Can you take my comment off. I'm not comfortable with the fact that it shows up on a google search of my name!

I wasn't disturbed about the attacks coming from Obama and Edwards, any and all candidates are fair game and rightly so. I was disturbed by the moderater's participation, particularly Tim Russert's willingness to appear to help the attackers. I found it totally out of place. What was he thinking of?

Hillary is a winner in my book, because she held her on for the entire debate. Because Hillary is a critical thinker, some time answers need to be explained; such as the immigrant question. Regarding the archive records when she was first lady, perhaps she made mistakes and if those mistakes were revealed, people would be judgemental. However, I believe she should reveal the records and let the chips fall where they will. I understand why some people may think Hillary is not forthcoming, but i understand why she is evasive, because people may get the wrong impression and think that she has not learned from her mistakes. My strategy would be to reveal the records, but then I am not running for president.

First, I love these debates! I watch all of them for all parties. Seeing the candidates onstage together is often illuminating, even if they aren't saying anything.

Second, Chris, you did not mention the abominable performance by Tim Russert! He appeared to be so eager for someone to take Sen Clinton down that he was practically salivating when he teed up questions for the "guys" and seemed to chortle with glee when he tried to tie Sen. Clinton down to statements she had not made. Geesh, someone send him on a long vacation and perhaps they should send Chris Matthews with him for company(whom I used to admire, but now just find silly).

The Democratic candidates should keep their collective eye on the ball: they are not running against Hillary Clinton; they are running against George Bush, his legacy and his heirs.

Latest poll released in Iowa for the Republican nomination has Romney 27% leading the way, not followed by Huckabee's 19% with about 13% still undecided. Granted, Romney still has a huge organizational and financial advantage, but Huckabee now has found life in the Christian right. Huckabee is not just running a campaign for 2nd in Iowa anymore, he's in it to win it.

Edwards is turning into the true Progressive in this campaign. With Obama having the singing anti-gay pastor in SC on the campaign trail, and Clinton's problems with the radical left on defense, Edwards is now left (no pun intended) to take advantage of the situation. Richardson wanted to be that man, but he has been beaten out by Edwards for that role now. Edwards has it all on the line in Iowa. With Clinton's non answer on immigration, that could really help Edwards & Obama in Iowa and SC. In SC, the anti gay singing pastor may be okay but in other states, NH for instance, it will turn back to bite him.

Did it seem to anyone else like Richardson is now running for VP to Clinton?

Blarg,
I'm with you in that everybody running should be heard and I don't like the way the debates have been run. I'm not sure that this can be blamed completely on the media - the DNC has said they are OK with the qualifications that NBC places on the candidates to get on stage which were what removed Mike Gravel from the stage. Ron Paul is interesting in that his debate time is limited but he definitely has support. I see it as kind of a chicken/egg thing - if you get some support and headlines, you will get more face time with the media vs. how do you get support and headlines if the media is not covering you? Providing all candidates with fairly equitable face time during debates is where I give the moderators a failing grade, not with the particular questions they ask.

Mark, I admit that I don't pay much attention to local politics. I first heard of Kerry as a presidential candidate. So my opinions of him as a senator are colored by my opinions of him as a candidate.

But I do take issue with one thing you said about him: Repeating Bush's assertion that Kerry was the most liberal senator. That's just silly. He was a moderate Democrat who followed the party line. Senators like Feingold and Wellstone were far more liberal than Kerry. As a presidential candidate, he didn't have a single policy that was really liberal; he didn't even want to end the Iraq war! He was one of the more conservative Democratic candidates; Kucinich, Dean, Sharpton, and Mosely-Braun were all to his left in the primary. He was a mainstream Democrat, which makes him more liberal than the average American, but he was hardly on the party's fringe.

I had to post this because it is simply mindboggling. Here we have someone who has extorted billions of US taxpayer dollars, in return for which he repeadtedly lied to start a war that would benefit mmostly himself and then spied for Iran. I guess bush will be giving him the Medal of Honor next. Why not just hand the whole country over to Abenadinnerjacket right now?

'On Sunday, McClatchy reported that disgraced Iraqi politician Ahmed Chalabi had "re-emerged as a central figure" in the U.S. strategy for Iraq. His latest job: to press Iraq's government to "deliver better electricity, health, education and local security services to Baghdad," as "the next phase" of the escalation.

Today, Blackanthem.com reports that Petraeus has been trumpeting his new alliance with Chalabi, introducing him to U.S. troops serving in Iraq:

Gen. David Petraeus, commanding general, Multi-National Force-Iraq, Dr. Ahmad Chalabi, director of services in Iraq, and Dr. Safi Al-Sheik, director of the Iraqi National Reconciliation Committee, met with Soldiers and leaders of the 1st Battalion, 30th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, Ga., who are operating in the Arab Jabour area.

Before the war, Chalabi provided faulty intelligence on Iraq's supposed weapons programs, helping launch the war. He was investigated for allegations that he passed intelligence to Iran, "wrongdoing that endangered American troops and American lives," according to Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL). Furthermore, Chalabi has alliances with militia leader Muqtada al Sadr, who has led a "series of uprisings against the U.S. military."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/20893.html

Mark in Austin,

You and I commonly see eye to eye when it comes to these debates. I finally typed up my analysis of it. You can access it here:

http://www.theseventen.com/2007/11/pennsylvania-debate-analysis-d.html

What do you think?

milbrooks27: Health care is my main issue. I am disabled, on SS and SSI, have both Medicare and Medicaid. Some of my RXs are not covered under the formula, and I have to pay the full cost, and the ones covered I pay a maximum of $3.10, ProudtobeGOP is the best one I know of to explain this. I favor a single payer simular to what I have that would reduce the paperwork and save a huge amount of money simply by using a single form for all, Hospital, X-Ray, Blood work, and all the rest.

bokonon13 - I think the first thing we need to do, is come together as liberals. Most liberals would agree with points #3 - #10 and I truly believe that the economic downturn we are embarking upon will convince most people of #1 and #2. If we had a simple platform, with these points laid out, like Gingriches contract, we could convince most voters that they and their children would be happier and better off in a country where these were the accepted and shared goals. Politician's, even dumb or crooked ones, want to be re-elected, and if these points were the expectation of people, we could force hem into law.

lylpink, I am "down to earth" tonight, not attempting to skewer anyone. I do not hate Hillary, I am merely very distrustful of her and honestly think she would be a mistake. We can agree to disagree there. I really would like to hear from you, about the issues that are of most import to you. Mark_in_Austin, you too. You seem like a pretty reasonable guy. No skewering or insults from me - promise! I really and truly want to know what's important to you. There is plenty of time for us to engage in the fun of trading insults and name calling in future discussions...and I'm sure we will!

mark - FYI. My take on John Kerry is that he is basically a decent man with views that are outside the mainstream of what most people want. In that, he is like John McCain. Kerry is a self convinced fan of free trade and global markets. I think he is isolated in Washington, away from how disasterous this has been for the Amercian people. Likewise, McCains views on Iraq and foreign policy in general do not reflect what most people want or expect. There are plenty of decent folk just like them, from Newt Gingrich to Mr. Paul. They are not at all like the Romney's, Cheney's, Kennedy's, and similar sorts in Washington that nealy pu up "for sale" signs.

bokonon13: Guns are not an issue for me. As a teenager, I practiced with a 22 rifle by shooting thru the neck of a botte and breaking the bottom out at a distance of 30 to 40 yards, also with a BB gun by striking the old kitchen matches that are not seen around very much these days at a lesser distance. Yes I was good!, and very few could beat me. These "Hillary Haters" cannot even get their reasons straight for their hatred of her. I do not agree with her on everything, for I do not know what her position is on everything,and have said so many times.

mibrooks27, thanks for your response. I agree with most of your points - especially #3-10, but I think that unfortunately most are non-starters in today's political environment. Remembering that Congress is largely made up of wealthy members (many who are ex- and current businessmen), it is hard for me to picture the votes coming together to institute tax fairness, mandatory salary caps, universal health and education, etc. There are just too many interested parties who have way more political clout than you or I do (remember, health care alone represents some large percentage of the ENTIRE US economy! and higher ed is huge, too...)
I'm not on board with your gun rights stuff, but we have discussed that before and don't need to again here. overall, I see where you're coming from. Given the socioeconomic situation as it is, how would you go about convincing both the masses AND leaders in government to take this on as an agenda?

Hey Mark - you ask

"boko, at 7:11P I was very critical of John Kerry and asked you and Blarg if I have underestimated him. I really am curious if my view from here would be seen by you and/or Blarg as overwrought, and if so, why?"

well.... I am by no means the biggest fan of John Kerry, who I thought and think exhibited the whole "Put my time in, and now I'm due" mentality of many veteran politicians. And he came across as an impossible nerd, politically tone-deaf and convinced that the presidency was his for the taking. (Having said that, I don't think he is nearly as vain as this year's rich candidate from Massachusetts, who was knocking on doors in France while Kerry was fighting in Vietnam.)
So I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment, but think it's a little harsh. I think Kerry is not the least effective senator, nor the least responsive, nor the dumbest, nor the most elitist/corrupt - he seems to me to be relatively average without much to distinguish him one way or the other. (I will say that I know a few people who have worked on his campaigns, and they all describe him as being a kind and intelligent man.)
In any case, my impression of Kerry is that he's basically OK, with some serious drawbacks, and neither a great nor a terrible legislator.

bokonon13 - I was asking those pointed qustions for two reasons. First, I really don't know what those people actually believe in/want from the next President. Secondly, I don't think anyone really knows what Hillary Clinton stands for. A lot of her supporters apparently think she believes as they do on a variety of issues, something the Clinton campaign fosters, without the sightest evidence for it.

drindl I have always found to be a thoughtful and articulate poster. I happen to agree with her on most issues (surprise!). I am truly afraid, however, of Hillay Clinton. I am old enough to recall how slippery and vengeful and just plain nderhanded she was during the "bimbo Eruptions" during Bill's Presidency. Now, don't get me wrong, I would love to see a woman President but that woman would be, if I can dream, Elizabeth Edwards or Nancy Pelosi. These are tough women and you know precisely what they think and believe in and will do. Of the current crop, my favorites are Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards. The Republican Mike Huckabee is another populists and I could live with him as President.

My issues, order of importance: (1) end outsourcing. Use tax laws to penalize companies for doing this and add duties and taxes and other fees to goods and services that are brought back into this country as a result of outsourcing. (2) guest workers. I advocate ending any and all guest worker visas that displace Amercian workers. For those guest workers that companies claim are necessary anyways, I would add a 100% tax with NO possibility of a write off. That tax would go into fund that would train a U.S. citizen to replace that quest worker in the shortest amount of time possible. After that, the guest worker goes home. (3) Reign in corporations by making boards and corporate officers responsible, economically and criminally, for any criminal actions or damage by the corporation. Eliminate corporate contributions to election campaigns and any "issue" politics entirely. Place limits on CEO and other corporate officers compensaion package. I think 10X the average salary paid to FTE employees is more than enough. (4) Universal single source, single payer health care. (5) Completely subsidied public education, from full day kindergarten through university. (6) Participaion in the world court and, even, membership in the E.U. (7) a universal retirement system coveraging every worker. Not Social Security, but a genuine universal retirement system replacing the hodge podge of private systems we have now. (8) Strict envirnmental laws that would penalize companies and individuals for any environmental damage. The last time I checked, fish and game were publically owned. Likewise, parks. If development harms a fishery, the company and individuals involved ought to bear full responsibility for restoring that publicly owned fishery, game, park, or view. I would quite literally padlock the door of a company that dumped toxic chemicals into a river or take the home away from an owner that bulldozed dirt into a stream and shut down a mining company or oil company that built a pipeline or road that harmed the health of an elk or caraboo herd or pheasant population. (9) Complete and total energy independence. No foreign oil imports, cars running on hybrid motor, trains, trams and buses on electricity (10) No foreign adventures ala Iraq. No war unless we are attacked. Not threatened. Attacked. I would also end the all volunteer army and impose the draft. Mothers and fathers, especially politicians, don't want to send their children off to war unless it is for a darn good reason. If all of those soldiers in Iraq were the result of a draft..we simply would't be there. Oh, and I am opposed to any further gun control laws and also opposed to private land owners being able to prevent access to any public fishing or hunting area. I am opposed to all laws that unnecessarily limit peoples ability to do what they want, otside of my "pet" positions.

I am somewhat to the left of most posters on this board. I admittedly enjoy scewering people who I don't think reason through their positions.

Chris,

As someone who has been reading about the UFO subject for over half of a century, it is infuriating to hear ignorant journalists automatically go into smirking laughter mode whenever the subject is raised.

Obviously, neither you nor Chris Matthews knows anything about the subject. Bill Richardson does.

There is a very down-to-earth political issue involved: The United States governmental policy of keeping secrets from American people that ought to be made public if we are, supposedly, a free and open society.

Any legitimate journalist who investigates the UFO subject soon learns that the United States government has plenty of UFO information, and keeps it secret, and fibs about it, and contines to do so to this day.

For example, after 4 years of FOIA litigation, NASA continues to resist opening its records of the Kecksburg Pennsylvania incident. Why?

UFO phenomena, and the US government dishonestly about it, are an important and legitimate issue.

boko, at 7:11P I was very critical of John Kerry and asked you and Blarg if I have underestimated him. I really am curious if my view from here would be seen by you and/or Blarg as overwrought, and if so, why?

mibrooks27, who I believe to have been 'MikeB' in the pre-registration life, you say:

"When asked to explain what issues are of import to them and where they stand on issues, lylepink, claudia and the rest of that mob *still* haven't answered that simple direct question."

-I could be wrong, but as a 3rd party observer, it seems to me that lyle and drindl are more or less comfortable with the Democratic platform. That doesn't mean that they - or any of the rest of us for whom that may be true - may not have slight to substantial differences with how some of the issues are framed, or sold to the public, or used as bases for other pronouncements and policies. drindl strikes me as a smart feminist, and lyle as an avid Hillary supporter. I don't think their opinions or positions on issues are a mystery to anyone who has been following the conversation. Your asking them might seem to them to be trying to pick a fight - I haven't been following the conversation today, but that is what the tone of this email sounds like to me.

You continue:
"Is it really too much to ask fo, especially when each of us has been the target of their jabs and hatred, that they tell us what they actually want?"

-and I have to ask you, who is "us"? I personally have never been hated on by either of these two... I have had some disagreements with lyle about Hillary, but have no hard feelings. And it's not really a mystery to me what they want - (I think) - in general terms, a Democratic victory (upper AND lower case "d"), and plans, and competent politicians to put them in place, that will repair some of the damage caused by the economic, international, environment (etc.) policies of the current administration. In fact, that seems to be what a lot of us want. We may differ on the details, but if we can't discuss those differences without name-calling

"And, would it be too much for them to explain to us what Clinton stands for, or, rather their perception of Clinton? Now, we all expect an answer and I think everyone ough to keep after them until we get such answers. Perhaps tey don't have on, maybe they are just containers of anger."

-once again, who is 'everyone'? I haven't been following super closely, but it seems to me that most people read what they post and agree or disagree... then move on to worrying about what to have for lunch, or what time it is, or whether or not one of their shoes may be untied. These two want to say what they want to say, just as you do, just as I do, and so on. To call them "containers of anger" I think is an exaggeration/distortion, and it sounds extremely... angry.

roo - Having lived in Europe I'm used to the common notion that American's are vilent and resort too easily to violence. Hollywood and the idiots in Washington seem to conform that view everyday. It is, however, simply not true. If you look at the statistical data you will see that slightly more than 80% of our violent crime is with gangs. The 20% left over is on par with any European country. In Sweden, where I lived with my family, violent crime was virtually unknown until they started accepting large numbers of Arabic and Eastern European immigrants. hen he crime rate took off! But, those crimes were still confined to those communities with very little spill over. The ame hlds true for Britain, France, Germany, Austria, all over Western Europe. The rate of violent crime, including firearm related crime, even in the face of firearm bans, aligns closely with the rate amoungst those communities here. I hate sounding like an emotional slob, but the roots of this are hopelesness, broken homes, unmployment, racism, lack of opportunity. Cure those things and violent crime is reduced consideably. It will not and cannot be eliminated becasue here are some few people who are mentally ill or just plain evil or, sometimes, in the rush of anger, out of control. Guns have little or nothing to do with this, ignorance and fear and anger and madness have everything to do with it. (And, "yes", I agree with Dennis Kucinich; I think George Bush is mentally ill.)

mibrooks27, I see a dangerous fascination that Americans have with guns, posses, and frontier/street justice. You, inducted as you are, may not.

The Generalised American Solution to Everything(tm) is to "take them out" whether it is by a bullet, legal maneuvering or out-and-out war.

roo - I don't know if the statistical data will help convince you or not, but the DOJ statisics showed slightly fewer than 12,000 deaths due to firearms in this country last year. Eighty percent of them were due to inner city gang warfare - thugs shooting other thugs over drugs, turf, prostitution, or racism. Half of the homicides in this country occur in the black community, 30% in the Hispanic community, virtually all of it gang involved.

As for your "macho" comment, that is ot much more than a throwaway line. My lovely 22 year daughter is a trap shooter and has hunted with me since she was 8. Most of the women in my family shoot. It's fun and, as a sport, is safer than bowling (no alcohol). Men, in genral, don't watch Soap Opera's or read Romance Novels. Should we ban them with an aside that they only appeal to women? Grow up!

The immigration problem can be solved by having all illegals register with the FBI (not immigration, they're not qualified) for a ten year photo-id work permit. The penalty for being here illegally is a lifetime ban on citizenship (not their children) and a fine of their and employer payments to social security. Any illegal found working for less than min. wage faces deportation. I see few problems issuing drivers licenses to people that have this ID.

retnep hit it right on. Biden was definitely a winner in this debate, which was tough given the format which limited his speaking time. The only other winner I would add, a la CC's "Sabre Rattling" is "I agree with Joe.../As Joe said..." Clearly everyone up on that stage knows that Biden is the mot qualified. I hope voters figure that out soon too.

I wish one of the candidates would opt for the zero nuclear weapons option. Get the big 5, U.S., Russia, China, Pakistan and India all agree to disarm and to use their conventional forces to disarm all others that don't voluntarily participate. Iran can be defeated simply by naval embargo of petroleum products. We would have to tap the strategic oil reserve temporarily until the worlds output is increased for the shortfall. Irans economy is so fragile it would collapse in less than two years.

Ops, that should have been "macho fetish for guns" or "macho gun fetish."

Ops, that should have been "macho fetish for guns" or "macho gun fetish."

mark_in_austin--My term "aura" was a bit ambiguous. Specifically I mean that I have the feeling that his personality type (which I dub the "flummoxed humanistics professor") would lead to a similar type of campaign arch as Kerry suffered. This time around it would probably be sufficient to carry the archee to the White House, though.

Biden's supposed strong point to me is his weakest: anyone who is "experienced" in U.S. foreign policy in the last ~35 years should be bodily disbarred from holding any diplomatic position.

As an aside, I have nothing against gun ownership. I am tempted, myself, to get a nice shotgun in case of a zombie outbreak.

Guns do not, indeed, kill people. The insane American macho fetish kills people.

Anyway, I have no problem with the loose interpretation of the second amendment, everyone being allowed to bear arms (as opposed to "..only as a part of a well-regulated militia.") After all, it says nothing about rights to ammunition.

All - Interesing, isn't i. When asked to explain what issues are of import to them and where they stand on issues, lylepink, claudia and the rest of that mob *still* haven't answered that simple direct question. I received more name callin, more vitrol, more insults, but no answer. Is it really too much to ask fo, especially when each of us has been the target of their jabs and hatred, that they tell us what they actually want? And, would it be too much for them to explain to us what Clinton stnads for, or, rather their perception of Clinton? Now, we all expect an anwer and I think everyone ough to keep after them until we get such answers. Perhaps tey don't have on, maybe they are just containers of anger.

linnie--"Your comment about the late time (11pm) is typical of ALL of the pundits who assume the only people in America are on the east coast...those of us on the west coast were awake and watching!!!"

And clearly the inference here is that you people on the west coast do not care about those on the east because it IS 11pm on that side? Follow your logic through, please.

Starting at 9pm EDT is too late for many in the east, starting at 5pm PDT is too early for many in the west. Personally, I would just do a re-run in the west.

Obama did a poor job in his attack. Mobile biological weapons labs, nonsense. No one is stupid enough to put deadly biologicals in something that can be breeched by a car accident. Terrorist movements, silly. No bully like Saddam would allow a threat to his power. WMDs, where's the beef? Edwards and Clinton both believed this as rationale for their Iraq votes. Too bad Joe Wilson did not set them straight before they voted.

'claudialong - ah, you DIN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION. Beeeep! Let's try once again. Instead of hysteria and name calling and the usual viterol, just sit down for a few minutes and tell us all (1) what candidates do you support (2) what issues (let'd just try the top 5) concern you the most and what are your postitions on them, and finally what does Hillary Clinton believe in'

Umm, MikeB, I wa't hysterical and I didn't call you any names. Please go back and check my post. I have iterated my views here at great length, and I have no obligation to dredge it all up for you, at your command--see, I have a job, a family and a life.

Thank you, Nick --now I have trick-or-treaters to attend to.

This is less about the candidates and all about the news media professionals who want controversy and action and divisiveness and food-fights. They made this perfectly clear long before the Philly debate began, the NYT got Mr. Obama to promise a fist-fight against Mrs. Clinton and the rest of the male line-up followed.
Indeed, there is room for differences on the substance--I am far from agreeing with Mrs. Clinton on all counts. But to have 6 men with mixed experiences and accomplishments go after the female candidate (although Mr. Richardson took exception to nearly personal attacks) because two male moderators threw them balls that had to be hit out of the ball park was pretty pitiful to watch.
I was not committed to vote for Mrs. Clinton before the Philadelphia debate--I am now.

roo, I respect your comments and found your 6:14P begging me for a reply.

Full disclosure; probably unnecessary:

I am very much more conservative than you are as to economic opinions. I may be more libertarian than you as to the Bill of Rights - I am a lawyer, and I cannot help but think the first ten amendments mean what they say [yes, including the Second]. I think the role of the Federal government should be more limited than you think - if I remember your views on health care correctly, and judging from your fondness for DK, whom I dismiss.

Now, having said that, I viewed Kerry as a second rate US Senator who voted to the left of everyone in the entire Senate according to
both "liberal" and "conservative" sources. Further, he hardly had a signature piece of legislation to his name. I voted for him because GWB was incompetent, and insistent on the theory of the unitary executive, in my view; not because I shared Kerry's philosophy, if he had one, nor because I liked him, which I did not.

I view Biden as a first rate US Senator, one who has shepherded much legislation through the minefields. This is also true of Dodd and of McCain. I do not know about Dodd, but in most years, Biden and McCain would be in the middle 40% of Senators on conventional rating systems.

Everybody in the Senate is more "moderate" - closer to the middle - than Kerry, except the single most conservative Senator, whoever s/he is. Biden can speak forcefully without sounding like a pompous preppie. Kerry always sounded like "the Great Gildersleeve".

Dismiss Biden because he is too conservative for you on economics, or too willing to have America active on the world stage for you, or
any reason of substance.

But

-we have seen John Kerry and he is no Joe Biden. He is not even Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton; that is how ineffectual he has been in the Senate.

Blarg and Boko - you are Mass Ds: Have I understated Mr. Kerry's accomplishments, gifts, and graces?

lylepink: You are bizarre. If anyone disagrees with you--or worse, actually provides a little bit from a mountain of facts against your position--then they are irrational and in need of a little Jungian therapy. And filled with hatred. And out of touch with reality.

My, that sounds just like . . . who is it now who always responds that way about criticism? Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly, Rush? Hillary and her supporters seem so . . . Republican?

Anyway, I'm glad I bring a smile to your face and a chuckle to your belly. I do hope, however, that your laugh is not like that of your heroine--that phony, Halloween-like cackle. Happy spook night, everyone. It's a good night for a little cuddly Hillary pillow talk.

ppellikka: "There's a sucker born every minute." Appears to fit you "Hillary Haters" as femalenick suggests. Every time Hillary is mentioned on this blog, you and others like you are out in full force. I can hardly keep my laugh to a level that does not hurt my stomach when reading how out of touch with reality you folks really are. At least try and get your reason for your "Hatred" accurate. May I suggest you read Jung, a noted author, and maybe, just maybe, you will learn a little about yourself.

mikeB - it is difficult to demand an accounting of why someone likes hillary when she will not clearly state a position on much of anything. you are asking the bloggers to speculate about what they hope hillary will do. now are we talking about primary hillary, general hillary, lifetime hillary, copresident hillary, her own gal hillary, shrill hill, cackling hill? you see the dilemma?

If they post something about her war stance, it can be held against them tomorrow when the new polls come in and Hill changes her mind again.

they could say one thing - I like a gal who can't decide. we are already getting the "talking out of two sides of the mouth" thing. first we talk to Iran, then we don't. first we have nothing to say about SS, then we do. first we are for the war, then we're not. It is hard to keep up. One thing you can count on above all else, she won't say something you, the voter, can disagree with. who doesn't want free money for their kids. I love free money, don't you?

claudialong - ah, you DIN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION. Beeeep! Let's try once again. Instead of hysteria and name calling and the usual viterol, just sit down for a few minutes and tell us all (1) what candidates do you support (2) what issues (let'd just try the top 5) concern you the most and what are your postitions on them, and finally what does Hillary Clinton believe in? Just try it! You too lylepink. I've gone back over the posts for the past serveral months, even, and I cannot figure out what you guys actually stand for.

Now, guys like me and rufus and even koz, you know what we believe, you know the candfidates we like best, you even know our top ten issues. We just don't have the slightest idea of what you actually believe. Now's the chance. No name calling. Just tell us.

Since I began posting, I can't help but comment on some of the comments -- which is why I don't come here when I am buried in work -- and I shouldn't be here today.

To call lylepink or claudialong name callers or ranters couldn't be more inaccurate and thus is just plain wrong. There are others who do that here, but not these two.

And to ppellikka's comments:

1. The "two-for-the-price-of-one" was technically "buy one, get one free" and was a joke made by Bill, not Hillary, while he was stumping in NH. Funny thing is that that's when he became the "comeback kid."

2. Bill did appoint her to work on the health care system WITHOUT pay. For something that big and that important, why shouldn't she have had her office int he West Wing? Blame Bill for that, not Hillary.

3. First lady visits to foreign countries are "holiday-ing?" Good lord. Should the first ladies stay home and have tea parties in the White House instead? Have you lodged a complaint about Laura Bush's visit to foreign countries? Or what about her mother-in-law's?

4. What proof do you have that it was Hillary who advised Bill to pardon who he did? Are you suggesting that Hillary was Bill's Cheney? That she was the "shadow president?"

5. I understand your comments about NY to some degree. But I now liken the Clinton's move to that of a military family in public service who don't have a permanent home. When their service is over, they choose to retire among the places where they've lived or visited. So what if they chose New York?

And how do you know how much time Bill and Hillary spend with each other? I don't know anyone here who would have a clue about that.

Hate Hillary if you want, but to call lylepink and other Hillary supporters as "suckers" is nasty. You'd be better received doing that on Michelle Malkin's or Ann Coulter's website. Or call Rush Limbaugh's radio show. You'll find plenty of company there too.

'Scary, she acts like a Lib'
a viper in your nest, zouk -- watch out.

I would like to invite people to do some soul-searching. Most of us have a candidate that we like better than others and to whom we do not apply the same critical standards as the others. I would like to invite everyone to, for a moment, prentend to be the devil's advocate against your candidate of choice. Then take those criticisms and attempt to intellectually verify their correctness. And you know what? It is PERFECTLY FINE if your candidate has flaws. Everyone single one of them does and we would do better to admit to them instead of trying to rationalise them.

Sadly it appears that Democrats are just as capable of being completely unable to process new input as the other side.

Anything their chosen candidate does that they would not intellectually agree with is completely ignored or spun or distracted from.

It is probably no secret that my two candidates of choice are Kuchinich and Obama (I would vote for the former in the primaries if I actually could attend one in a state where it made a difference.)

I did not like Obama in this debate as much as previously, mainly because he seemed uncomfortable. Perhaps it is just MY rationalisation but he does much better when he is talking about what HE would do, not about the shortcomings of others. He does need to produce more specifics about his plans, too (although he is certainly not faring any worse than most candidates here.)

Dodd has been doing very well recently, creating a bit of a stir with his strong positions on many of the administration's transgressions. He does have the "luxury" of being an underdog which helps there.

Biden just gives me the aura of Kerry again, aside from being even more moderate.

Clinton.. She does not want to be held to a position. While I think that flexibility of opinion is generally a good thing (as opposed to "staying the course") but, rightly or wrongly, that does not seem to be her reason for it. I also find her politics-as-usual "attack machine" and her style of PR handling extremely distasteful.

Mark in austin - interesting study. My kids 7 and 5 would take the candy. they understand the overhead associated with actually going to the store and the interest paid on the chocolate that can be eaten now vs next weekend. Or perhaps they just don't know how much things cost. they think a house costs 20 dollars and a new Porsche costs one million.

consider you must amass at least one or two dollars to enter into the chocolate kisses market - so taking the nickels can result in zero kisses in most cases.

I play a little with the tooth fairy. I randomly give different amounts, 5 bucks one time, two bucks another, one dollar the last time. she came in the next morning and proclaimed "I only got a dollar this time. I don't blame the tooth fairy, it was a really small tooth anyway." she set the dollar on the night stand and left the room, never to think about it again. Scary, she acts like a Lib - free money is expected and when you get it, you can just leave it anywhere, you can always get more from Hillary... I mean daddy.

Ah, "lylepink", that great Clinton worshiper, writes: "I can only repeat this in the hope some of you "Hillary Haters" will at least look at her life history for a few minutes and then disagree with her if you can."

Well, I don't want to write a book about some of her life and character examples that I disagree with, but just off the top of my head:
1] She worked the 1992 campaign on the slogan of "two-for-the-price-of-one." It was clear that she wanted a piece of the power that only her husband [a serial adulterer, and she always knew all about it] was the legal candidate for.

2] As soon as Bill was elected, Hillary set up her own office in the West Wing, and got herself appointed [by hubby] to take over reform of the nation's health care planning, over the heads of the properly appointed and confirmed cabinet members. [And the rest of that is history...]

3] Throughout the White House years she did what she does best--living her life of self-presumed entitlement, always at other people's [taxpayer's] expense. For example, in her typical unofficial, self-aggrandizing presumptuous way, she went off holidaying to some 80 countries on Air Force 1, which at the time, y'all might like to know, cost the taxpayers $55,000 per flight hour. [Including an extra four hour jaunt once to return to the Carribean island on which Chelsea left her homework notebook.]

4] As Bill was getting ready to leave and Hillary was getting ready to run as the representative of NY [where she never lived before, but that is the NY's problem], Bill set her up in his infamous money-gathering Rolex [those procedures still keep surfacing]. Then with her advice he went on his record-breaking presidential pardon binge, not only by pardoning Marc Rich, who at the time was on the FBI's 10 most wanted list [he's a big money contributer to both of them], but also by pardoning a series of legally convicted Cuban drug dealers in NY city. Well, that just happened to actually help the campaign of Hillary with the Hispanic vote of NYC. Fancy that!

5] As they left the White House, the toted off a bit of property that was not theirs but was public trust property belonging to the White House, which they were forced to return afterwards. Then stand-by-your-man Hillary immediately set up a completely separate living quarters apart from Bill. They have never lived together since, except when she appears goggle-eyed by his side in the campaign rallies. Her house near NYC, by the way, was of course paid for by others. She furnished with OPM [other people's money], of course, and like a darling bride even had a registry list so people could contribute china, silverware, etc., they she had selected.

This is her life, and it's all well documented on public record. This is the person some people can actually support as having the quality of character to be the POTUS. Digging into my great stock of philosophical wisdom, the quote attributed (wrongly) to P.T. Barnum, who is best associated with Hillary's circus, comes to mind: "There's a sucker born every minute."

'Climb out of the gutter and reason with us!'

Mike, you accuse me of name-calling and hysterics -- and then you tell me to 'climb out of the gutter.'

You're the hysterical name caller and ranter, my friend, I have articulated what I beleive quite often, and I hope, rather more rationally than you have.

Blarg - You say that about Kucinich, but look at Ron Paul. His people look like they may actually be turning him ionto a viable candidate! Dennis Kucinich is by far the most honest and forthright candidate amoungst the Democrats. I like him, I wish to god he were the front runner for the nomination, and so do a lot of other other people. So why isn't he?

"...It's a vicious cycle; minor candidates are ignored, so they have little chance to become major candidates..."

Amen, Blarg.

The media is largely to blame, but voter indifference or lack of curiosity is no less a factor. It's clear to me that most Americans skipped their civics classes, if they even took one. Most just regurgitate what the talking heads spew (esp. those on radio or tv) without ever bothering to check the validity of the statements. The worst part is that the mediums seem to enjoy reporting on what each other has said before they take time to research the accuracy! Rumors turn into fact, making it even harder for us who do care to separate fact from fiction.

Happy Halloween. I now must buy the candy kisses. I give the neighborhood kids the choice of 2 kisses, or one nickel and one kiss, or two nickels.

Most kids are smart enough to take nickels.
Even some five year olds ask their older sibs or parents "How many kisses can I get for a nickel?" and then brightly yell "NICKELS".

Kids seven and older who ask for kisses are hopeless, of course.

KOZ, you should try this. Its way more conclusive than SAT scores.

Claudia, you, too! All you do is engage in hysteria and name calling. You're pretty good at it, but anyone with any degree of intelligence caught onto it a long time ago. So, tell you, articulate what you actually believe. What positions do yo take, what candidate do you support, what policies do you want. Climb out of the gutter and reason with us!

Hillary started out partisan and polarizing -- Obama doesn't not attack with malice, but would rather debate a point/statement. Axelrod should take the muzzle off and Obama should go with his gut and listen to his wife. The one I really liked "Part of the reason that Republicans, .....are obsessed with you, Hillary, is because that's a fight they're very comfortable having. It is the fight that we've been through since the '90s."
and you know I just don't want to watch and hear that fight over and over and over again.
Besides, Obama's foreign policy ideas are a lot better than Hillary who just is mimicking GW another, I don't want to go there either
It's time they started to pick apart her rhetoric -- she's playing for the presidency not the primary.

I was viewing the MSNBC poll on the debate. I can't understand why voters said that of all the candidates Hillary stood out and showed the most leadership. I suppose she stood out because of her very high scores in avoiding the questions and having the most rehearsed answers. If this is how voters are deciding on who should lead them, then we are in a world of hurt.

We don't need a president who avoids answering questions. We've had 8 years of that. Two years from today I don't want to hear people complaining if she gets elected - if I only knew then what she was going to do, I wouldn't have voted for her.

We don't need someone who can't provide answers because their answers have to be rehearsed. The position of President requires someone who can respond quickly and intelligently without rehearsal. What will she do in situations which require quick answers and quick thinking? Will she say wait, I have to rehearse my answer?

I've waited a long time to vote for a female president. However, Hillary is not the female I want to lead America. She is wrong for the country at this critical time in our history. I feel she is more interested in big corporations and the wealthy and not in me, a struggling retired middle class citizen.

Again, thanks to all for your kind thoughts.

Dave, I know that Kucinich is lagging very far behind the frontrunners in money and polls. But that's not surprising, the way the media treats him. The average voter knows nothing about Kucinich, because he's rarely mentioned except as a punchline. It's a vicious cycle; minor candidates are ignored, so they have little chance to become major candidates.

I know that Kucinich's ideas are too radical for him to ever have a real chance at the nomination, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't have a role in the campaign. Most of the media is willing to throw out all but 2-3 candidates from each party. On the Republican side, look at Ron Paul. His exclusion from media coverage is even worse than Kucinich's, because Paul has raised a lot of money. But the media doesn't want to cover him, so the average voter has no idea who he is.

'what better measure of a person than to examine how they interact with their spouse, the one person they should be the most honest, the most giving, the most trusting. It seems like a splendid way to choose a candidate.

now that I have said thet, I am sure you will go totally against what you proclaimed and call into question Rudy's marriage. but consistency was never something expected from a moonbat Lib. your people are getting wackier by the day.'

what a splendid example you are of R incoherence, zouk. it's okay to criticize dem's marriages, but not republicans. so you think how one treats one's spouse is a good way to choose a candidate, so you back -- Rudy. Please, get real.

Mark, I think one reason we don't have some of the same issues here as other communities with immigration, is we see very few immigrant families. They can't afford to live here with what they make, and we have very stringent controls on who can attend our schools. You can't prove you live here, your kids don't get in. Emergency rooms will treat them, but as that exposes them to being reported, many will forego treatment for injuries and illness. This bothers me both from a humanitarian and public health perspective, but as a citizen and hard-working taxpayer, I can barely afford my own family's heatlh care and education costs -- why should I pay for someone who's here illegally?

Loudmouth, you and lylepink still haven't been able to articulate an intelligent argument for supporting Clinton. People, like me, point out the insanity of her vote allowing Bush to invade/go to war with Iran, her dangerous relationship with and support of otsourcing and globalization, he inexperience, her past radical feminist ideology, and and on. Wha we get from the pair of you are insults, name calling, and an utter lack of reasoned response. It's all hysterics. So, please, sit down and write a reasoned response to a basic question -- What does Ms. CLinton actually believe; her real policies. We don't need to go over her talking point of gifting $110 billion dollars to the health care industry; her so-called public-private alliance is more costly than the TOTAL cost of a single payer Scandinavian system... Beyond this, though, what differentiates her from even Bush or Cheney?

Let me amend that last statement to say that I personally do not concern myslef with a person's marriage. I know too many members and thier wives and for the most part, they are all disfunctional. I make my choice based on two or three important issues. this time I consider foreign policy and economics to be prime. That means a Dem is out. Of the rest, Rudy looks the best. That is just my personal view. I think any R would do better than a D, if they actually do as they say.

LV: Check The Gallup Poll and you will find Hillary is gaining support from all sections of the country. Rasmussen shows the same as well as every poll I have been able to find.

claudialong,
I believe that this question was asked not too long after Obama accused Conservative Christian leaders of "hijacking" religion. From the start of this campaign, Democrats have been trying to talk more about religion so that they can better counter the right on "values". Obama's campaign has run six faith forums in New Hampshire, where local clergy and laypeople discussed religious engagement in politics. Clinton hired Burns Strider, a Congressional staffer (and evangelical Baptist from Mississippi) who assembled a faith steering group from major denominations and sent out a weekly wrap-up, Faith, Family and Values. Edwards organized conference calls with progressive religious leaders before his 12-city poverty tour. It's no secret that the left has decided to court the religious vote - http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1642649,00.html. So yeah, I think it's a fair question if they are taking this approach.

"And once again, I'm amazed by repulican women who think what goes on inside any marriage other than their own is their business to be baffling. Who made you God?"

So do tell us oh sage of the moonbats, what exactly should we base our choice upon. we can only take your metrics so choose carefully. some people might want to elect someone who thinks like them and would act according to a set of morals they can trust. for example, if there were an intern under my desk, what would I do? If a missile were coming at me, what would I do? etc.

since one never knows exactly what challenges are coming, (very few predicted 9/11 when electing Bush) (very few predicted Iran hostages when electing Peanut) you have to go with your gut. Once everyone saw how Peanut dealt with foreign entanglements, he was fired. Once everyone considered how Kerry would hanlde it, Bush's term was extended.

now we must consider what surprises will confront the next President. It is fairly certian that the situation in Iran is going to need to be resolved. do you trust Hillary to do this effectively? more so than others? When confronted with scandal, will she blame the media or the VRWC again or take responsibility for the first time ever?

what better measure of a person than to examine how they interact with their spouse, the one person they should be the most honest, the most giving, the most trusting. It seems like a splendid way to choose a candidate.

now that I have said thet, I am sure you will go totally against what you proclaimed and call into question Rudy's marriage. but consistency was never something expected from a moonbat Lib. your people are getting wackier by the day.

Thanks all for their kind thoughts.

I see that Reid and Pelosi are now below 50% approval ratings in their own districts. combine this with the notion that 50% of the voters will never vote for Hillary.

Keep spreading the word Dems. the people are hearing you loud and clear. Tax and spend and surrender.

Hillary has yet to answer a hard question, even the Dems see it now.

Pelosi has yet to pass a significant law, even with the now cancelled five day week.

Reid has yet to demonstrate a single trait associated with leadership.

Even with the Repub brand at a 20 year low, the Dems are struggling to even keep up. If you can't beat us now, the forecast for your Lib party is very grave indeed. but you will blame your upcoming loss on anything but the message. I predict a 42 state sweep with hillary carrying MA, HI, DC, MD, NY, CA, OR, WA and IL ONLY.

Go GOP!

Blarg,
I think that what's not fair is that all candidates on stage don't get the same time or number of questions. That has been an issue in most debates I have ever seen. I don't think that it is because of him not being the media-anointed frontrunner, I think it's because polling and funding data demonstrate he is not the frontrunner. Heck, Mike Gravel didn't even make it onto the stage last night. It is unfortunate for both the candidates and the american public. However, the question I liked and I would be more willing to watch if he got to speak more...

lylepink: Forget about the "Hillary haters." For people like mibrooks, the hate is visceral. These people can't be expected to act rationally when it comes to Clinton.

I'm pretty neutral on her; if she is the Dem nominee she'll probably get my vote, only because the GOP nominee will almost surely hold positions on various issues that are simply unacceptable to me.

'I actually like the Obama question by Russert. I fail to see how that question can make someone look bad. '

So memorizing Bible verses is now a prerequisite for the Presidency of the US? That's just ridiculous, dave.

Yes, Mark, I think you do have me confused with someone else. People are somehwat concerned with crime from undocs, but here we haven't seen much of it, but again as I said, the guys hanging around the corner waitng for work annoys everyone -- the trucks of ecudorean landscapers are ubitiquous and invisible.

And once again, I'm amazed by repulican women who think what goes on inside any marriage other than their own is their business to be baffling. Who made you God?

femalenick,
But if immigration is going to be one of the major issues for the election (I too think it is), don't you think Democratic voters should know where she stands on it? I would think that the correct answer for her would be NO - she has the points in the polls to give and that would be the correct answer, politically speaking, for the general election. That said, I know that Dodd is telling the truth on it (need to appeal to Dems due to poll numbers and his answer works against that). I don't know that if and when she comes up with a discernable answer, I would believe her.

"Am I the only one who is troubled by Obama's halting speech?" I am also. And it puzzles me because I don't remember him being like this back in 2004 when he burst on the scene and I first took notice of him.

Proud: I am only pointing out how biased Tim Russert is about the Clintons. Hillary made a fool out of him on Meet the Press weeks ago, and did it again last night. Joe Biden did very well on the "Gotcha" question by giving a intellegent answer to a stupid question. The media, taken as a whole, has been against the Clintons going back to before Bubba was elected POTUS and continues to this day. I can only repeat this in the hope some of you "Hillary Haters" will at least look at her life history for a few minutes and then disagree with her if you can. Frankly, I doubt many of you will disagree with her on her positions she has held all her life.

The UFO question is offensive because so few questions were asked of Kucinich. The media refuses to give him any attention unless they're mocking him. If they wanted to ask Hillary about UFOs, that would be fine. She doesn't answer policy questions anyway, and she gets plenty of attention.

But Kucinich gets a handful of questions at the debates, because he's not a media-anointed frontrunner. So even though he's the one candidate on the stage who has radically different views, a candidate that represents a marginalized part of the Democratic Party, he only gets joke questions. It's not fair.

mibrooks: you are sounding more and more like kingofzouk, another pathetic, miserable wretch. With him it's Pelosi and Reid, with you it's Clinton; with him it's Loud and Dumb, with you it's Loudmouth, but it's the same nasty blah blah blah.

Nevadaandy - My thoughts and prays go out to you, too. I lost my mother this past June and my ailing father, as genuine a hero as I have ever known, go's to the cemetary every day and talks with her at her grave. I'll bet your father's greatest pride and joy is you. Honor him and remember him and love him for the decent man he was.

"Well, I'm not so sure its irrelevant. Doesn't Kucinich's claim to have witnessed a UFO equally relevant to questions about whether candidates believe in evolution?"

bsimon, fair enough, but Kucinich is not a real candidate, and we all know it. I see him as the voice of the extreme left, which should be heard as the extreme right. The UFO time would have been better spent on another question that the viable candidates would have been forced to address.

In recent years, Americans have preferred governors to legislators when electing a president, but there seems to be no real pattern in terms of eventual success as president. Running through the list, we see some very effective and very weak presidents with substantial and relatively little executive experience.

It may simply not matter. Perhaps the presidency is so different from any other office that no preparation is adequate and it comes down to temperament and external circumstance. Indeed, the ability to be an inspiring communicator would seem to be the common denominator for success. Hillary Clinton is not and never has been an inspiring communicator.

People's experience with Hillary, rather than Hillary's experience, will be her main obstacle.

Who could forget the "I'm not some Tammy Wynette standing by her man" and "This is all part of the VRWC". Yes, let's rehash all of that ad nauseum as a constant reminder of why we don't want the Clintons back in the White House.

Dave - a yes or no answer is possible. The difficulty of which I spoke is about the ramifications of a definitive answer. The NO answer is right for the general electorate, while the YES answer will not fly. That's what I meant by difficult.

I live in the liberal state of CA, and a few years back, nearly 60% of the residents in this liberal state voted to cut off benefits to illegal immigrants (the infamous Prop 187). The only reason it isn't law is because it was overturned by a federal court as unconstitutional.

I guarantee that if Obama gets the nomination, he will lose the general election because he is now on record as saying that he will support giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants -- no matter how much sense it might make from a public safety issue.

femalenick
"Add to that the dumb questions they asked -- UFOs? C'mon! What was the goal? To make Kucinich a laughing stock?"


Well, I'm not so sure its irrelevant. Doesn't Kucinich's claim to have witnessed a UFO equally relevant to questions about whether candidates believe in evolution? I hate to admit that I might have a litmust test or two of my own, but I'm thinking both are fair disqualifiers for becoming President. Seriously - If Kucinich believes in UFOs, and it sure sounds to me like he does, shouldn't the American people know this?

Nevadaandy, Sorry for your loss. That is a very touching story about your father, thanks for sharing. I lost mine when he was 47... he had good political instincts and insightful outlook on life too. I often wonder what he would think of our world today....

Mark, I'll take the fine minds :>)

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

"UFOs? C'mon! What was the goal? To make Kucinich a laughing stock?" To quote Bill Parcells, your record is what it is.

femalenick,
"I also understand the difficulty in answering that question." If I recall, when asked if they agreed with Spitzer, Dodd answered "NO" and Obama answered "YES". They did not appear to have any difficulty in answering that.

Loudmouth pretty much summarizes what you are. The chief difficulty people have is where you stand. You dodge and weave all over the place on any meaningful issues. The constant seems to be your nasty asides to everyone. I figured you for an angry male hating feminist in dire need of psychotherapy. You "claim" to be a male...or sorts...but you're no kind of man I would care to know; just a pathetic slob with the intellectual integrity of a weasel and the ability of same.

For the life of me I can't understand the flap over Hillary's answer to the driver's license question. In my opionion she gave a perfectly reasonable explanation of 3 different types of licenses. Russert is a disgrace. Can you imagine a dumber question "will you PLEDGE that you will prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?" Answer: "No, you dumbass, I will help them build one if they are having problems." And that pundit, Chris Mathews, who seems to think that if he shouts loud enough people will believe him, and think him brilliant. Hillary was a clear winner. Biden also. As Joe Biden nd Hillary so aptly illustrated, foreign policy is not black or white as those in the White House would have everyone believe. DISCUSS ISSUES, NOT UFO's OR
PERSONALITIES. As Joe Biden and Hillary so aptly illustrated, foreign policy is not black or white as those in the White House would have everyone believe, or the other participants glossed over. Richardson was OK, but Edwards and Obama were fixated on going after Hillary. They must have been reading some reporters telling them that that is what they have to do.

Your comment about the late time (11pm) is typical of ALL of the pundits who assume the only people in America are on the east coast...those of us on the west coast were awake and watching!