I think the first Democratic Presidential debate went off to a fine start. Edward, Hillary and Barack are worth watching. Good luck to them all!

get a life, juan reynoso

Read your comments from all.
I see that the "sky is falling" group has brought in energy. Read about Emile Tessla, not sure of the spelling, who in the late '20's lit up a house from a distance without the benefit of electric lines to the house. Electric lines put out electro magnetic waves, as do radio, radar, fm radio, television etc. it can be used. As far as the candidates go and the puff pastery questions. Where is the Beef? Mrs. Clinton, I remember the health plan debate and one lady who asked, on line ?? does it not say thus?, and the look from a lady who just got caught and the look said you #$%#$^& if I could get away with it you would die long slow and painfully.
Also this touted war funding bill that will be delivered to the President, along with the PORK it has some TAX INCREASES. But it does bring out the Democrat plan for "Winning" the war on terror.
Cut and run!! The "Werwolf" movement in Germany went on until sometime in the '50's. When someone, especially a politician, says he is going to help me I immediately grab my wallet to keep from getting it picked! Have a nice day!

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

zingofzouk and razor are nothing but liars and propogandists.

Your a mark queenofzouk. Luckily for eveyone here, You are the misguided one. The right has has the light shone on them. Now thye are all scurrying like roaches. I plead the fifth. I won't testify. Hearings, court rooms. You can't haide the truth forever. You can't shred ALL the documents. The movement is over. Ronald reagn was a good man, but he was wrong. The movement is a lie. The american people will not live in la la land anymore. Truth is

I think the case against failing government schools has been made very effectively today. the funny thing is, this would help Dem voters most, yet their leaders stand athwart progress. why? Power over the people. same as refusal to fix social security. Dems need lemmings to keep them in office. Keep em dumb and poor and dependent on government handouts.

that the Dem leadership would sacrifice the most helpless (along with unborn babies) is despicable. They are also willing to sacrifice soldiers to win elections. how low can you go?

Now the Fox "news' is labeled for what it is now. Now that everyone IN THE WORLD knows this administration sold their country out for money to the few. Now all your lies are used up. You have nothing left for 08'. Your whole campaign on a number of subjects is bankrupt. From domestic to wrold affairs. Your party is done. They have no chance. If you watched something other than brainwashing fox you would have got that memo. As who was in chanrge FOR 9/11, both local and country. What have they done since? How was KAtrina response time? Your party is done. Fox "news' is done. and if you didn't see the news check crooksandliars.com. rush is done now also

What did you learn from 911 dufas? Peace and love sounds pretty 60s ish to me. start making sense. If the Dems knew how to run an economy and win a war they would be in office right now.

I may respect the past and learn from it. I don't LIVE IN IT. The year is not 1964. You can't live in rural america like it's 1964 forever. Times change. You can fear it or embrace it. I know the past and learn from it so I don't repeat it.

Peace in the middle east:) As they used to say

rufus1133,
"WAR. what is it good for". Aren't you the one that says we need to stop living in the past? If so, stop quoting 60's songs.

I hear you rowland. They made a lot of money for the right people. That's all they did. Don't forget Rush/hannity/o'reilly/coulter/savage.

"WAR. what is it good for"

Your's and mine sold this country out to line their own pockets. Republicans know but still back them. What does that tell you about the republican movement in america 2007. I personally think the repubs are done for 10 years

"My God, THIS is what the Dems are reduced to?"

Is the writer of this idiotic comment aware that the current administration has done exactly NOTHING right since 2001? Can anyone please tell me one thing positive about Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfield/Wolfowitz/Gonzales?

Razorback: "China? That is pretty sly, making money off of trends you don't like." Are you kidding? Since when does emotion have anything to do with the market?

And the weak dollar has been a foregone conclusion since the end of November 2004. I shifted my stocks then and waited. I wish the trend beyond 2008 was so obvious.

Here's hoping that real estate turns around soon so I can go back to feeling smug about my picks.

Word is born. Money is only paper and that's all the repubs care about. We could run an economy on tree bark. Does that mean we should worship tree bark. Let's come back to reality a little bit. Let's talk about what is. Money is nothing.

R's can't be trusted with anything whatsoever, and you have to keep them away from sharp objects so they don't hurt themselves.

You know that's a distorttion queenof zouk. It's just that the right hasn't back any democrat since then. As I've said, You people think we are still living in 1964. YOU need to realize john wayne is dead. The cowboy is no longer relevant in this time

Interesting JimD. My point was mainly that the Dem party has been a wasteland since then. the party of FDR, JFK and HST is gone. clinton took a stab at reviving it but was too image concious. his wife is no moderate and the rest of that posse is way out there. no chance of victory. a shame really. how can one have a debate when they all agree on everything 100%.

the result of this wayfaring is election loss after oss. It is crystal clear that Dems can't be trusted with the economy, taxes of foreiign policy. the other stuff is irrelevant today.

I often wonder how this cite can attract so many wakos, nuts, etc. Day after day there appear some new ones, or just maybe they are the same, using different names. Again, just wondering.

Zouk

JFK was not considered a liberal by Democrats when he ran for president. The left wing of the party mostly supported Hubert Humphrey or Adlai Stevenson (who was trying to emulate William Jennings Bryan and become a three time loser). The hard core liberals deeply distrusted him due in some part to his father's isolationism in WWII and his father's friendliness with Joe McCarthy. Also, JFK was hospitalized when the Senate voted to censure McCarthy. Many on the left never forgave him for not finding a way to make the vote. There is a precedent for Senators being taken into the chamber on stretchers to cast historic votes. It must also be said that JFK had a pretty undistinguished congressional career.

Incidentally, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Adlai Stevenson advocated, basically, doing nothing except make diplomatic noises in response to the missiles in Cuba.

I am talking about a Mayor who sent men and women out of town, as a contigent to help this great City-Washington D.C.,and if you think I am tooting his horn, just like President Clinton, I AM!!! LOL!!! his Veteran Office in Judiciary Square has help me out tremendously-after this, let's see if they are still helping me? are will President Bush, get to them too? I usually go to Miriam's Cafe in the mornings, so I am grateful to these two faculties, and to Green Door, too!! just because everybody has not kept their word, does not mean everybody is messing up., unlike the President and Vice President-heck, even the Attorney General is being like Ezek.18:32! well, I have said it all, so I am now going to write my son for some money, and leave ALL of you alone, I especially, want to thank the washington post, THANK YOU Washington Post, for just being here!!! may you get out a million more copies in circulation,good bye!

I am talking about a Mayor who sent men and women out of town, as a contigent to help this great City-Washington D.C.,and if you think I am tooting his horn, just like President Clinton, I AM!!! LOL!!! his Veteran Office in Judiciary Square has help me out tremendously-after this, let's see if they are still helping me? are will President Bush, get to them too? I usually go to Miriam's Cafe in the mornings, so I am grateful to these two faculties, and to Green Door, too!! just because everybody has not kept their word, does not mean everybody is messing up., unlike the President and Vice President-heck, even the Attorney General is being like Ezek.18:32! well, I have said it all, so I am now going to write my son for some money, and leave ALL of you alone, I especially, want to thank the washington post, THANK YOU Washington Post, for just being here!!! may you get out a million more copies in circulation,good bye!

I am talking about a Mayor who sent men and women out of town, as a contigent to help this great City-Washington D.C.,and if you think I am tooting his horn, just like President Clinton, I AM!!! LOL!!! his Veteran Office in Judiciary Square has help me out tremendously-after this, let's see if they are still helping me? are will President Bush, get to them too? I usually go to Miriam's Cafe in the mornings, so I am grateful to these two faculties, and to Green Door, too!! just because everybody has not kept their word, does not mean everybody is messing up., unlike the President and Vice President-heck, even the Attorney General is being like Ezek.18:32! well, I have said it all, so I am now going to write my son for some money, and leave ALL of you alone, I especially, want to thank the washington post, THANK YOU Washington Post, for just being here!!! may you get out a million more copies in circulation,good bye!

I am talking about a Mayor who sent men and women out of town, as a contigent to help this great City-Washington D.C.,and if you think I am tooting his horn, just like President Clinton, I AM!!! LOL!!! his Veteran Office in Judiciary Square has help me out tremendously-after this, let's see if they are still helping me? are will President Bush, get to them too? I usually go to Miriam's Cafe in the mornings, so I am grateful to these two faculties, and to Green Door, too!! just because everybody has not kept their word, does not mean everybody is messing up., unlike the President and Vice President-heck, even the Attorney General is being like Ezek.18:32! well, I have said it all, so I am now going to write my son for some money, and leave ALL of you alone, I especially, want to thank the washington post, THANK YOU Washington Post, for just being here!!! may you get out a million more copies in circulation

I am talking about a Mayor who sent men and women out of town, as a contigent to help this great City-Washington D.C.,and if you think I am tooting his horn, just like President Clinton, I AM!!! LOL!!! his Veteran Office in Judiciary Square has help me out tremendously-after this, let's see if they are still helping me? are will President Bush, get to them too? I usually go to Miriam's Cafe in the mornings, so I am grateful to these two faculties, and to Green Door, too!! just because everybody has not kept their word, does not mean everybody is messing up., unlike the President and Vice President-heck, even the Attorney General is being like Ezek.18:32! well, I have said it all, so I am now going to write my son for some money, and leave ALL of you alone, I especially, want to thank the washington post, THANK YOU Washington Post, for just being here!!! may you get out a million more copies in circulation

Do your thing Janair Williams Sr. All you have to do is save one person a day. Don't worry about republican haters trying to denounce or corrupt your church. God is the judge, not rush and bill o'reilly. They don't have long now. What will the right do without their masters. ONE WORLD ONE PEOPLE

the reason you see 3 of the samee posts, is because I am here at this library., does anyone know where the MLK Library is? any way? this is how President bush's Administration works! they tried to cut me off., when they could not, they let all 3 go, to make me look stupid-this is the same thing Green Door is doing to me-stalling, I plan to go to Mayor Fenty's office next week, and see if my medical records and 201 file have come yet? if not, just another notch on President Bush., I will stop talking about him, and just pray for him. Romans12:17-21, and ALL of you preachers, who are praying against me, have you done what it says in 1John-try ME by the Holy Ghost? I THINK NOT? I think you have been trying to get me for the President to make yourself look good, and what did GOD say about that? in the old testament-the 3 Hebrew brothers! in the new-James to 1and2 Peter!!! I rest my case!

Capitailism is the new church of america. I'm seen many churches transformed into banks. It is sad. I know I'll stay a christian. I know money is just paper. Anybody else who lives their life for money is a slave.

I see the feeble of mind cons are on this board 24 hours a day, every two minutes. Where is your life, people? No wonder you are so ignorant. You are lazy and useless.

Ummm... the internet doesn't really change human nature, it is just a technique. Effective vs. ineffective ways to react to terrorist acts didn't change with the introduction of iron over bronze, electricity over coal and internet over telephone. I have to back up kingofzouk on this one. But can KOZ avoid going overboard on cynicism please... Too much cynicism is as unrealistic as too little.

So when the value of my house goes up, that's good for me as a consumer. And when the value of my house goes down, that's good for me as a consumer.

Ah, the miracle of the markets! Always right! Never wrong! More infallible and wise and virtuous than the Pope!

In fact, that's why so many worship them.

I see the feeble of mind have emerged to support the Liberal cause today.

I am still Janair Williams Sr., and I will stop here, with this? President Bush, you and Vice President Cheney, are found lacking? yes, we have many soldiers missing limbs and you just want to show them on TV, I think, they should all get medals, housing and treatment for the rest of there lives., I myself, will NEVER set foot in another VA Hospital, while you are in office., giving me 2 blood pressure meds-prazosin, in its infancy, and I have it on my copy, and have had it since 2004, and now Dr.Murray Raskind, has been talking about it. why did he not tell me, he wanted to experiment on me, then?! becuse of how you did things then, Mr.President, and got away with it., President Bush, I will be leaving Washington D.C. as soon as I write my son for some money, he just got back from Iraq., I am going back to the woods in Florida, where I have been living, since I was homeless, and until your men, FORCED me to come up here and write on you and your Administration., I could not get any help, from anyone., heck, even here, I was told I would get help, but now they are stalling, hoping I will go off., I will not, I DO want to see my grands, and since my son has come home, I will see another grand in seven to eight months, so your people can go to blazes! but I will no longer give you any trouble, I am leaving, and hoping a new administration will trust in GOD like King David, not like you-looking like king saul.

I am still Janair Williams Sr., and I will stop here, with this? President Bush, you and Vice President Cheney, are found lacking? yes, we have many soldiers missing limbs and you just want to show them on TV, I think, they should all get medals, housing and treatment for the rest of there lives., I myself, will NEVER set foot in another VA Hospital, while you are in office., giving me 2 blood pressure meds-prazosin, in its infancy, and I have it on my copy, and have had it since 2004, and now Dr.Murray Raskind, has been talking about it. why did he not tell me, he wanted to experiment on me, then?! becuse of how you did things then, Mr.President, and got away with it., President Bush, I will be leaving Washington D.C. as soon as I write my son for some money, he just got back from Iraq., I am going back to the woods in Florida, where I have been living, since I was homeless, and until your men, FORCED me to come up here and write on you and your Administration., I could not get any help, from anyone., heck, even here, I was told I would get help, but now they are stalling, hoping I will go off., I will not, I DO want to see my grands, and since my son has come home, I will see another grand in seven to eight months, so your people can go to blazes! but I will no longer give you any trouble, I am leaving, and hoping a new administration will trust in GOD like King David, not like you-looking like king saul.

The right still think we live in 1965 like kingofzouk. Guess what buddy. The year is 2007. John Wayne has been dead a long time. Get outta the past and start living in 2007. The future is now. The old rules no longer are valid, the internet age

I am still Janair Williams Sr., and I will stop here, with this? President Bush, you and Vice President Cheney, are found lacking? yes, we have many soldiers missing limbs and you just want to show them on TV, I think, they should all get medals, housing and treatment for the rest of there lives., I myself, will NEVER set foot in another VA Hospital, while you are in office., giving me 2 blood pressure meds-prazosin, in its infancy, and I have it on my copy, and have had it since 2004, and now Dr.Murray Raskind, has been talking about it. why did he not tell me, he wanted to experiment on me, then?! becuse of how you did things then, Mr.President, and got away with it., President Bush, I will be leaving Washington D.C. as soon as I write my son for some money, he just got back from Iraq., I am going back to the woods in Florida, where I have been living, since I was homeless, and until your men, FORCED me to come up here and write on you and your Administration., I could not get any help, from anyone., heck, even here, I was told I would get help, but now they are stalling, hoping I will go off., I will not, I DO want to see my grands, and since my son has come home, I will see another grand in seven to eight months, so your people can go to blazes! but I will no longer give you any trouble, I am leaving, and hoping a new administration will trust in GOD like King David, not like you-looking like king saul.

Who are they running against? the bogeyman? how about a little less reaction and a little more proaction. Is that too much to ask from a Dem? how about some policies out of the 21st century. Ones that weren't discredited long ago. JFK was a Democrat/Liberal who lowered taxes and tried to conduct an aggressive foreign policy. this crew is not from that wing of the party.

drindl, try to follow along here.

I don't hate HRC (or anyone, except maybe OBL and his buddies)

I'm not an R

I'm trying to be reasonable, making arguments backed by fact, and you throw bombs, making arguments purely from emotional standpoints.

King,
I agree that some death and destruction is in order after an attack like that, and I was happy with Hillary for saying so. No doubt the male candidates will also say so in future debates.

My point was that it is also an important response to say that effective emergency preparedness will be a priority.

It isn't "BLAMING BUSH (trademark)" to say that, it's farsighted.

But having said that, come on men, where is the appropriate retribution along with the prudent policy.

See what I mean people. They are shaking in their cowboy boots. Fox "news' is done .Rush/coulter hannity/savage are done. They watch these shows. They know what we're after these people. These propogandist and war-mongers don't have long now. The repub candidate, romney, has no chance of winning. Bad time to be a repub. Sorry for the truth. I know it conflicts with your doublethink.

I am Janair Williams Sr., all right I have read the words of the comments section and did this for one reason, I did NOT want to see the debate,BECAUSE I am for soon to be President Clinton! I will never call her Senator AGAIN!!! I am stating my opinion! PERIOD!!! Now! I like how you, the People, perceived, the candidates., IS THIS NOT THE BEST FIELD IN A LONG, LONG TIME! nuff said! you vote! I go with my country-I am always going to be President Clinton's biggest fan., I believed in her, when I knew her Husband could not run anylonger-a great loss! I hope I die during her term, before another Republican gets in again, and makes foolish mistakes! now don't get me wrong, we have had the before 9/11, all GREAT PRESIDENTS!!! The finest!!! now, though? it is time for a change. I will always pray for President Bush., but, until he is out, we will always be in trouble. I believe in integrity. I am a veteran with a checker past., I went to the VA Hospital in 1992., I went to get help, but I was not ready for the help. I have PTSD, and some more things, like BiPolar Disorder, and some others., a Lady name Penny, in Bedford VA Hospital, in Massachusetts, tried to help me, but I was scared, paranoid! so I left., I went to Georgia, where I was receiving help, but I would leave, there was no Penny, anywhere! she believe in the Spirit of 1776. she riminded me of my grandmother., so I went many places, going back to my addiction of drinking and other things., I finally wound up in Seattle, WA., I saw there program there for Veterans., I like it! but there was thing missing, the time is now 2003, and the President forgot about ALL veterans, not just war time, but us peacetime., we sign a contract. and he knew what it said, but he started reneging on it, as soon as he got in office, changing everything for the veteran., add more years for my sons! making them pay for serving OUR country! THIS IS NOT RIGHT!!! and what about the Vietnam Vet, or the Gulf War veteran with Psych problems! and since when did you start experimenting on people with out there permission, like you did me??!!

golgi - the question was about the Presidents response to an attack. Will he go down there and help turn on all the walkie talkies? Will he fix flats on fire engines that day? hillary was the only one that indicated retribution. funny how a woman is the only one with any balls in the Dem portfolio.

Someone said:

"Broder, of course, is a gasbag. The Hindenburg of pundits. But my respect for Ann knew no bounds, and she thought I was being unfair. In retrospect I was being unfair. To gasbags."

Gasbag works. Gasbag in the new trendy. Just ask Joe Biden. Gasbag gives a one word answer, and some say its the highlight of the evening.

Broder gets what Cillizza got a few days back.

Post about Obama/Edwards coverage, get these irrational diatribes about bias. Next day's post is Repub corruption, and nary a conspiratorial peep. Did CC resign from the conspiracy that very night?

If you don't like what Broder said about Reid, refute it point by point.

King, I took the response you quoted to mean that some serious emergency preparedness rehaul is in order a.s.a.p., so that in the event a terrorist attack occurs some response is even possible.

I'm sure you are not opposed to emergency preparedness. Along with destroying (nice word use by Hillary btw) the perpetrators, we will be best off if we can respond quickly and effectively on home ground.

"no matter which one of those clowns gets the bid, they will certainly lose to any R."

Exactly! All of them are so un-presidential it's laughable.

I couldn't believe it when Hillary said "this is not America's war to lose", and then Biden's quip "This war is not about us winning or losing".

Since when have we become so weak about our national interests? American strength and commitment to ideals doesn't mean backing down from the enemy- since when have we viewed surrender and retreat from conflict as security enhancement?

The Harry Reid model of military assessment ("we are Losers!") is alive and well in the Democratic party as evidenced last night.

What about our long-term strategic interests? Sadly, these dems just don't think it is worth it.

Blarg:

Environmentalists have a problem with using the cheapest domestic supply of energy which does not have the scale problem I referenced earlier, which is coal.

There is no alternative other than coal which isn't much much more expensive that what we do now. Cost issues are not debated.

Where are you on nuclear?

Here is the kind of chart than regulators use (page 7of8):

http://cna.ca/english/Studies/Comparative_Costs_of_Generation_Technologies_Sept-06-EN.pdf

I am not vouching for all of the data there, that is just an example.

Even with the costs on a chart like this, you still have the question of what quantity of energy is possible. For example wind is not viable everywhere and when you get to the less ideal locations, cost goes up. Geothermal though cheap, is very limited because there are few places on earth where conditions are right, etc.

Barack Obama, only three years out of the Illinois legislature, is getting more mileage from warmed-over warm and fuzzy Ladies Day rhetoric than any presidential candidate since Harold Stassen got lost on his way home from the hustings. He faults George W. for "squandering" the eagerness of "the millions around the world" dying to help America in the wake of September 11 and thinks he has the formula for finally getting it right. "We must lead by building a 21st-century military," he told a Chicago audience the other day, "to ensure the security of our people and advance the security of all people." He doesn't explain what that means, if anything, but it sounds like the "nation building" George W. once mocked.
But there's more meaningless mush: "America must lead by reaching out to all those living disconnected lives of despair in the world's forgotten corners. ... There are millions more ... who want our beacon of hope to shine its light their way."

OK, I get it now. seems obvious.

Barack Obama offered a more nuanced take on things:

Well, first thing we'd have to do is make sure that we've got an effective emergency response, something that this administration failed to do when we had a hurricane in New Orleans. And I think that we have to review how we operate in the event of not only a natural disaster, but also a terrorist attack.

The second thing is to make sure that we've got good intelligence, A, to find out that we don't have other threats and attacks potentially out there; and B, to find out do we have any intelligence on who might have carried it out so that we can take potentially some action to dismantle that network.
In other words, President Obama's initial reaction to a national catastrophe several folds worse than 9/11 would be to look back to Katrina and BLAME BUSH™. After finishing that, he would look back to the run-up to the Iraq war and again, BLAME BUSH™. Only once all the Bush Blaming was done would President Obama "potentially take some action." Potentially take some action? Gosh, that's pretty strong stuff! I'm sure those harsh words made Jihadists around the world shudder.

Of course, I don't believe for a second that Obama's reaction to 9/11 on stilts would be to study the lessons of Katrina. His answer is merely indicative of how the left in general, and the left's politicians in particular, have become utterly allergic to the use of force over the past four years. Honestly, they can't even discuss it when a blow-dried anchorman lobs them a softball that gives them the perfect opportunity to do so.

John Edwards, naturally, offered an answer of the same sort. He, too, would launch an exhaustive forensic search for reasons, but as to what specific actions he would take, Edwards also didn't demonstrate the first clue.

YOU KNOW THE ANSWER I GAVE, the one about annihilating Al Qaeda and anyone who may have helped it in the attack? That's George W. Bush's answer. More relevantly, the world believes that's George W. Bush's answer. The world believes that George W. Bush can't wait to go after the entire Jihadist world.

http://townhall.com/blog#eab723a2-1279-43e1-aa38-1649b87a760a

I would cancel my hairdo that day and seriously consider not getting my nails done - Edwards.

One of the few regrets I have in life is that I allowed Ann Devroy of the Washington Post to talk me into apologizing for calling David Broder "a gasbag" in 1995. My admiration for Devroy trumped my contempt for Broder. Ann, sadly, is gone, but Broder remains. She was everything Broder is not: fearless, intellectually honest, scrupulously fair, and suspicious of power.

Broder, of course, is a gasbag. The Hindenburg of pundits. But my respect for Ann knew no bounds, and she thought I was being unfair. In retrospect I was being unfair. To gasbags.

Mr. Broder has been foaming at the mouth these days. A man generally given to soporific prose, Broder has been downright venomous lately. And what has put the Benzedrine in Mr. Broder's Ovaltine? Not the fact that President Bush continues to lie about "progress" in the war in Iraq. Or that Dick Cheney continues to lie about pre-invasion links between al Qaeda and Iraq. Or that the Bush Administration has neglected our wounded warriors, ignored the victims of Katrina, potentially obstructed justice by firing US Attorneys who were pursuing GOP wrongdoing. Not even that the Bush Administration lied to the families of Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch, cynically using their blood to distract from their own incompetence and dishonesty.

No, none of this raises Dean Broder's hackles.

He reserves his vitriol for Harry Reid.

Why Reid? Because Reid has been one of the few politicians with the courage to speak the plain, unvarnished truth to power, and the hallmark of Mr. Broder's career has been to suck up to power. Reid calls Bush a liar. Broder can't handle the truth.

In a radio interview Monday, Broder blasted Reid, calling him "bumbling," saying he's an embarrassment, and breaking the news that, "at some point down the road the Democrats are gonna have to have a little caucus and decide how much further they want to carry Harry Reid."

Really? And on what did the self-styled dean of the Washington press corps, base this bombshell? Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Broder just made it up. That's not journalism, it's bloviating - aka Broderizing. In fact, real reporters on Capitol Hill chased down the Broder charge, actually interviewing Democratic senators and their staffs. They found universal support for Reid.

Lord knows we're all capable of making fools of ourselves on the radio, so when Broder let loose this screamer I bit my tongue. But now he's taken quill in hand and committed his rant against Reid to paper. In his column today, Broder actually tries to equate Reid's courageous truth-telling with Alberto Gonzales's inartful mendacity. In an unfortunate bit of timing for Mr. Broder, his attack on Reid comes on the same day the Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll says the American people agree with Reid on the war. 55% of Americans believe victory in Iraq isn't possible. Reid is right. Bush-Broder are wrong.

And so Mr. Broder lashes out at Reid, smearing and sneering at the man he calls "the leading light of Searchlight, Nev."

Mr. Broder has moved with ease from the elite comfort of the University of Chicago to the smug confines of Arlington, Virginia. And so he looks down at a man who rose from among the hard-rock miners and hard-luck hookers of Searchlight, Nevada to be the most consequential senator of his time. While David Broder was thinking great thoughts at his elite university, Harry Reid was working his way through Utah State. While David Broder was pontificating, Harry Reid was working his way through law school as a cop on Capitol Hill.

His arrogant, elitist, condescending attack on Reid is just the latest Broderian baloney. As Eric Alterman points out in What Liberal Media? "Back in 1968 [Broder] felt the anti-war activities of the likes of Robert Kennedy and Gene McCarthy were 'degrading...to those involved.'" Prof. Alterman further notes that Broder "frequently dressed down" the critics of Ronald Reagan as "quick-lipped liberals" who "pop off in opposition."

Broder heaped scorn on President Clinton, telling Sally Quinn, "He came in here and he trashed the place. And it's not his place." In Broder's mind Washington is Broder's place. The Establishment's place. And the man from Hope with a heart as big as Texas just didn't know his place. Hysterically, he said Clinton's marital infidelity was worse than Watergate.

But at the end of a career of sucking up to warmongers and Republicans, Mr. Broder has found his true hero in George W. Bush. Where others see a mush-mouthed semi-literate, Broder sees FDR: "As a counterpuncher to criticism and as a doubt-free exponent of his own beliefs, the current president is right up there with the inventor of the New Deal."

While others were shocked at Bush's callous disregard for the lives of his fellow Americans during Hurricane Katrina, Broder wrote Katrina, "opens new opportunities for [Bush] to regain his standing with the public." (Or at least those members of the public who did not drown due to Bush's incompetence and inaction.)

In February of this year, when the Bush collapse was evident for all to see, the visionary Mr. Broder saw something else. "President Bush is poised for a political comeback," he wrote.

When asked recently if Bush was the worst President in history - a view shared by many eminent historians, including Sean Wilentz of Princeton, Broder replied, "I would not venture at this point whether President Bush will leave the country in better or worse shape than he found it. Internationally, the U.S. suffered setbacks during the Carter administration...." Jimmy Carter, of course, started no wars, invaded no countries, and got our hostages out of Iran alive. But this winner of the Nobel Peace Prize is compared to George W. Bush.

Perhaps Broder's bed-wetting tantrum against Reid was spurred by the certain knowledge that while Harry Reid has been telling hard truths, Mr. Broder has been falling hard for transparent lies.

Whereas Reid called for Donald Rumsfeld's dismissal long ago, Broder vouched for Rummy, writing, "Overall, Rumsfeld left me with the impression that he is aware of the risks of war with Iraq, but confident they can be handled."

While Reid has called for investigations into allegations Karl Rove broke the law, Broder vouches for Rove: "Let me disclose my own bias in this matter. I like Karl Rove.... I have eaten quail at his table and admired the splendid Hill Country landscape from the porch of [Rove's] historic cabin...." Mighty cozy in Karl's cabin, isn't it, Mr. Broder?

I doubt very seriously that Harry Reid is bothered by Broder's comments. Reid has faced down Vegas mobsters who planted a bomb in his family car. He's unlikely to be intimidated by George W. Bush's housebroken lap-dog.

My guess is that Give 'Em Hell Harry is going to keep telling them the truth, and Mr. Broder is going to keep thinking it's hell. As George Orwell said, "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-begala/david-broder-is-a-gasbag_b_46923.html

I really am LOL at your comment that I am 'close-minded.' You R's really have a gift for self-parody.

My 'blind hatred' -- hey you guys love Hillary, right? No 'blind hatred there.

Physician, heal thyself. But maybe that's over your head.

Blarg, what I think razor means is, energy independence is fine, it just matters how you go about achieving it.

For example, if it's through wind, solar, conservation, carbon tax, and using 1 sq of toilet paper, then it's fine. Even nuclear is probably green enough for most people not on the outer fringe. But if it's through using our 300 year supply of coal currently sitting in KY and TN, then not so much.

Rich people during the Clinton administration were evidence of prosperity and happy days. Rich people and low unemployment and a record Dow during the Bush administration is evidence that the little guy is getting the shaft

Second up, Harry Reid. Last week Reid said the war in Iraq is "lost." It's breathtaking that the Senate Majority Leader would say such a thing with troops in harm's way and with Democrats lacking the courage to then defund the mission and bring them home immediately. This week he went further and admitted to not believing what General Petraeus says about the situation in Iraq. If he doesn't believe the general in charge of the mission, and he doesn't believe the commander in chief, and he obviously doesn't believe those on the ground in the field who say (many through milblogs) that the war is not lost, then who does he believe?

I would not be surprised to see Reid lose his job before 2008. It looks unlikely that Joe Lieberman is going to fire him, but Reid continually makes statements even many Democrats can't defend. This week he slammed Dick Cheney by saying he would not engage in name-calling, as he claims Cheney had, then he called Cheney an "attack dog" three times in less than five minutes.

In Thursday's Washington Post , David Broder said Reid is "a continuing embarrassment thanks to his amateurish performance" and "assuredly not a man who misses many opportunities to put his foot in his mouth." Broder said the Democrats and the country deserve better.

dirty harry getting attention now. I think some professional help would be better.

http://townhall.com/columnists/LorieByrd/2007/04/27/rosie,_reid,_rudy_and_the_evil_rich

A republican talking about the current housing market. WOW. You people really must be scared.

Razorback, that makes no sense. You said that environmentalists would oppose energy independence. I said why we don't. You respond with your usual rhetoric, which has nothing to do with this issue. Unless you can clearly explain your statement that environmentalists should have a problem with energy independence, I don't want to hear it.

Thanks for the poll info. Precise is the disclaimer, otherwise just as I had expected.

drindl, any more commentary on the housing market?

so drindl, your saying there are very few American companies left. Very few American jobs. Very few companies traded on the American stock market.

OK.

I say you're untrainable because your obvious blind hatred (for Bush, for our economic system, and probably for conservative Democrats) makes you very very close-minded, which means you'll not learn anything. Plus I'm sure you're a blast at cocktail parties.

The problem is cost and politicians making the presentation that you just made without mentioning cost.

A related problem is scale. When you tell ratepayers to pay more for an alternative to displace carbon, and then replace 1% of the portfolio with renewables, most ratepayers do not care. As you attempt to replace more and more of the carbon based generation portfolio with alternatives, the cost is noticed.

I use electric generation because all of the costs are on spreadsheets and added directly to bills the way our regulatory system works.

A similar thing happens by market forces with respect to alternatives to gasoline.

Go here to see 11 pages of photos of Rudy in drag..

http://images.google.com/images?q=rudy+giuliani+drag&gbv=2&ndsp=20&svnum=30&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&start=0&sa=N

Now tell me that this guy looks like Commander in Chief with a straight face.

razorback sure loves himself -- maybe no one else does

Let em hate you drindl. You know they are scared. No matter who runs, out of the candidates last night, will win. Who are the repubs going to feild? Mccain shot himslef in the foot to many times. Rudy will never make it through the repub primary. That leaves romney. Romney against any of the big three for the dems loses. It's all good drindl. Let them attack you. They need to take the topic off the real subject. The repubs are done, for a minimum of five years, I think 10. Watch out though. A backed up animal is the most dangerous. They may lose but they are going to spew a whole lot of venom in the process :) PEace in the middle east

Hillary: I am a tough old crow
Obama: I think hope springs eternal
Edwards: Is my hair messed up?
dodd: are you talking to me?
Biden: blah, blah, blah
Kucinich: communism isn't so bad
Richardson: I can bore you with one hand behind my back
Gravely: I am tougher than the old crow and more liberal

that pretty much sums it up. what a waste of air time. nothing new - nothing ever is from the Dems. just go back and cut and paste McGovern's stuff and you're done.

Still waiting for one new law, one campaign promise to be kept. you already won one election as a test. you Dems are failing splendidly.

this election is now officially a foregone conclusion. no matter which one of those clowns gets the bid, they will certainly lose to any R.

'But you continually seem sad when (American) companies actually make a profit, almost as if you hated them yourself.'

What an inane thing to say. First off, which 'American' companies are you talking about? There are very few 'american' companies left. Once they get to a certain size, they are bought by trnasnations. And yes, I do have a problem with foreign companies that come here and profit from citizens and do not pay their share of taxes, yes. And when they add insult to injury by operating here and bringing in foreign and illegal workrs.

And thank you for the compliment -- I am not 'trainable' -- if by that you mean accepting every talking point that comes out of a CeO's mouth. That's for the gullible and republicans.

"So when Hillary says "energy independence", coal companies say YES, coal unions say YES, but honest environmentalists should say NO."

I say YES to energy independence. So do most environmentalists. Why wouldn't we?

There are 3 ways to achieve energy independence. One is to use more of fuels that we have here, like coal. One is to use alternative sources of energy that we don't need to import, like solar and wind power. And the third is to use less energy to begin with.

Of those, only the increased use of coal is bad for the environment. The other two are good for the environment. And it's not possible to achieve energy independence just by using coal for everything. So any serious plan for energy independence also involves use of alternative energy and reducing overall energy usage, which are goals of environmentalists. So what's the problem?

The liberals will all love Renzi when the ALCU sues on his behalf saying that he has a first amendment right to read porn in his jail cell or when he says making him bust the big rocks into little rock is cruel and unusual punishment.

Any corrupt son of a ho that steals taxpayer money in either party should be locked up.

Pro Consumer, Pro Taxpayer. That is the ideology of RAZORBACK.

Razorback: "funnest"

Back to class, junior, morning recess is over.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=ba1ebc70-a734-4185-8532-2e4a9ba45d96

There is a poll. I would note that a one day poll has accuracy issues and that debate polling is often influenced by who the person is for in the first place.

What I want to see is a black/white Hillary/Obama poll. If Hillary's numbers include significant black support, then Obama has room to grow at Hillary's expense.

Republican Corruption Alert of the Day:

'U.S. Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Ariz., could soon step down in the wake of a federal investigation into his involvement in a federal land swap deal and FBI raids of an insurance agency owned by his wife.

His resignation could come as early as Friday or soon after, according to sources familiar with the matter.

Top Republicans, including U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl, have been meeting to discuss what they will do if Renzi resigns and his rural congressional seat opens up.

Republican leaders also are starting to encourage Renzi to resign, saying a prolonged investigation will hurt the party's chances of holding onto his Arizona seat, according to knowledgeable sources.

Democrats also are preparing for a Renzi exit. Cottonwood attorney Jim Ledbetter is among those being recruited by party leadership to run for Renzi's seat in a possible special election.

The federal investigation is looking at Renzi's involvement in a land swap deal including a possible payment by a former business partner, according to The Hill newspaper. The Wall Street Journal reports that a grand jury has been convened in Tucson to investigate Renzi

actually drindl, I just read your 11:28 post. Please ignore my questions, based on what you said, I'm pretty sure you're untrainable.

Hey dope, LOWER housing prices make housing more affordable. That should be OBVIOUS even to you. Mortgage rates are not skyrocketing. Here is the proof:

http://mortgage-x.com/trends.htm

And conservatives dont feminize liberals, liberals feminize themselves to appeal to the Rosie O's of the world and to create the so called gender gap.

drindl, you accuse Razor of hating America. But you continually seem sad when (American) companies actually make a profit, almost as if you hated them yourself.

Would you prefer they showed a loss? You claim price gouging is at work - ahem...some proof please? And maybe get specific (unlike the debaters last night) - which company, which industries are non-competitive in your eyes, allowing them to price gouge?

proudtobeGOP: Agree. I have yet to find any polling on how the debate went and am anxious to see how close I came.

'What is so amusing about liberals like drndl is that they fail to see how the market works'

This is what I mean. This is the modus operandi of cons. They can never just discuss a subject, or address your point. First they have to belittle and feminize you -- 'you silly girl', And then spout canned talking points, ad nauseaum, like a robot.

'High INVENTORY levels give CONSUMERS purchasing power, which reduces the cost of homes. '

Sorry, no. Exactly the opposite. The price of housing is plummeting. In my prosperous community, 15% in the last year, accelerating sell-off, leading to further price drops. But the key to the downward spiral is tightening credit in the insurance industry, an inevitable rresponse to the subprime debacle, which puts buying out of reach for many.

Please stop your condescending BS and business school talking points. The real world doesn't work like the C of C wishes it would.

Hey, where's the list of winners and losers?

Here is another example of liberals failure to understand divergent interests in business.

http://thehill.com/business--lobby/gas-company-sets-sights-on-washington-2007-04-26.html

Coal and natural gas, often lumped together as carbon fuels, are actually competiters in providing fuel for generation of electricity.

Natural gas is less polluting than is coal. The United States is the "saudi arabia" of coal. There are coal states, and gas states. Coal has a more unionized labor force than natural gas.

So when Hillary says "energy independence", coal companies say YES, coal unions say YES, but honest environmentalists should say NO.

So when Hillary says "fix global warming" natural gas companies say YES, coal companies say NO, coal unions say NO, and environmentalists say YES.

This dynamic is why BUSH carried West Virginia in 2000. Bush got coal union votes because of Gore's environmental stance.

Some liberals have made the statement "even (fill in the blank) business recognizes global warming..." Yes of course they do, its NATURAL GAS interests that want rules that give them pricing advantages as compared to COAL, or some other lobbying approach. When you hear a business say that, WATCH YOUR WALLET. They are trying to pick your pocket and get a subsidy.

That RAZORBACK, the knuckle dragging drooling corporate tool, has to warn liberals about the nefarious purposes of business shows just how mixed up people get trying to sort out all of their false ideological notions.

The democrats held their first debate at the site of the Orangeburg Massacre; the republicans will be holding theirs at Simi Vally, a hub of rich and white - it seems perversely appropriate

Robert James,
Didn't someone already get in trouble by the PC police for calling Obama "articulate"? Were none of the other candidates articulate?

I found another good rundown of the Dems at the debate.
http://political-buzz.com/?p=164

Senator Barack Obama strikes me as an articulate and stimulating candidate. He is my preference. Hilary Clinton is uninspiring. She represents times long gone.

What is so amusing about liberals like drndl is that they fail to see how the market works.

For example drndl says:

Horton chairman Donald Horton said in a statement, "Market conditions in the home building industry continue to be challenging in most of our markets as inventory levels of both new and existing homes remain high, and further increases in the use of sales incentives continue to put pressure on profit margins."

High INVENTORY levels give CONSUMERS purchasing power, which reduces the cost of homes. Challenging conditions brought on by excess inventory is what makes a business have a big SALE. This makes homes MORE AFFORDABLE for Americans. When Chevy has to many trucks, they cut prices and have a truck sale.

Of course, lower profits in the housing industry isn't all good. It hurts shareholders, pension funds that hold those shares, and employees who work in housing.

This is what drndl fails to understand: There are divergent interests in the business community, and the interests of labor and consumer are also divergent.

If big oil is gouging, the ones that are getting gouged the MOST are big trucking, big airlines and big utilities.

Profitable business have pricing power, which hurts consumers, but helps labor in that business. Unprofitable businesses do not have pricing power, which helps consumers but hurts labor.

Most liberals believe that the fundamental economic issue is balancing the interests of capital and labor, when in reality balancing the interests of buyer and seller is the fundamental issue.

drndl tries to portrey the DOW as "wall street" and the housing market as "main street" which is false. One of the Dow components is Home Depot, which hasn't gone anywhere for 2 or 3 years because of the housing problems. Financials in the Dow are pretty flat this year, partially because of financing issues related to housing.

drndl,
I'm guessing that we are going to hear next about how this economy is the worst since the great depression. Housing is but one small part of the economy. How has the past couple years of low interest rates been "artificial"? They allowed me to buy a house 5 years ago in a hot market (a then refinance twice). Are there people out there that overextended and used the incorrect type of mortgage? Yes. Might they lose their house? Yes. Is that a market economy? Yes. It gives you the freedom to make bad investments and bad decisions with your money. You could have easily invested in a dot com back in the late 90's and lost your money that way.

This wasn't a really a debate, just an opportunity to see all the candidates together on stage. This format was a joke just like Kucinich and Gravel.

The good thing is there will be more debates. Hopefully, the DNC will get together will all those who are sponsoring a debate and will them to choose a specific topic for their debate. This will give the candidates more time to present the specifics of their plans and policies and to allow for rebuttal, and will allow the American voters to make a more informed comparison of the candidates.

I would caution voters not to be swayed by lofty and big plans - because in the end lofty ideals are just that they float around in Congress and don't get passed because they are too big they scare Congress into action. Look for candidate's with practical plans that put us on the right path - that candidate would be Senator Obama. The mess that has been created in the last 6 years can't be changed over night or over the course of a few years. It's much like a person who has been in a coma for years, when they wake up it may take them years of therapy to fully recover.

Although. I think edwards answers were on point

Funny debate. It look like edwards and dodd almost teared up a couple times. Edwards, when asked about the haircut. Dodd when he was asked how he was going to change washington when he in essence is washington. Also, gravel was good to keep the others in line. They couldn't just speak and say nothing. I think Kusinisch helped himself. Obama was the more to the right than expected, which disappointed me

I find it amusing that Hillary Clinton is overwhelmingly thought to be quite far left by most people who are not on the left wing of the Democratic Party. That is her image.

If Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani are the nominees, I would expect the right wing independent candidate to poll more votes from Giuliani than the left wing independent candidate will take from Clinton. There will undoubtedly be widespread defections from the Republicans by Christian conservatives and, perhaps, NRA types, in view of Giuliani's positions on social issues and gun control.

lylepink - Although I completely disagree with her initial statement that "this is not America's war to lose", I thought Hillary mopped the floor with the others last night. I admire her hawkish stance among the wimps and wafflers.

Biggest surprise of the night - Dennis Kucinich's wife! OMG! wtf is she doing married to him? ewwwww!

Scott W Cohen
"I don't want an unsure President. Does anyone?"
First off, its exactly one debate. Let's just assume the jury is still out on all the candidates. One can accuse the current president of being many things, but unsure is not one of them. It really depends on what the person is sure about.

This is the dichomoty of America -- transnational corporate profits [do to price grouging] continue to soar, while ordinary Americas as struggling. The prosperity of the last few years has been largely artifical and fueded by cheap, easy to obtain crediit. and now the bills are coming due.

'April 27, 2007 -- Thanks to better-than-expected corporate earnings, the Dow broke through the 13,000 mark for the first time Wednesday.

But not everyone is celebrating.

The nation's largest, publicly traded home builders are reporting significant drops in revenue and profits.

The nation's largest builder, D.R. Horton, also struggled during the first months of the year. It saw revenues drop 26 percent to $2.61 billion compared with the same period last year. Profits fell 85 percent from more than $352 million a year ago to nearly $52 million.

Horton chairman Donald Horton said in a statement, "Market conditions in the home building industry continue to be challenging in most of our markets as inventory levels of both new and existing homes remain high, and further increases in the use of sales incentives continue to put pressure on profit margins."

Challenging just begins to describe the housing market.

Sales of new homes were down 23 percent compared with a year ago. And the 8.4 percent precipitous drop in existing home sales in March was the biggest one month decline since 1989.

Your endless, repetitive, reflexive trashing of 'Libs' by which you mean all Democrats, and half of America -- why do you hate America so much, Razorback? So much foaming and frothing, so much wallowing in hate. Pity you have such a shrunken, withered soul.

Economic growth dives. Worst perfromance in years -- 1.3% due to housing slump which is only going to worsen in coming months as entire subprime mortgage industry goes under, just like the S&L debacle years ago. Will taxpayers have to bail them out again?

What will a recession, and untold thousands of people losing hteir homes, impact the elections, hmm?

bsimon: The only ones that are saying Hillary has no chance is the repubs that are so afraid of her and some have even given money to Obama. As for the lefties, they cannot have much after the primary and will fall in line with the more moderate wing of the party in supporting Hillary. Consider the cost of GW and no one that is a dem will abandon Hillary.

I take stock tips where ever I can get them. My preference is to rely on liberals who seem to have an abundance of knowledge about CEOs who are malfeasant and incompetent and which corporations are price gouging. I do wish they would provide more detail, so I could short sell the stock of those companies.

And Judge, why the h*** didn't you tell me that LVLT was going to get whacked after its earnings report?

China? That is pretty sly, making money off of trends you don't like.

I dont mischaratarize my enemies, I just talk about the ones that are funnest to talk about.

Razorback: the fundamental problem is that you and all other recalcitrant Republicans view all I's and D's as pot smoking hippies living above their mom's garage. The reality, that they look like you and act like you on a daily basis, is not compatible with your psychological need to identify and mischaracterize enemies. You'd rather they were citizens of a completely different country when in fact they are the capitalists all around you.

And even though you have an economics degree, which is a degree in the philosophy of money and can soulessly argue all viewpoints simultaneously, I like the quality of your posts much better than other recalcitrant Republicans (who shall remain nameless).

Oh, and the Dreyfus Premier International Funds, Inc: Dreyfus Premier Greater China Fund is up +0.23 as of yesterday, continuing the upward trend since early March. In the meantime, US Real Estate is bombing. Do you take stock tips from complete strangers?

What little I saw of the "debate" left a few impressions: the forum was to introduce face time with the candidates after all of the sound bytes/media hype from each camp WAY in advance of the actual serious campaign; Hillary is less onerous in person, and may even get likeable and more expansive as she learns to relax, ( I am not a Hillary fan, but she is catching stereotypical criticism aimed at the only woman in the top tier); Obama can't possibly live up to his pre-campaigning hype, and though good, will disappoint until he settles into it, (His wife seemed very uncomfortable in the milling about afterwards, and telegraphs that she is not at all sanguine about the coming rollercoaster ride); Biden is likeable, intelligent, and has a sense of humor about himself, (which many of the others lack), and probably helped himself most of anyone; Dodd was good, but not a stand-out, and will probably remain in the second tier; Kucinich and Gravel come across as poisoned flower children/grownups, reacting to the early '70s, and Richardson still reminds me too much of Horatio Sanz, to be taken seriously at this juncture, no matter what the heft of his resume.

When it comes to Barack Obama all I have to say is no, no, no.

He barely seems confident and direct enough to be a Senator for criminy sakes.

NO!

They were all pretty good I thought. I have not chosen a candidate yet but I am giving serious thought to Hillary Clinton. She seems so seasoned and capable compared to some of the others.

I agree with Cassandra, above.

Hillary Clinton has everything it takes to be President. Barack Obama is unsure of himself and boy does it show. I don't want an unsure President. Does anyone?

Among all the candidates last night, Hillary was the most direct, confident, knowledgeable and convincing.

She is Presidential material. She is ready to lead the country.

She has my vote.

Blarg: I just did mock those very (Tancredo Hunter) candidates for that very reason, as well as some other Repub candidates for other reasons. You should review court precedent about the power of parties to limit who can run. What is the DNC web address? Do they have to paperwork online?

It is a legitimate question for both parties, given the front loaded primary calendar. How is asking that question attacking Dems?

A few answers, obviously from me, not the candidate:

McCain: Pedastal? What pedastal? My wife picks the pedastals in my house, and she doesn't let me put issues on them. It is neither suprising or interesting that I talk to religious conservatives about what is important to them, the same way I talk to law enforcement officers about crime, or Iowans about farming.

Hunter, Huckabee,: You are right. What the h*** was I thinking? I have no legitimate shot at the nomination, I withdraw from the campaign.

Brownback: My constitutional authority for legislative action is Article I: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. There is no separate section on morality. There is only a section on legislation, which applies to both moral and immoral legislation. The provisions limiting legislative authority, (Articles II and III, as well as Amendments 1-10_among others), likewise apply to both moral and immoral legislation.

Guiliani: As the charater portreyed by Jack Nicholson in the movie "As Goods as it Gets" said to the little dog "This is New York. If you can make it here, you can make it anywhere."

Tancredo: Nothing. I am a johnny one note. I am not really running to be President, I am running to force other candidates to talk about my one issue. Don't tell Razorback this, because if he finds out, he will try to excluded me from the debate.

Thompson. Welfare reform worked in Wisconsin. Its working nationally so well that in the first few months of the newly elected Democratic Congress, no one has even proposed to change it. If you were referring to the medicare drug benefit, it is working well also. We knew there would be challenges, there always is when you transistion to a new system. The problem is not markets, its the transition to markets, and as our seniors become familiar with the different plans and begin to pick and choose, the experience and wisdom of our seniors will hold companies accountable on quality and price.

Romney: Like I told Ted Kennedy when I ran against him for US Senate, I wil fight just as hard as you for gay rights and to protect a woman's right to choose.

Hagel. I don't know if I want to run, but my record is not that different from the typical Republican in the US Senate with the obvious exception that I disagree with the Bush policy in Iraq.

Paul: It is mostly the other party restricting freedoms. Second amendment, seat belts, motorcycle helmets, no fat people eating ice cream, etc.

Bush: For the first time in my life, it sucks to have the name BUSH.

I have to say that the fact CC thought that Brian Williams and the Msncbc format was good is telling. It refected the trite and shallow and infomercial nature that politics and everything else in this country has become. Williams was snide and condescending -- watch how he will lick the boots of the republicans next.

However in spite of the formmat I thought Hillary came out well, tho I'm not a huge fan of hers, I can deal. I think she's a llittle too beholden to corporate interest but at this point in itme I'm not sure that you can be elected presdient without Wall Street's incredibly powerful influence behind you so that may be a moot point.

Biden was funny and surprised me. Edwards was good, but as many have said, tired. As a breast cancer survivor [and not anywhere sick as Elizabeth] and remembering the medieval horror the treatment - which I remember like yesterday even though it was 10 years ago -- my heart goes out to him.

But I would have to say that it looks to me - as far as anyone can guess this far out - like Hillary and Rudy.

Funny thing is, the way the Repubs ALWAYS try to attack and demonize Dems is by feminizing them -- mocking them, saying they're weak or crazy {Breck Girl, The Scream, Flipflopper, Mondale with a silly hat, Gore and earth colors, etc] -- but they can't do that to Hillary, because their whole strategy of demonizing her over the past decade is based on building a stereotype of her as a Big B*tch - a powerful, manipulative woman. Which might actually look good to a lot of people compared to our weak, incompetent current president.

But Rudy on the other hand -- there's the endless videos of him in drag. Endless. If you're ffrm the Northeast you know he never turned down a chance to dress up in heels and makeup and vamp outrageously. The best video is Donald Trump with his face between Rudy's plastic breasts, fondling them. Ugh. Trump was in the process of getting special favors fromm tthe Mayor then. It was ugly.

So if it boils down to a contest between a man in a dress and a woman in a pants suit, which will America choose? These are sure interesting times.

No, i would not equate Hilary with Laura Bush or Nancy Reagan because they were not as involved in policy. Nancy was involved in support of her husband (she did have opinions of personnel but that is not policy). Laura Bush has done some "first lady" type things but nothing to equate to revamping healthcare or being the political person that Hilary is. Do you think that Nancy or Laura could win a Senate seat? I don't. Hilary could and did because there is substance there.

Dave! writes
"I think that at this point all the candidates should be allowed to debate. The problem comes in with finding a format to be effective with so many in the debate."

It would take an on-the-ball moderator familiar with each candidate's positions who could create a debate format by asking a question of one candidate, then asking another to respond. It would be challenging to balance such a format in terms of equal time for each candidate, but with an effective producer in their ear, I think it could be done. Part of a challenge is in finding a moderator that's more interested in the responses than hearing themself asking the questions.

Blarg,
I think that at this point all the candidates should be allowed to debate. The problem comes in with finding a format to be effective with so many in the debate. I don't have an answer but quite honestly, if it were just Obama, Clinton and Edwards last night, i would not have tuned in as none of those provide the comic relief of a Kucinich or Gravel. Also, i think that it is important for the American people to see the "fringe" elements of each party. Even it someone is polling 5%, that is still a lot of people.

You've got me there, Razorback. I can't think of any rule that permits a sitting Congressman with significant popular support to run for president, while preventing everyone else in the country from running.

Seriously, your attempts to attack the Democrats have just gotten pathetic. Kucinich and Gravel are registered candidates with the DNC. They appear on the Democratic primary ticket, and deserve the same rights as other candidates. If you tried to run, the DNC wouldn't let you. You could run as an independent; a lot of crackpots do.

Are you going to mock Ron Paul too? How about Hunter and Tancredo?

Dave! that anon was me. When you equate Hillary's time as 'first spouse' to quality experience in preparation for becoming President, would you also consider Laura Bush a potential future candidate? Did Nancy Reagan miss a golden opportunity? Babs may be a special case; I suspect she could have defeated her husband in 1992...

lylepink: As has been stated many times, Hillary has ZERO chance of winning the General. This is based on many factors and one that stands out is that she is little more than a political opportunist who's goals are based more on personal ambition than what's good for the country. She has zero chance of earning any crossover voters, particularly if her opponent is Hillary-in-rhino's-clothing Rudi Giuliani. Given those two candidates, the leftists will seek out another Nader-like figure as a protest vote.

Anon,
8 years as the spouse of the President (and spouse of a governor prior to that). That sounds like experience to me. If you recall, there was talk at some point that it was almost a co-presidency. Hilary was one of the most involved first ladies ever. I don't think that one should so easily dismiss this "experience", unique in the field. I detest both of the Clinton's, but she is politically smart, knows what she is doing and what she is talking about.

Blarg:

What if I were running for president as a Democrat?

What if you were running for president as a Democrat?

What is a rule that can be applied consistently that keep me out, and maybe you out, but let Kucinich in?

Dave!: I have stated many times, IMO, Obama has ZERO chance of winning the General. This is based on many factors and one that stands out is his insisting he is a new type of politician. To my knowledge he has not a single stance that does not conform to most dems positions. He is a creation of the media for the most part, to try and stop Hillary, who the media dislikes so much. A strong intellegent woman is something that a lot of folks think/believe just cannot be allowed to have any say at all. These folks mainly fall in the repub/conservative camp.

Dennis Kucinich is running for president. So is Mike Gravel. That means they deserve just as much time in the debates as anyone else does. Just because they're behind in the polls right now doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to speak. If the debates only invite the top 2-3 candidates from each party, that would give the media even more control over the primary process, and we don't need that.

And despite Razorback's blathering, this is hardly a Democratic problem. Should Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo be excluded and mocked? Or should they be given as much of a chance to speak as Giuliani and McCain?

ok razorback, those are good questions. here are some i would ask the republicans:

for mccain - if as you suggest your true philosophical alignment is hard right conservative, do you now place such issues as choice and same sex marriage on a more important pedestal than you do campaign finance reform? and how do you square that with your broad bipartisan appeal in 2000? are you the same candidate you were then?

for giuliani - how would you answer substantive policy questions having neither anything to do with new york city nor with the "war on terror"? how do your years as n.y. mayor prepare you to confront the challenges of global warming? of health care? and with your acknowledged reputation for a short temper and aggressive action, how do you propose to negotiate carefully and successfully with those who live in parts of the world where such character traits are seen quite differently from how they are seen in new york?

for romney - what in your one term as MA governor tells you that you can be an effective national leader, especially in foreign policy? how would you respond to those who say that you are pursuing a mid-life crisis? and what would be your attitudes as president toward 1. keeping religion out of government, 2. allowing private choices such as birth control and abortion to remain safe, legal, and private, and 3. resisting the attempts by special interest groups to write their prejudices into the constitution?

fred thompson - you have made contradictory statements in the past regarding the right to choose. where would you come down as president? what other positions have you taken in the past, and how do they constitute a governing philosophy?

chuck hagel - are you going to run? or do you just like being the democrats' republican candidate? if you do run, how do you propose to re-focus a party which has been more or less defined by one issue ("ter'r") for six years? and what surprises would you expect a moderate or liberal voter to find when researching your record?

gov. huckabee - what do you stand for, besides weight loss?

sam brownback - under what constitutional authority do you propose to legislate christian morality? what do you know about the environment? about human rights?

tommy thompson - why do you think that policies which were tried once and failed would work if tried again?

tom tancredo - ok, let's suppose that unexpectedly tomorrow, all the illegal immigrants either stopped coming, became legal citizens, or voluntarily went home. what else do you stand for?

ron paul - aren't you really a libertarian? as a libertarian, how do you reconcile support for a party which has restricted and would further restrict personal rights and freedoms in the name of "safety"? how can you seriously defend the restriction of social freedom in support of the moderate expansion of economic opportunity for those with means?

jeb bush - yes, i know you're not running. let's keep it that way. hasn't your family done enough already?

duncan hunter - why are you running again?

Judge C. Crater notes the divergent views of those who watched the same debate. Part (not all) of the cause of the divergent views are those who knew they were going to post that their preferred candidate was the obvious winner, even before the debate occured.

I like Judge C. Crater, even though we disagree. I like it when a liberal tells me how good their stock portfolio is doing. This proves the first rule of economics: Everyone is a capitalist when it comes the THEIR money.

How are the European stocks doing today?

Chris says
"in Clinton's case, she may well have helped her cause by flashing her experience and the breadth of her knowledge on the issues."

and

"Clinton was crisp and concise... keeping to her message of experience and leadership."

What experience? Senator Clinton has barely over 6 years in the Senate and 8 years as the spouse of the President. Where is all this much-vaunted 'experience' she's claiming?

I am amazed (as always when it comes to political debates) at everyone's wildly disparate interpretation of the same performances. When it comes to the general we can look forward to more of the same regarding the D vs. the R candidate but with even more passion.

The only average conclusions that do not have huge error bars:
1. Richardson lost.
2. Gravel is going nowhere.

lylepink,
Normal old tricks aside, i understand that there may be some republicans that think that Obama cannot win a general election (last night's performance aside, i am not one of them). I asked the question because the way you phrased it made it seem like YOU did not think he could win either. Might have read too much into your post. Do you think he can win the general?

And I forgot to answer your questions:

I oppose almost all subsidies. I don't regard infrastructure that serves the public as a subsidy. I think gax taxes are a good way to pay for highways. Generally, I think that the users of a system should pay for its costs, so that the competing types of transportation have to compete on cost.

I support lowering, not eliminating farm subsidies with respect to food products, because some oversupply of food is a good thing because the market signal that more food is needed is starvation. I support the existing slight oversupply of electric power, which is paid for by ratepayers in the form of excess capacity, because the market signal for undersupply of electric power is blackouts.

jaa3:

The political point that I am making that SOME promise lower gas prices and demegogue the "price gouging" issue, and SOME promise "alternative" and "green" energy, which is necessarily more expensive. To promise BOTH without even discussing the linkage is a contradictory pander. Its fat free french fries. Its a false promise.

jaa3, do you agree its a false promise?

The policy point that I a making is why subsidize when the profit motive already exists? Carbon based fuels are being depleted and something is going to replace it. Whoever discovers the new technology is going to make so much money they make Bill Gakes look like a piker. Why subsidize that person, group of persons, or company? Likewise, those who fail, why subsidize them?

Exxon already has an alternative fuels program. Do you really want to tax people that don't have as much money as Exxon, and send it to Exxon?

If Gravel gets to be there, I may as well get to join in too!

Razorback,

I'm just curious about your "proposed" question to Hillary, which seems to follow this tepid point you've been trying to make recently about market competition.

I'm guessing Hillary, or any of the Democrats for that matter would've talked about the need to subsidize emerging technologies, or, the more apt ones would've talked about the need to subsidize the whole alternative/renewable fuels/energy market, without picking winners, in order to transition our economy into a more sustainable position ultimately.

They might also have said that people like you who harp on and on about "true" low costs and "true" market values and the supposed purity of a market system, ignore the fact that entire swaths of successful industries in this country are already subsidized, and would you want farmers to lose theirs, airline and transportation industries to lose theirs , certain segements of the energy industry to lose thiers all so you can live in this totally idealized and false fantasy of market capitalism vis a vis "Capital".

Wow razor, some thoughtful questions. I agree it would be nice to see specifics, not just from Dems but all candidates. It's so easy to criticize ("How come America doesn't have health insurance for everyone, bla bla bla") but tougher when you actually have to propose solutions, and even tougher to pay for them.

Questions they SHOULD have asked:

Hillary: You have called for "energy independence". Doesn't requiring consumers to gas from someone other than the low cost producer necessarily increase gas prices?

Obama: You responded to Rudy Guiliani that the parties agree on fighting terrorism. Does that mean you agree with Rudy on the Patriot Act? How would you change the Patriot Act? If as a result of your change to the Patriot Act, law enforcment failed to prevent an terrorist act, would you still support your change?

Kucinich: Why are you hear wasting limited time when you do not have a legitimate shot at the nomination. Are you in this race for real, or will you drop