i need a 40 because of all those fascists fascists everywhere

Keep staying strong, Clinton.

proudtobeGOP: Your last post is the first time, I think, you have actually admitted Hillary is going to be the dems choice in 08. Now we are on the same page.

proud, I get your point.

Mark- I actually liked her final answer, once Russert finally pressed hard enough to force her to answer the original question, which was couched in the context of the 1981 bombing of an Iranian nuclear plant.

HRC: "So I don't think it's a question of if they feel it. That is a much higher standard of proof. Apparently it was met with respect to Syria."

I, too, am in favor of a higher standard than just 'feelings' when it comes to military action against a sovreign country, evil dictator or not, so I appreciated that part.

But she was ready to give eveyone her little "security briefing" on Syria, and she tried real hard to stick to her script to prove her national security bona-fides. It's so transparent with her; she is obviously trying to get voters to forget about her not reading the NIE before she voted to authorize military force in Iraq. Each appearance is so choreographed. I applaud Russert for going after her so we can see unscripted moments.

I can hardly wait 'till she debates the R nominee. How much cackling will occur then?

Rob MIllette writes
"When an illegal applies for an ID, send em home."

And, there's the crux of the issue. Are we even talking about a problem where 'illegals' are fraudulently representing themselves as citizens and voting? The evidence says no. The issue is being blown out of proportion.

proud, Mark in A, and Colin: I'll try and get an answer for all of you in one post. I do not defend Hillary, what she says she is responsible for. The SS cap is one I think there should be no cap, the rate could be lowered to help the lowerer and middle income earners and by having no cap on the higher earners, which they do not need and can well afford, this would bring SS into surplus for many years in the future and could be adjusted every ten years or so. This also could be used for Medicare and Medicaid in the single payer system I support. Our tax system needs a major overhaul so the extreme wealthy pays at least a fair amout of what they don't need.

proud, look at the question.

"If Israel concluded that Iran's nuclear capability threatened Israel's security, would Israel be justified in launching an attack on Iran?"

The answer is that Israel is the judge of its own national security and the US is the judge of American national security and there are not identities of judgment between even friendly countries.

But that answer is so intuitively obvious that the question is insipid. Or so it seems to me. Maybe I am TOO cynical. BR fell into it by saying it was Israel's decision but that our support of Israel
is a "cornerstone" of our foreign policy.

If you have read my previous posts you no that I felt unkindly toward HRC for other
stubbornesses.

Even as a more liberal than moderate democrat I agree with ptbGOP. However, I would put a little stipulation onto the ID. It has to be free. Thats the one way to eliminate the entire problem. Make the ID free, no more discrimination. Also, while your at it, you can do some illegal immigration enforcement. When an illegal applies for an ID, send em home.

Lyle -- I'll confess, the moment did not stand out to me. Thanks for the clarification though.

Mark -- Personally, I'd pay to listent to you cross each of the candidates. Provided, of course, that someone was there to direct them to answer the questions. Seriously though, I do try to objectively evaluate the answer to each question and thought that both Edwards and Obama did well, with Biden again scoring the most memorable line about Rudy. Hillary is "impressive" in the sense that she never says anything that can really hurt her, but I agree with others that she also is often unrepsonsive. Personally, I heard enough of that during the '04 debates when GWB answered every question about the economy by talking about no child left behind.

Proud -- Kucinich doesn't represent the pure left. He represents a huge ego in a tiny body. There's a real chance he's going to lose in the primary election in '08 if he isn't careful. I've got quite a few friends in his district who have described significant dissatisfaction with this second vanity campaign. If memory serves, the Mayor of Parma -- which is in the district -- is already declared to primary him.

'I thought Russert did a great job.'

you would. he works for your party.

"about Russert badgering her on Iran - it was a dumb question and she was right to focus on the Syria aspect"

Mark- And I thought you were cynical! C'mon! Look at her answe for what it was - A chance to display her "I've read classified briefings and this time I've really done my homework as opposed to not reading the NIE" answer on Syria.

She was not willing to be taken off script by Russert's realistic hypothetical even for a second. I thought it was a great glimpse of her under a wee bit of pressure, and her cold and stubborn nature came through. She got rattled. A for Russert.

Russert badgers Dems on everything. He's a shill for repugs...

Lylepink- Your reaction to the gentle re-questioning of Senator Clinton by Tim Russert is soooooo predictable. Don't you ever tire of defending her?

I thought Russert did a great job. It's the first time I've seen actual give-and-take resulting in better, more complete answers or at least somewhat throwing candidates off their campagin rhetoric momentarily. Russert was most effective is parrying with Clinton. We got to see her backed in a corner just a little, and with the curtain pulled back just a little, she looked harsh, mean and stubborn, imo.

I have to disagree with the above posts that suggest Kucinich and Gravel should be cut out. I think Kucinich adds a voice from the true left on every issue and is serious enough to listen to. Gravel -I'll give you.

Biden's outspokenness of late will not overcome his negatives...too long in the Senate, unelectable, not enough dough. That's why the pundits have written him off; he's the Hunter of the left.

what you call 'IC' 'proud' is several individuals.

' I was surprised that RG is now a named partner. I will go back into my TX Bar publications to try to learn something about that "marriage".'

Let me now, MA. RG has his fingers in so many special-interest pies it's quite amazing...

lyle, I agree with you about Russert badgering her on Iran - it was a dumb question and she was right to focus on the Syria aspect. But did you, a supporter of HRC, find you were uncomfortable with her social security cap moment?

Colin: I was refering to the Israel attack on Syria recently, and Russert was trying to get Hillary to answer a question when "Thinking" something without proof would justify a attack.

JimD, are you in Europe yet? I do not have your itinerary in front of me, I confess. Did you see HRC's SS cap moment last night? From your noon post, I assume that you did and that you reacted negatively to it.

Point of order: The post at September 26, 2007 06:41 PM was not mine....although it was mildly amusing, and frankly, I'm somewhat flattered that IC has taken so much trouble to include me in his little jingle.

Judy & Blarg

THe Social Security crisis will only be resolved with a bi-partisan consensus. It will involve some combination of tax increases, benefit limits and, perhaps, means testing. Medicare is in even worse shape as far as projected solvency goes. These problems must be solved before they consume the whole federal budget. There is no way one party will solve it. The solution will require many groups to be unhappy. If it becomes a Republican or a Democratic solution, the other party will attack it mercilessly in the next several elections.

Given that, I doubt that you will see many candidates be as candid as Biden was about what it will take to solve the problems.

Here, or on the newer thread, | has posted about RG and Bracewell - Giuliani. As Bracewell - Patterson it was one of the big Houston law firms that represented various oil interests. I was surprised that RG is now a named partner. I will go back into my TX Bar publications to try to learn something about that "marriage".

Colin, I completely missed the "Dodd clock" - how did one know of it?

Did you see my attempted colloquy with FemaleNick? She thought that Obama was not "practical". I went back and read the transcript and for the life of me did not find how that criticism was warranted.

Meanwhile, I thought the HRC moment on social security caps was so reminiscent of her 1993 "my way or the highway" take on health care as to be frightening. I was responding to it in my head just before Biden politely nailed it.

We all have been guilty of seeing-hearing what we want to at some time or another. I suspect that you, like me, generally internally take every answer that every candidate makes as fodder for cross-exam -
we cannot help ourselves. That may provide us with a little more functional objectivity, or it just may be that we become cynical. I think Biden and Obama [and Dodd and probably Edwards] would stand cross much better than HRC.

Colin writes
"[I]t is curious how the media seems to buy into the themes of the day -- such as Hillary is inevitable -- so quickly."

Putting aside, for the moment, the future of our country; the Clinton campaign strategy has been extremely effective. From the get-go, the plan has been to paint her as 'inevitable'. The brilliance is in turning the early polls that measure name recognition into some kind of indicator of political support. In fact, they're still doing it - few punsters are addressing the 55% of likely Dem primary voters that aren't sure who they'll actually vote for, which means the race is still wide open. Yet the media is sucking up the Clinton campaign's 'inevitable' message.

Lyle -- what "unfair question" did the media try to trick Hillary into answering? Honestly not sure what you're talking about.

Mark -- Did you see the Dodd "clock" tracking the amount of time given to each candidate? Interestingly, Obama received less time this go-round than Richardson and was much closer to Biden and the rest of the pack than previously. Clinton still got the most questions. I'm not suggesting any kind of conspiracy, but it is curious how the media seems to buy into the themes of the day -- such as Hillary is inevitable -- so quickly.

Personally, my biggest pet peave about the debate was Hillary's continued laughter tick. John Stewart did a bit on this a few days ago, noting her "sincere" laughter whenever faced with a tough question. I can picture Saturday Night Live writing sketches right now...

I like how this NH poll is being parroted around because it shows Clinton as a positive...yet how about the poll that was leaked that showed Clinton losing to Guillani in a match-up in 08 and Barack Obama actually performing better in 08 than Clinton against a Republican contender. That's the real issue here - mainstream media makes me sick.

But Judy, by the time President Hillary Clinton gets to do anything about Social Security, Bush will be out of office. Shouldn't she tell the voters what she plans to do before we vote for her? I don't see why we should trust Hillary's judgment to do the right thing once she's in office. She should tell us what she plans now. (And that applies to all candidates, not just Hillary.)

I saw a similar argument from Biden supporters about his health plan yesterday. I was told that Biden wants to make small changes to the health care system first, and then eventually make big changes later. But he hasn't given out any details of those big changes, at least not on his website. If he wants my vote, he has to tell me what he plans to do, not make vague promises about doing something eventually.

An Iraq war veteran said Tuesday he is returning his military medals in what anti-war groups are calling a rare and powerful protest.

Josh Gaines, 27, plans to mail the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal and National Defense Service Medal to former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. He said he will do so during a protest scheduled for Wednesday in Madison.

"I'm going to give those back because I truly feel that I did not defend my nation and I did not help with the Global War on Terrorism," said Gaines, who lives in Madison. "If anything, this conflict has bred more terrorism in the Middle East."

Rudy Giuliani's shot at MoveOn.org may end up costing his campaign more than he bargained for.

In response to the organization's now-famous New York Times ad about "General Betray Us," Giuliani's campaign took out its own ad and demanded the same, $64,575 rate that the Times gave to MoveOn.

Now, however, the Times has admitted that it should have charged MoveOn its standard rate of $142,083, prompting the group to write another $77,000 check to the Times.

But what about Giuliani's ad?

A new complaint filed with the Federal Elections Commission Monday alleges that Giuliani's campaign must also pay the full amount or be in violation of taking what amounts to an illegal corporate contribution from the Times.

"The difference, $77,083 is an in-kind corporate contribution," the complaint alleges.

bsimon, to be fair,I think there are certain questions that a candidate should not answer, such as what are you going to do about 'x' in year 'y' -- because you are not able, at this time, to know what the circumstances will be, and you don't want to put yourself in a position where you promise something that is impossible to deliver at a certain point.

I agree with her that Social Security should not be dealt with until bush is out of office, because as long he republlicans have any significant power, whatever they do will only make it worse for older Americans.

femalenick writes
"At first, I was disappointed that Hillary didn't answer a few of the questions more directly. But then I thought about it, and I understand. This is the primary season - the general election is still more than a year away. It would be foolhardy for a Democrat to open the kimono in full at this stage and give the Republicans months and months to prepare for a general election debate."


Nick, that is a ludicrous justification for Sen Clinton's complete and utter lack of vision, principle and direction. If she doesn't answer a question, how can the voters - whether in a primary or general - be sure that her positions are worth supporting? You said you're disappointed that she doesn't answer more questions directly, then imply that you're going to support her anyway. Why? If she doesn't tell you what she stands for, why would you - or anyone else - support her?

It would be interesting if one of you so-called 'journalists' at the WaPo asked Mr. Guiliani just exactly how many companies he operates, how many gov't contracts he has, and how much money he makes off US taxpayers... it's in the billions.

And also, in how many unsavory and/or hostile countries he operates...

Hillary is like disagreeable medicine that the MSM is trying to convince the country that it must take in order to recover from Bush. Doesn't this make any others of you suspicious?

So its like a Bracewell & Giuliani office party held in a sewer.

Mr. Giuliani seems to have outdone other campaigns with his effort in Kazakhstan, a country made famous, or infamous, by the movie "Borat," starring the British comedian Sasha Baron Cohen. Though only Americans can contribute to presidential campaigns, Kazakhstan has many American oil and gas workers in addition to an office of the law firm where Mr. Giuliani was a partner, Bracewell & Giuliani of Houston.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates outlined for the first time Wednesday his concerns about oversight of private contractors in Iraq, telling Congress that he sent a fact-finding team to Baghdad and reminded U.S. commanders they have the authority to discipline private workers.

Gates also said he was troubled by security contractors' practice of luring soldiers out of uniform by offering them higher salaries. He said he was looking for ways to put legal limits on that practice.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2007/09/gates_unhappy_with_contractor.php

Well Mark, why do you think they call it 'the fix'? becausse 'the fix' is in. Our leaders are chosen by the political class in DC--the pundits, 'journalists,' lobbyists and politicos. They choose who will be the most likely to maintain the status quo, which feeds them all so handsomely -- and coronates them. That would most likely be Hillary this time.

This was my favorite Biden quote:

'Biden flashed anger at the mention of the former New York mayor. "Rudy Giuliani doesn't know what the heck he's talking about," said Delaware senator, who is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"He's the most uninformed person on foreign policy that's now running for president."

Because it's true. Every time Rudy gets asked a question on foreign policy, he answeres with some juvenile total absurdity. It's about time some one called him on it.

'An article in today's New York Times notes that Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign is "holding a fundraiser today in Kazakhstan, despite concerns about its human rights record." "Concerns" is putting it mildly. The Human Rights Watch 2007 World Report notes that Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbaev has not only effectively shut down the main opposition party, but has also passed a new media law giving him "unlimited power to close independent and opposition media outlets." Democracy promotion, anyone? '

Can you imagine the uproar if Hillary Clinton held a fundraiser in a foreign country, a dictatorship? Just another example of the higher standards that Democrats must adhere to. Isn't there some kind of a law about raising money from foreigners for politiical campaigns? Should our president really be this beholden to foreign and possibly hositle nations?

The top four Republican presidential candidates will sit out Thursday night's debate before African-American voters at Morgan State University in Baltimore. But they will appear en masse at a forum planned next month by the Republican Jewish Coalition.

"This is the type of forum where it's necessary for them to participate," Allan Hoffenblum, a veteran Republican analyst told the Huffington Post. "You can turn down the Latinos, and you can turn down the blacks, but you can't turn down the Jews."

I am excerpting from last night for continuity.

[Regarding raising social security tax base to assure solvency]
SENATOR CLINTON: Well, I take everything off the table until we move toward fiscal responsibility and before we have a bipartisan process. I don't think I should be negotiating about what I would do as president. You know, I want to see what other people come to the table with.

[later ? to Biden]
Would you ...remove the requirement that a state have a legal drinking age of 21 in order to receive federal highway funds...?

SENATOR BIDEN: Absolutely no, I would not.
...
And the last point I'll make is, presidents are supposed to lead. How do you go out and negotiate, use health care and the Social Security system as a negotiating tool to deal with the federal deficit? You're supposed to lead. You lay out what you want to do. You're not negotiating with yourself, you're negotiating to protect the system. And you can't use the system as a negotiating tool to get to a balanced budget any more than you can turn around and suggest that somehow lowering the drinking age to 18 is going to make anything better in America.
-----------------------------
I also read the transcript for signs of impractical responses by Obama and still do not see them.

Somebody tell me why the pundits were down on Obama, up on HRC, and MIA on Biden.

Frustrated by press leaks about its most sensitive electronic surveillance work, the secretive National Security Agency convened an unprecedented series of off-the-record "seminars" in recent years to teach reporters about the damage caused by such leaks and to discourage reporting that could interfere with the agency's mission to spy on Americans.

'She seemed to suggest differently at another point, after being asked whether she would ever approve torturing a suspected terrorist to prevent the detonation of a big bomb.'

This is why I don't watch these things. These talking heads and self-appointmented pundits do nothing but propagate administration propaganda. Torture produces false results. Always.We have known this for years. Torture is good only for obtaining confessions for political prosecution, not truth. Torture produces lies, because any fool can see you will say anything to make it stop -- anything. If someone was inflicting unbearable pain on you, you would say anything, wouldn't you, because it is 'unbearable.'

So there is no way it could prevent the 'detonation of a big bomb' -- notice the baby words... 'big bomb'... when you're trying to scare people, use words that make them feel vulnerable, like children. ,, 'big bomb'...' bad guys' 'evildoers'...

Casey, testifying before the House Armed Services Committee for the first time as the Army's top officer, expressed deep concern over the Iraq and Afghanistan wars' impact on the service. In an unusual move, Casey had asked for the hearing so he could explain the strains on the Army, according to Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), the panel's chairman.

"Overall, our readiness is being consumed as fast as we can build it," Casey said, explaining that U.S. soldiers do not get enough time at home to train for full-scale combat operations and that equipment is wearing out "at a far greater pace than expected."

Russert is a punk and a tool... a complete shill for the republicans.

It's a pretty belated idea -- what with $6 billion worth of Pentagon contracts under criminal investigation -- but today, freshman Democratic Sens. Jim Webb and Claire McCaskill are introducing an amendment to the defense appropriations bill creating an independent, bipartisan commission to study the contracting process for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The eight-member commission would be staffed by appointees of the Congressional leadership, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense. From a joint press release release:

The Commission will study and investigate the extent and impact of this growing reliance on civilian contractors to perform wartime functions. Its focus will encompass the policies, procedures, processes, and performance associated with wartime contracting and contracts. It also will assess the extent of waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement, and the extent to which those responsible have been held financially and legally accountable. The appropriateness of agencies' structure, policies, and processes for wartime and contingency contracts also will be assessed.

Russert, Matthews, and the other pundits were the big losers. Russert was petty in his attempt to try and trap Hillary into answering something that was clearly way out of line. MG and DK are taking time from the viable contenders, and provideing a laugh.

Two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow search warrants to be issued without a showing of probable cause, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the Patriot Act, "now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment."

The WSJ notes this is part of a continuing trend where more employers are choosing to not provide their workers with health insurance and other benefits.

There are 25,000 detainees in U.S. military custody in Iraq. Last year, the commander of forces in the region said he suspected the Sunni insurgency consisted of between 10,000 and 20,000 fighters and Shiite militias numbered in the "low thousands."

The NYT goes on to note that questions have been raised about Blackwater's ties to politicians as the owner's family contributes heavily to Republicans.

Someone should tell Hillary about the age old dress for success rules that favor navy blue and charcoal pinstripe over orange for business attire.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates asked Congress yesterday to approve an additional $42.3 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, bringing the Bush administration's 2008 war funding request to nearly $190 billion -- the largest single-year total for any war so far.

The move came as Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff and former top U.S. commander in Iraq, warned lawmakers that the Army is stretched dangerously thin because of current war operations and would probably have trouble responding to a major conflict elsewhere.

"The current demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply," Casey said yesterday. "We are consumed with meeting the demands of the current fight and are unable to provide ready forces for other potential contingencies."

FemaleNick, I agree with your assessment of DK, MG, and BR. I agree that JB was the clearest on most issues, not just foreign policy. But I thought Dodd deserved a positive mention for usually being direct.

I do not agree, for example, that HRC's refusal to talk about a fiscal fix for Social Security was useful as a tactic, but I understand your take. But when you say that Obama's answers were not "practical" I ask you or someone who shares your impression to tell me what you recall that I must have missed.

Was it that he thought we had to consider nuclear power in the mix? Was it that he thought the cap on SS would have to be lifted? Was it that he correctly recalled HRC's 1993 health policy fight as doomed by her because she refused to invite the stakeholders to the table? There must have been something. Tell me.

Perhaps we have such different views about some issues that your "boondoggle" is my acceptable alternative, and of course that would account for our conclusions.

Mark in Austin, Obama was calm, steady, and boring. Practical? No.

I like Obama, but with each debate, instead of being impressed, I find myself being uninspired. I can't help but think that while he gives a great speech, he just doesn't do as well off the cuff. And it ain't just because he had a cold. For now, I'm chalking it to inexperience in the major leagues. My ideal is that he is Hillary's pick for a veep. Maybe when her team is prepping him, he'll be much better in a VP debate.

At first, I was disappointed that Hillary didn't answer a few of the questions more directly. But then I thought about it, and I understand. This is the primary season - the general election is still more than a year away. It would be foolhardy for a Democrat to open the kimono in full at this stage and give the Republicans months and months to prepare for a general election debate. I think some of the people who comment on this blog forget that when Nov 08 is here, it won't just be Democrats voting. From this standpoint, I think HRC did a good job - not her best, but she was good.

I love Biden, but he hasn't got a prayer of winning the Democratic nomination.

The others would get pulverized in a general election. The fact is that only a moderate this time around can win - and Hillary is the most moderate of all the candidates from both sides.

In an election where foreign policy and national security will be rightfully the most important issues, she and Biden are the only ones who can effectively diminish the perceived strength of the Republican Party. Richardson may also have the background, but he's no major league player - a fact that in my humble opinion continues to be highlighted during these debates.

Finally, I think it's time that Kucinich and Gravel be barred from the debates. They are sounding increasingly ridiculous and are simply taking up space and talking time for the viable candidates. Allow voting at 16? Give me a break. Do they not know any 16 year olds?

Ha, Edwards an outside populist. Please! John Edwards is only a Washington outsider b/c he realized had he ran for re-election to the Senate in 04' Richard Burr would have defeated him. If resigning rather than facing defeat as a senator for your home state makes one "a populist outsider", then Edwards fits the bill. If not, then Edwards is just another washed-up wanna-be President. I'm going with the latter.

Heard Obama has a bad head cold. not good. he will be slimmed by the press for not being this or that because he is sick.
either way, he got a good shot at her majesty tonight.

I don't know if there were any winners this evening, but there was one big loser - Obama! Could he have been more boring?

I watched the D forum in NH. I had a strong negative reaction to some of HRC's replies, especially her notion that resolving Social Security solvency could not be the subject of dialog between her future presidency and the Congress. The budget would have to be balanced before she would discuss SS. It reminded me of GWB's notion that we cannot talk to Iran about nukes until Iran "proves" it does not want nukes.

I was very surprised that the talking heads thought she had performed well. The talking heads did not go on to explain what it was that she said that seemed wise or insightful.

Further, I thought Obama was calm and steady, and practical. The talking heads said he barely showed up. Biden and Dodd provided context for me on several questions about health, tobacco, alcohol, and SS. The talking heads did not notice them.

I learned tonight that I have a limited future as a talking head.

Who do you believe won the New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Debate? -------> http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=597

.

I'm gonna need 40 40s if Hilary wins the nomination because I HATE HER.

John Edwards, I'm with you to the very end.

Oh, and Will, I'm almost sure a story ended with -30-, not 40. Hard to remember, and my high school journalism teacher sucked, so who knows. A 40 is just the standard size for a bottle of cheap malt liquor.

Biden won't participate in setting up Clinton because at this point he's running for Secy. of State, not President. Obama can't get shrill because he's the "change" candidate who is running against shrillness, and at this point he has his eye on the next presidential election if this one doesn't pan out because he has a hell of a future as long as he doesn't ruin himself in this election cycle (but he would never tell his supporters that). That leaves Edwards (for him it's the last election), and the more he does that kind of attack the clumsier he gets in doing it- he's been leaving the attacks to his wife (which I have been finding rather offensive in the circumstances, and believe me I'm not a Hillary nut). My prediction is that Clinton skates again.

Oh, and -40- used to be used to indicate the end of a story. I think -20- was continued in next column. My old proofreading days come back to haunt me ...

Sen Clinton voted for Kyl-Lieberman Amendment.

Didn't she do this a couple of times before? The patriot act and the resolution to go to war with Iraq?

Bush lite indeed.

Surging? Sen. Clinton is only raising cash at HALF the rate of Sen. Obama.

I don't think you know the meaning of the word surge. You must have been listening to Red Bushies again ...

Sen Clinton voted for Kyl-Lieberman Amendment.

Didn't she do this a couple of times before? The patriot act and the resolution to go to war with Iraq?

Bush lite indead.

"Taking the Fight to Clinton?"

Interesting use of the question mark to mitigate what might otherwise be an inapproprite tone for discussing political debate. Reminds me of something.

Greet me with a 40 and I start drinkin'
from the 8-ball my breath starts stinkin'
Gotta get Zouk to rock my body
Before I left, I hit the Bacardi
Went to his house, get him outa his pad
Then Zouk said somethin' to make me mad
He said somethin' else that
I couldn't believe
So I grabbed the stupid king by his nappy-a$$ weave
Started talkin' $h1t, wouldn't you know
I reached back like a p1mp and slapped some mo'
George Dubya came in and started to shout
So I threw a right cross and knocked his old a$$ out
'Cause the GOP faithful are always hard
Come talkin' that trash, we'll pull your card
See a stupid policy and vote for it
Don't quote me FOX, 'cause I'm still talkin' $h1t...

"I never thought in a million years that providing identification could be construed as a tax."

proud if you read some of the history of the Voting Rights Act you'd find a whole bunch of other things used by people to discourage others from voting. Scurrilous is a term which applies here.

Don't get taken in by the fringe elements' talking points. There isn't enough fraud to warrant imposing remedies which would discourage people from voting.

Notice how this only became an issue as the "Stop the Illegals" crusade burgeoned. It's one of the arrows in their quiver.

Clinton will no doubt not answer any question directly tonight, but instead turn the question around so that she can give her typical soundbite against the Bush administration and her so called experience in Washington. Lets hope we don't have to hear her hideous cackle. I can easily say that all the media focus after the debate will be on the media darling, Hillary. Does anyone not believe that the Clintons are bullying the media in this country?

It would take me a whole bottle of Jack to watch the R's lie and slime and pontificiate, so I don't bother.

I agree Mark and Colin, I don't have a problem with the ID's as long as it's free. Otherwise it is clearly a tax, which should be illegal.

Hey, I thought Republicans were against unfunded mandates and unfair taxes? Guess not, when they're on poor people.

"proud's alcoholic beverage of choice is an ice-cold 40 -- who knew?"

It'll take a couple of those to tolerate the drivel being espoused by Hillary and the seven dwarves tonight.

'I'll bet the same folks who complain can show a card when they go down to the corner store to get a 40.'

oooh, the racism always creeps through with the gopers. a a 40 is a 40 ounce malt liquor popular in slums. what a disgustimg bimbo you are 'proud;

proud's alcoholic beverage of choice is an ice-cold 40 -- who knew?

Mark -- fair points as always. And no, my understanding is that women still do not have to register b/c they can't serve as combat troops. Personally, strikes me as a rather outdated rule.

Mark- Women do not have to register. I live in North Dakota, and, bastion of rugged individualism that it is, the state does not even require people to register to vote! One just shows up at the polling place with an ID and they give you the go ahead! It's quite remarkable. I never thought in a million years that providing identification could be construed as a tax. That is some lame interpretation, imo.

As to women, when President Carter resumed registration in 1980, he asked Congress to change the law and include women. However, Congress did not act on his request. For women to be included in the registration requirement, Congress would have to change the wording of the law.

Proud -- Again, I'm OK with an ID requirement IF its free. In most states, it's not. To me, that's exactly the same thing as a poll tax. Additionally, you don't have to go to the DMV to register for SS. You can do it at any post office as well. I would encourage making voting IDs available at such locations as well.

Assuming the point really is to discourage fraud, I'm curious why none of these laws calls for free IDs. Almost makes one think that's not what they're actually intended to do...

40 Ounce Killa: This is, without a doubt, the beer of choice among bums & deadbeats in many areas.

proud,

The ID one can get at (most) DMVs costs money in most states (at least in mine). That makes the ID requirement the equivalent of a poll tax. These are outlawed by Supreme Court precedent.

If the state in question provides reasonable access (for instance, that doesn't require going to one office in the state), and for free, then the ID requirement should fly. I don't know if that is the case here.

The Court could, of course, turn around and say that the ID does not represent a poll tax. But I think in the past it has been considered so.

But Mark's the lawyer, and I welcome any corrections to my analysis here.

proud, I just saw your 5:04P post. Is DMV ID
free in Minn? And, I did not know that is how Selective Service registration is done now. Do women not have to register? Why not? This has completely passed me by and I am curious.

Colin, I agree with your thought that photo IDs should be provided by the Registrar if they are required by the Registrar. In TX, I believe a photo ID from the State Police costs $10 and many non-drivers obtain them.
I do not know if they are free to the indigent, but as you say, for voting purposes, photo ID [or thumbprint ID, for that matter] should be free.

I am someone who believes that voter registration should be subject to ID however, so I favor providing the free ID opportunity at the time of registration, to anyone who does not have a suitable form of photo ID.

"If you'll agree to have the state or federal government affirmatively provide an ID to everyone, then I'm fine with the proposal."

ID cards are available at the state DMVs across the country. One need only to go there and get one. How is that too hard? If a male is 18 years old and old enough to vote, then they are required to go to the DMV anyway to register for selective service. If, as is the case in many areas, one has to prove their identity and address for public school enrollment, then how is it an undue burden to require identification at the polling place?

proudtobeGOP, Damn right!

That is, if there was such a thing as pervasive voter fraud.

Nobody has been able to prove that yet.

If the laws guaranteed that votes cast were counted, I'd consider looking at whether or not voter fraud is a problem.

Let's get our priorities straight. Let's work on making sure that a problem we know exists is corrected, before we go fixing something which may not even be broken.

What is a 40?

Proud -- none of the things you list is a constitutional right. Voting is. In many ways, this constitutes the same thing as a poll tax because many individuals living below the poverty line don't have any photo ID. If you'll agree to have the state or federal government affirmatively provide an ID to everyone, then I'm fine with the proposal.

Also, I'd note that even the 7th Circuit case upholding the Indiana law largely concedes that there's no evidence of significant voter fraud. The INTENT of these laws, by and large, is voter suppression. It will be interesting to see what Justice Kennedy things about this. I'm certainly not sure that my position will prevail with the Court, but if I were you I wouldn't feel particularly happy about this cert either...

What time is the Democratic Forum?

The Supreme Court said yesterday that it will consider whether state laws requiring voters to present photo identification at polling places unfairly discriminate against the poor and minorities, injecting the justices into a fiercely partisan battle just before the 2008 elections.

This is awesome news! I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect people to be able to produce ID at the voting booths of America. For goodness sake, you have to produce ID to buy a six pack of Miller lite, or cigarettes, prescription drugs and over-the-counter drugs in many cases, or to get social services, food stamps, medicaid, or to get a cell phone contract, or use a credit card.

This whole idea of discrimination is absurd, imo. If a person can't show ID, then how are we supposed to have verification?? I'll bet the same folks who complain can show a card when they go down to the corner store to get a 40.

Obama and Edwards will need to slam Hillary for them to touch her poll leads. No one has really given voters a reason to turn against HRC. Her war position is less than desirable, but even that's a rather bland con against her campaign. .

Debate preview podcast and liveblog
http://www.political-buzz.com/

What I keep waiting for from Obama, and perhaps it's never going to happen, is for him to - very respectfully - challenge Hillary on some of her more hawkish views during the debate and on her past record.

To date, he's focused on the quality of his own judgment as a reason to vote for him. In the current context, I think he needs to reframe the same point and ask both Senator Clinton and the democratic electorate why they should trust a candidate who was so overwhelmingly wrong about Iraq when it could have made a difference. After she refused to address that question directly, which she assuredly would refuse to do, he should ask it again. It's a legitimate question, not a personal attack, and I think if done correctly could be quite effective.

Biden and Edwards, as supporters of the war themselves, can't make that same argument.

It's a sad state of affairs when being capable of repeating your talking points ad nauseum is considered "Presidential".

It would be nice if we held out for "Leader" on occasion. But in modern politics? Don't count on it.

REUTERS AP DRUDGE AP REUTERS WIKIPEDIA

"I think if Biden hammers on that issue & you have Edwards on the other side calling for her to apologize for he 2002 vote & to force a 'date certain' for withdrawl, I think they can throw her off balance."

Perhaps, bsimon. Biden might set it up but Edwards, in true trial lawyer fashion, would have to be the one to go in for the kill. Biden has to see her tomorrow in the Senate, where overprotective rules apply.

I think CC is wrong in thinking that Obama will be the attack dog here. He could certainly benefit from others doing the dirty work, however.

Then again, this is only a debate. It's been a while since any debate this far into a campaign season really shook things up. I can't see HRC committing a big gaffe a la Bill O'Really or even Bush; if the boys rattle her cage a bit it might even gain her sympathy points from soccer moms.

Biden-Brownback gives Biden limited mileage in NH where the voters actually study the candidates. However, unless he resolves the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and ends the war in Iraq I don't see it being any where near enough to make a national impact.

WASHINGTON - The torrid fundraising pace set by Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton is cooling faster than the housing market, with both camps claiming to raise millions less over the last three months than in previous quarters. Obama is expected to pull in between $18 million and $19 million during the July-September reporting period, according to spokeswoman Jen Psaki -- $14 million to $15 million less than his $33 million second-quarter haul.

I am hillary clinton and I approved this cackle. anything to avoid telling the truth. We clintons simply don't do that. no one seems to mind. Our supporters aren't to fussy about truth and ethics.

Vote for bill... I mean me, of course.

And now folks the all ignorant coward hour. Brought to you by moonbats R us. the advertising is paid by Kos/moveon/CNN/NYT/Clinton/bin laden/amajornutjob consortium. Vote for us.

Even more simply, private military contractors aren't in the chain of command, meaning U.S. officers are powerless to stop them from engaging in activities deleterious to a command plan. The most striking example: the lynched Blackwater contractors in Falluja in 2004 entered the city without consultation with the local Marine unit. After the televised lynching, the meticulous Marine plan to win hearts and minds within the city was scotched by a White House and higher command eager for retribution. (For an alternative argument to Singer's about harmonizing contractors with the chain of command, see this essay from counterterrorism expert Malcolm Nance -- which, full disclosure, he asked for my input on prior to publication.)

Singer's recommendation is to "roll... inherently governmental functions back into governmental hands." In other words, he wants to reverse the trend toward outsourcing functions that would harm a mission if executed poorly. These include interrogations, protection of key personnel, and delivery of crucial fuel or ammunition supplies. (Green Beans Coffee or Burger King could remain open in the Green Zone under Singer's formulation.) He claims that skeptics, like Amb. Ryan Crocker, who claim that there isn't an alternative to private security firms like Blackwater, sound like "pushers, enablers and addicts."

A forthcoming study by private-military contractor expert P.W. Singer obtained by TPMmuckraker finds that Blackwater and other private security firms in Iraq are detrimental to U.S. counterinsurgency efforts.

Singer, author of the landmark book Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry, goes beyond the current Blackwater imbroglio to criticize the entire system for security contracting in Iraq. He finds that even though private military firms represent a hindrance to counterinsurgency objectives, the privatization boom beginning in the 1980s has left the U.S. military functionally dependent on the companies for numerous combat operations and logistics tasks. Private military companies have become "the ultimate enabler" for military commitments, Singer writes in "Can't Win With 'Em, Can't Go To War Without 'Em: Private Military Contractors and Counter-Insurgency," allowing a politically cost-free way for the U.S. to go to war in Iraq without a massive call-up of reserve forces.

What the contracting industry diminishes in political cost it compounds in actual cost to counterinsurgency. Iraqis view private companies like Blackwater as lawless, and they have no reason to distinguish between private contractors and U.S. troops -- thereby compounding the danger to U.S. forces from infuriated Iraqis.

Judge C writes
"Edwards is going to have to get pretty tough to shake her out of her projected shell of unruffled competency. That's more of a risk for him than for her."

I dunno. I had a thought about today's votes, as reported by Mark in Austin on other threads. The report is that Sen Clinton voted for Kyl-Lieberma, while Biden voted against. I think this vote is indicative of Sen Clinton's need to burnish her 'tough on terror' credentials. Meanwhile Biden-Brownback has apparently passed. He can, tonight, present himself as the seasoned foreign policy expert, who's building coalitions in the Senate and addressing the important issues facing the country. Where are Sen Clinton's efforts on these issues? Has she convinced anyone to go for her plan? Does she even have any ideas she's presenting to her colleagues?

I think if Biden hammers on that issue & you have Edwards on the other side calling for her to apologize for he 2002 vote & to force a 'date certain' for withdrawl, I think they can throw her off balance.

'The White House today took what may be a lone stand against the Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act, a bill the House may vote on as soon as Wednesday. It would require the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to publish standards regulating worker exposure to diacetyl, a flavoring chemical used in microwave popcorn and other foods that can cause bronchiolitis obliterans, or "popcorn lung."

In a letter to House members, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney said, "Congressional action is urgently needed because [OSHA] has failed to take action to protect workers from this serious workplace hazard." Besides labor groups, the bill is also supported by the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association, the trade group representing the flavoring industry's manufacturers and suppliers. The group says the legislation is similar to recommendations it made three years ago.'

I agree with the BBP; HRC's goal is, has been, and will be: do not screw up. Ignoring a question would lose debater points but this isn't a real debate. It won't cost her any standing in the polls.

Edwards is going to have to get pretty tough to shake her out of her projected shell of unruffled competency. That's more of a risk for him than for her.

During the September 19 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, discussing his recent trip to have dinner with Rev. Al Sharpton at Sylvia's, a famous restaurant in Harlem, Bill O'Reilly reported that he "had a great time, and all the people up there are tremendously respectful," adding: "I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship."

'WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Defense Secretary Robert Gates is seeking nearly 190 billion dollars to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2008, the largest war funding request ever in the six-year-old "war on terror," the Pentagon said Wednesday.

Gates was scheduled to testify later before a Senate committee on the request, which was 42.3 billion dollars greater than the administration's estimate when it presented its 2008 budget request in February.'

The cost of waste and fraud and privatization just keeps growing, like pinocchio's nose...

"DAN RATHER MAY DEPOSE PRESIDENT BUSH IN LAWSUIT.... DEVELOPING..."

It ain't gonna happen; but boy wouldn't that be something.

All the wingnuts would be screaming even louder for Kerry to release his military records just to try to distract us.

Just imagine the possibilities. If Rather could get Nixon discombobulated enough to get into a spitting contest with him, what could he get Pres. Bush to say?

"Finding a way to get Clinton off script tonight will likely be the goal"

I don't think that can be done. She'll just ignore the actual question and use it as a vehicle to get her to the talking point she wants to address.

She's hardly alone at doing this. It's so prevalent now that all politicians that do it risk losing everybody but their own supporters.

It will never happen. We all know the gop and all their members are God. We all know all and any gop members are good people and would never do anything agaisnt the law. They would never sell-out the country for profit and their own power grab

"DAN RATHER MAY DEPOSE PRESIDENT BUSH IN LAWSUIT.... DEVELOPING..."

www.drudgereport.com

ouse Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) retreated Tuesday from his threat to oust the top two strategists at the National Republican Congressional Committee amid widespread complaints about fundraising, recruitment and the competency of its top staff.

But Boehner's decision is unlikely to pacify GOP lawmakers, lobbyists and aides who are concerned about the NRCC's strategy and mounting money woes.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/6017.html