yesterday's debate (D)

MK,MO — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:23:29 GMT

H P Boston / "MK MO is the bigot and sexist jerk"
if you want to see a real bigot and sexist jerk h p look in the mirror, pretty lame, maybe you can get van to write some clever response for ya since it seems 2nd grade name calling is all you can muster up on your own

Yesterday's debate (D)

Amazed, Atlanta GA — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:47:18 GMT

Hillary has her pluses, and Obama has his pluses. Hillary is more of an insider, and Obama is more fresh. The question will boil down to.. the next president is going to have a historical mess on their hands... Iraq... not to mention domestic problems that are growing more dire.. housing market, credit crunch, healthcare, education, infrastructure. The question is, do we need someone with more experience, who is likely to find compromise in moderate positions.. or do we think fresh ideas are needed more. It's a tough call... I am still undecided, but that's the bottom line as I see it.

Yesterday's debate (D)

H P Boston — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:50:19 GMT

Well Jeff Morgan all we have is the here and now. Come back and check in next February.

Yesterday's debate (D)

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 16:09:19 GMT

".....J Merle...not with my vote. I believe you are the real Troll trying to get people to support Hillary so the democrats will not win. Only someone who does not want the democrats to win would support Hillary
lyn, MD (Sent Monday, August 20, 2007 5:12 PM)....."

What are you, NUTS?
Karl Rove attacks Hillary because he KNEW the media would play it up as a "head-game," and that's exactly what they did. Rove isn't stupid, he knew what the press would say, and some of you have taken the bait.
Then, the G.O.P. runs around yacking about how they "want" Hillary (to run against).
But, the last time they tried that kind of psychology she whooped em' good!
Don't you understand? They are scared to death of her!
That, and that alone is the reason they have been attacking her for 6 years.
They couldn't, didn't, can't and won't beat her.
As far as being a troll is concerned...take a good look in the mirror lyn. You are the one who advocates dissention, and division within our party.
People like you, not me, are the reason the Democratic Party was so far behind the 8 ball fo so many years.

Yesterday's debate (D)

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 16:11:47 GMT

Oh, and by the way lyn......just to return the favor.....I'll vote for a republiCANT before I vote for Obama, Kucinich, or Gravel.

Yesterday's debate (D)

Molly, Iowa City — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 16:20:35 GMT

MK-MO

John Edwards can probably win the general, IF he wins the nomination. However, if he preforms as bad in the debates against Rudy he will not win in November. John was my second choice in 04, and was so happy when he was selected VP, I thought he'd kill Cheney in the debate, but he was almost as bad as Lieberman was in 00! Cheney gives him the easiest gift, claiming despite being at the Senate X times a week (my memory falls me on the frequency he gave) that night was the first time he ever saw John. John said nothing, and allowed it to appear as though he never showed up to the Senate. He was a great litigator, and I was shocked at his performance. Elizabeth was seething. Immediately after the debate, before she even congratulated John she went to Cheney and told him he had obviously forgotten the numerous prior times he has met John, and informed her of the number of times she had been present when they had talked to each other. One of the events I recall her bringing up was the time John and Dick sat next to each other on the dais at the national prayer breakfast (a 2 + hour event that was less than 2 years prior). John should have remembered that, (and other times he talked with the VP) and said "Mr. VP you know that is not true, we have met many times in and out of the Senate Chamber, are you telling America you don't recall sitting directly beside me for several hours at the head head table for the national prayer breakfast" And if they held hands during the prayer, he could have added that. Not only would Cheney's cheap shot been exposed for what it was, but some voters would be impressed finding out John was active in that group. On Sundays debate he missed the golden opportunity to state there was no difference between what Hillary said about taking nukes off the table against Iran, and Obama saying the same about Pakistan. One could argue given Pakistan has the nuke Obama's statement is wiser than Hillary's regarding Iran, because at least they don't currently have nukes. Instead he said a bunch of nonsense, and then basically sided with Hillary- that there was a difference between the comments. DUMB Mistake!!!!

John could probably win the general if he is the nominee, but he would have to be on his game far more often.

Joe Biden would coast to a general election victory. He'd be able to kill Rudy on a 9-11 debate. If Joe knew prior to 9-11 that our greatest security risk was not a nuke from a foreign nation with a return address on its bomb, but from terrorist striking our ports, in the hull of an airplane, etc. And repeated his earlier warnings on SEPTEMBER 10TH 2001 less than 24 hours prior to the attack, Rudy wouldn't be able to succeed in claiming we had no way of knowing....

Realistically Biden is the one candidate who could beat anyone of the Republican's. John could Beat Mitt, but would be hard pressed to beat Rudy.

Yesterday's debate (D)

H P Boston — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 16:55:41 GMT

Oh MK Do not be so disturbed, you have done nothing but name call and even worse lob truly disgusting labels on Senator Clinton. Every day you have dragged out the wooden cross, hammer and nails and bloodied her. Move on up to 6th grade and tell us about John Edwards who is a darn good candidate for president. Save all your venom for the scabs in the White House.

Yesterday's debate (D)

H P Boston — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 16:58:02 GMT

Yesterday's debate (D)

H P Boston — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:03:48 GMT

Oh MK Do not be so disturbed, you have done nothing but name call and even worse lob truly disgusting labels on Senator Clinton.

Every day you have dragged out the wooden cross, hammer and nails and bloodied her.

Move on up to 6th grade and tell us about John Edwards who is a darn good candidate for president.

Save all your venom for the scabs in the White House.

Yesterday's debate (D)

Lorraine — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 06:29:54 GMT

Unfortunately, I don't think the American people will get it. They will look at Obama and only see his black face and tell themselves it is his lack of experience that wouldn't allow them to vote for him. Too bad for our country because he will be a great president. To many it is better to vote for Clinton who is perceived as more experience when in fact Clinton and Obama have roughly the same amount of experience.

Yes, Clinton talks a good game but it is her and people like her that are responsible for this untenable situation we have in Iraq. That is the truth and it's no changing it no matter how much double speak we hear. Now, as Americans we have to step out on faith and elect a leader that is not part of the establishment- but who has a decency and core set of values that reflect our own. This is the only way to correct that damage that has been done to our country and that is going to take courage.

I listened to Bush in his speeches and knew he would go to war long before he ever declared war. I have listened to Hillary as well, mark my words, she will NEVER END this war in Iraq. Vote for her if you please but she will never end this war- she is just as Obama said: Bush-Cheney lite.

Yesterday's debate (D)

Sultana Frazis — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:00:43 GMT

Good Morning,
First, I'ld like to respectfully disclose that I am a registered Rpublican; Non the less though, like everyone else I am a very proud American. This year's elections are of greater interest than others and therefore, I am following them with great care.
I watched the Debate yesterday between Senitors Clinton and Obama and must say that I was disappointed with the fact that the commentator, Ms. Campbell Brown did not exercise the same curtersies to Senitor Clinton that she did to Senitor Obama. Senitor Clinton stayed on track and to the point and did not deviate from the topic, whereas, Senitor Obama did deviate from the topic, trying to use the time to promote his agenda and exeded his time frame. Ms. Brown allowed the deviations to continue, along with the fact that the questions and topics where not properly addresed or answered by Senitor Obama.I find this most inappropriate; The Media has the opportunity to influence the public, but should regardless of their own position and feelings,should stay neutral.