Thanks john-ccy. I had heard about Steinhem's column but didn't have time to track it down (missed seeing it when I read the Jan. 8th edition of NYT). Very powerful. In the end, as I have said, I just wish we could vote on the issues.

I think a lot of people's comments here attacking Hillary Clinton makes me think of the op-ed piece from the NY Time last week which I've posted the link below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html?scp=4&sq=gloria+steinem+&st=nyt

It's definitely food for thought in terms of people's expectations and criticisms of her and women in public roles in general.

What is interesting about this blog is that it sounds as if people thought they were watching a boxing match. Who was nasty, who "got" whom, who was KO'd. (It has been estimated that only 10o/o of the debate was "heated"...the rest quite tame.) Instead of spending time on the candidates personal appearance, (Note blog saying that Clinton is ugly...now that's what I call informative thinking!) how about spending a little time talking about what their policies are? No one seems willing (able?) to do that on this blog. Last night was a debate about IDEAS. The issue is, who would make the best president. Let's face it, either candidate would do well as president. I have long given up on the thought that American vote from a careful look at what the candidates plan to do, certainly most of these blogs demonstrate that point. I would like to add, that I think the sub-current in this entire election has been sexism. I was surprised to read the woman's comment who said she was sick of hearing talk about sexism. All I hear is about racism and how people, in the solitude of the voting booth, won't vote for a black man. What about voting for a woman? A recent survey found that 50 o/o of married men would not vote for a woman no matter who she is. Informed electorate, indeed.

MoreAndBetterPolls - It was something close to what you said.

In 1996, Gov. Bush sent a
messenger to the Resolutions (Platform) Committee of the Texas State Republican Convention asking that the "pro-life" plank not be included in the platform.

However, it was voted for unanimously.

As a result, Bush was denied the privilege of leading his own delegation to the National Convention because too many delegates did not trust him on the "pro-life" issue.

And Sen. Hutchison, the senior Senator, was also denied the pleasure of leading the delegation, because she was not for the plank, either.

This year's race is certainly one that will stand out in history books. We will have either the first female or african american candidate and maybe the oldest candidate to run for President.

What we don't want to happen is for history to show that we elected the candidate who could not stop America's backward slide, who could not move America forward in this global economy. Times change, we can't stop progress but we can make sure that progress is inclusive of all Americans and that all Americans progress at the same pace.

Bush tried to make himself look like a moderate in 2000 (although he never used the word). His record in Texas largely supported that claim. Many conservative columnists openly worried that he was too moderate due to 'compassionate conseratism'.

Forbes took some fairly extreme positions on fiscal matters as I recall. He certainly tried to portray himself as a true conservative as opposed to the "compasionate conserative".

YOU may call ist "fireworks". I call it shameless mudslinging of the worst sort, quite unbecoming any person who hopes to be leader of the free world and supreme commander of the US Forces.

dave, GWB and Sen. Hutchison were both "excluded" from the TX R State Convention in '97 [?] because of their refusal to pander to the religious right. In '98, GWB found religion, when he was deciding to run for Prez.

KBH never got in the good graces of the theocons, I might add.

jimd,

Yes, I am saying that Forbes did not run to the right of Bush (I think in most aspects, they were comparable). Perhaps better put, on the issues, Forbes was not right of Bush. Forbes was pro-choice before he was against it. It was only for the 2000 election that Forbes became a social conservative. Bush had been consistent on that. On the fiscal side, they were similar. And while you are correct that Bush campaigned to govern in a bi-partisan manner, what candidate didn't (doesn't)? A better question, what candidate campaigns to govern in a partisan manner?

Projecting a moderate image as a campaign strategy is also different from being a moderate. Social conservatives were under no illusion that GWB was the real deal. Fiscal conservatives were rightfully worried about his compassionate conservatism because nobody knew what it meant but took solace on his position on taxes and government spending (which he vowed to control). Bush was easily the better candidate from a presentation point of view. On the issues, he was as conservative as Forbes. On the issues, McCain is not as conservative as others in the race nor is he running as conservative as the others.

dave, the GWB I voted for in 1998 as Guv was committed to bipartisanship and I really thought that would be the strength of his presidency - although I did not believe he was up to the job, and voted for Gore.

TXGuv is no training ground for Prez b/c of our weak Guv system.

dave

Are you seriously telling me that Forbes did not run to the right of Bush?

Bush also campaigned as someone who governed in a bi-partisan manner. A

Compassionate conservatism was widely considered to be an attempt to project a moderate image. A great many ideological commentaters were openly suspicious of this because they interpreted it that way.

I don't know that "compassionate conservatism" qualifies as moderate. The Bush definition of it is "Compassionate conservatism is the theory that the government should encourage the effective provision of social services without providing the service itself." His faith-based welfare programs that he pioneered in Tx were part of this. No "nation building" was his foreign policy, pretty much in total. Other notable quotes include "Whoever pays taxes gets a tax break" and "Christ, because he changed my heart". Anti-abortion, pro-gun. Not moderate. And if that were the case, 2004 should have corrected that.

Bauer, Forbes, and Hatch, McCain and Keyes were the only candidates running against Bush after Iowa for the 2000 election. Of those, only Keyes and Bauer were to the right of Bush. I said that R's do better not running to the middle. I did not say than ran better running to nutjobs.

"Reagan would be considered a moderate today." I find that hard to believe. Regardless, at the time, that was definitely not the case.

Bush I - Or Reagan III. Got elected off of Reagans coat tails and with no new taxes. Went moderate with raising them and got whipped.

"Thanks also for reducing our military by half"

Actually the great majority of those cuts were made by the George H W Bush administration. I know I was involved in high level Navy budgeting at the time. A lot of them were put in place by Bush but, due to the timeline involved, didn't happen until after Bush had gone. Factcheck.org has info on this.

Mark,

I am not sure. Romney had been on TV for months then pulled his ads after New Hampshire. His new ads, as I mentioned before, are quite effective. The Rasmussen poll is a bit of an outlier. It is possible he is surging.

The Survey USA poll, taken at the same time as the Rasmussen, has McCain up by 5 points over Giuliani and 6 over Romney. Huckabee's support state-wide appears to be fading and his lack of funding won't help. After flirting with 20%, his latest numbers are in the 13-14% range

McCain has ads - saw the first one this morning - highlighting his POW and military experience. There are 3 major Naval bases in our TV market and McCain was stationed here and his family lived here while he was a POW. Rudy has been running ads too. I haven't seen any Huckabee ads and this part of Florida is probably has the most evangelicals.

I have seen very few signs that an election is imminent outside of the TV ads and news coverage of the candidates' visits. Rudy, Mitt & McCain were all in the area over the weekend.

For all those who missed out on the previous good ole' days of the House of Clinton, or for those with short memories, the following comments from "fransden" are worth the trip down memory lane. For some of you--be aware!--because he is writing in the "ironic voice" and that may be too hard for some Clinton supporters ["I just FEEL that way about Obama"] to comprehend:

fransden wrote:
Wake Up America!
We must remember this.
PLEASE REMEMBER THIS
Worse than you thought & worth remembering and this came from a Democrat.

Dear Mr. Ex President Clinton,

I recently saw a bumper sticker that said, "Thank me, I voted for Clinton-Gore." So, I sat down and reflected on that, and I am sending my "Thank you" for what you have done, specifically:

1. Thank you for introducing us to Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Dolly Kyle Browning, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Broderick. Did I leave anyone out?

2. Thank you for teaching my 8 year old about oral sex. I had really planned to wait until he was a little older to discuss it with him, but now he knows more about it than I did as a senior in college.

3. Thank you for showing us that sexual harassment in the work place (especially the White House) and on the job is OK, and all you have to know is what the meaning of "it" is. It really is great to know that certain sexual acts are not sex, and one person may have sex while the other one does NOT have sex.

4. Thank you for reintroducing the concept of impeachment to a new generation and demonstrating that the ridiculous plot of the movie "Wag the Dog" could be plausible after all.

5. Thanks for making Jimmy Carter look competent, Gerald Ford look graceful, Richard Nixon look honest, Lyndon Johnson look truthful, and John Kennedy look moral.

6. Thank you for the 73 House and Senate witnesses who have pled the 5th Amendment and 17 witnesses who have fled the country to avoid testifying about Democratic campaign fund raising.

7. Thank you, for the 19 charges, 8 convictions, and 4 imprisonment's from the Whitewater "mess" and the 55 criminal charges and 32 criminal convictions (so far) in the other "Clinton" scandals.

8. Thanks also for reducing our military by half, "gutting" much of our foreign policy, and flying all over the world on "vacations" carefully disguised as necessary trips.

9 Thank you, also, for "finding" millions of dollars (I really didn't need it in the first place, and I can't think of a more deserving group of recipients for my hard-earned tax dollars) for all of your globe-trotting. I understand you, the family and your cronies have logged in more time aboard Air Force One than any other administration.

10. Now that you've left the White House, thanks for the 140 pardons of convicted felons and indicted felons-in-exile. We will love to have them rejoin society.
(Not to mention the scores you pardoned while Governor of Arkansas)

11. Thanks also for removing the White House silverware. I'm sure that Laura Bush didn't like the pattern anyway. Also, enjoy the housewarming gifts you've received from your "friends."

12. Thanks to you and your staff in the West Wing of the White House for vandalizing and destroying government property on the way out. I also appreciate removing all of that excess weight (China, silverware, linen, towels, ash trays, soap, pens, magnetic compass, flight manuals, etc.) out of Air Force 1.
The weight savings means burning less fuel, thus less tax dollars spent on jet fuel.

Thank you!

13. Please ensure that Hillary enjoys the $8 million dollar advance for her "tell-all" book and you, Bill, the $10 million advance for your memoirs. Who says crime doesn't pay!

14. The last and most important point - thank you for forcing Israel to let Mohammed Atta go free. Terrorist pilot Mohammed Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and
imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called "political prisoners". However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands. The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, "insisted" that all prisoners be released. Thus Mohammed Atta was freed and eventually thanked the US by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center. This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified. It was censored in the US from all later reports. Why
shouldn't Americans know the real truth?

What a guy!!

If you agree that the American public must be made aware of these facts, pass this on. God bless America and THANK YOU (once again) for spending my taxes so wisely and frugally.

SINCERELY,
A US Citizen

To all the Billary fans out there arguing that Obama can dish out the criticism but can't take it: there a HUGE difference between criticizing your opponent's record and policy positions on the one hand, and deliberately distorting or outright falsifying the opponent's record. The Clintons in their usual contempt for the truth are clearly doing the latter. Compare the actual text of what Obama said about Ronald Reagan with the way the Clintons later spun it: no fair reading of Obama's words could possibly be construed an endorsement of Reagan's policies or programs. The only way you get there is by deliberate distortion, or as Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune characterizes it, "simply lying":

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/01/obamareagan.html#more

Indeed, as Zorn points out, both Clintons have been far more effusive in their praise of Reagan's programs and ideas than Obama.

Of course, lying is nothing new to the Clintons. Like Bill, Hillary has tons of "experience" at it. But aren't we sick and tired of the same old garbage? Isn't 20 years of Bush-Clinton enough?

Crossing Mayor Giuliani often had a price.

Mr. Giuliani was a pugilist in a city of political brawlers. But far more than his predecessors, historians and politicians say, his toughness edged toward ruthlessness and became a defining aspect of his mayoralty. One result: New York City spent at least $7 million in settling civil rights lawsuits and paying retaliatory damages during the Giuliani years.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22776911/

First hand accounts are often quite revealing, as we've seen today from the posts about Romney from his former constituents, and now this about Mr 9/11.

Jim, I had asked earlier whether those who are just now paying attention will be attracted to Romney-the-businessman-who-knows-the-economy.

I take it that is how he is pursuing FL, and that you think it may be effective. Did you notice that Rasmussen has Romney leading in your state?

dave,

I have heard conservative commentators, particularly Jonah Goldberg, state that they were worried about Bush's "compassionate conservativism" until they figured out he didn't mean it. Several candidates ran to the right of Bush in 2000. He was helped by the fact that McCain appeared to be to his left.

Blarg, I agree with you and your point is well taken. I too would believe Obama before I believed either Clinton and that's the issue here.
Hillary IS hiding behind Bill. He can go out and trash Obama and lie about his record, and then when Obama tries to answer that, she can say "well, he's not standing here."
What a bunch of POO. With the Clintons, you are basically replacing the R mafia with the D mafia and getting Nowhere.
Now for you vcharette:
Obama has held elected office for 11 years (four more than Hillary). Obama sponsored over 820 bills while serving in the Illinois senate (serving 8 years, from 1996-2004). He introduced 233 bills regarding Healthcare reform, 125 bills regarding Poverty and Public Assistance, 112 Crime fighting bills, 97 Economic bills, 62 Education bills, 60 Human Rights and Anti-discrimination bills, 21 Ethics bills, 20 Environmental bills, 15 Gun Control bills, 6 Veteran Affairs bills, and many, many others. He authored the most sweeping ethics reform bill passed into Illinois law in over 20 years. He sponsored a law enhancing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform and promoted increased subsidies for child care. Obama also led the passage of legislation mandating videotaping of homicide interrogations, and a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they stopped.

In 2002 Obama spoke out publicly against the war in Iraq, saying he does not oppose all war, just dumb wars, and proceeded to accurately predict the quagmire of Iraq.

Obama was elected to the United States senate in 2004. In his first year (before he decided to run for president) he authored 152 bills, and co-sponsored another 427. These included the Coburn-Obama government Transparency Act of 2006 (signed into law by Bush), The Lugar-Obama initiatives (working with republican, Richard Lugar) aimed at nuclear non-proliferation and conventional weapons threat reduction. He is one of only 2 lawmakers sponsoring a campaign finance reform bill that currently sits in the senate. There are 890 bills in Obama's name since he entered the Senate. He has Cosponsored 1096. This is a long list, and it might lead you to conclude that people who say he has been doing nothing in the Senate are a little less than truthful.

Obama currently serves on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations; Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; and Veterans' Affairs.

Obama has a degree in International Relations, a Law degree, and taught constitutional law for 10 years.

Obama 08!

dave,

Bush campaigned as a moderate in 2000 - remember "compassionate conservatism" and a "humble" foreign policy? His father really didn't campaign as a red meat conservative in 1988 either except for "No New Taxes". Reagan would be considered a moderate today. Bush II won the narrowest victory margin (by percentage of the vote) of any president re-elected in the history of the republic. Even Truman in 1948 had a larger percentage margin. The difference maker was swing voters concerned about security issues. The evangelical surge wasn't enough to win the election.

It really isn't Democrats who are rooting for McCain - it is independents even those who normally lean Democratic. You also have to keep in mind that large numbers of voters do NOT vote ideologically. I remember David Brooks' column of a few weeks ago when he said Romney basically came across as a phony (he was more elegant in his language). McCain, despite what you may think of him or whether or not he has changed positions, definitely comes across as authentic. He also avoids the real partisan red meat for the most part. Non-ideological voters also tend to be the most disgusted with partisanship. Given that it should be a bad year for Republicans, why not nominate someone who has wide appeal to independents? Also keep in mind that there are registered Democrats and registered Republicans who do not identify strongly with their party. I am a registered Republican because I want to vote in local primaries that are tantamount to election. I consistently split my ticket. Until Bush the younger ran I hadn't voted for a Democrat for President since I was young and foolish in the 70's. I will vote for McCain in the general. I will not vote for Hillary Clinton. If it is Hillary Clinton versus non-McCain, I will vote for Bloomberg or write someone in. If it is Obama versus non-McCain, I will vote for Obama.

It seems that Clinton has already written off South Carolina and the Black vote and was speaking more to voters in the Super Tuesday states.

Edwards was saying all the right things about keeping the focus on the issues instead of on bickering, but that's what Bill Richardson was saying in New Hampshire, and look where that got him.

Obama did fine, given how much he was attacked. I think Clinton got caught shooting too many daggers from her eyes when Obama attacked her and the camera panned over to her.

You can read more here:

http://www.theseventen.com/2008/01/south-carolina-debate-analysis-d.html

dave writes
"Who was the last Republican elected president that was an "electable moderate" "

Dave, doesn't 'compassionate conservative' GW Bush qualify, at least in terms of how he presented himself in 2000? As it turned out he wasn't moderate at all. But he certainly campaigned as one.

Random thoughts

It appears the Obama and Clinton supporters watched two different debates last night.

Romney is back on TV here in Florida with some effective ads. He touches on health care, immigration, the economy as areas in which Washington has ignored problems and let them fester. He says he is the one to fix it because of his business experience "I know what makes this economy work". He also hits McCain obliquely by saying something like having someone in Washington change chairs is not the solution, he promises to "take (Washington) apart and put it back together again". He anoints himself the candidate who can make change happen. I am not a Romney fan but it is an effective ad.

mark_in_austin - re: WMR surge in FL. Remember, these are the same voters that bought into the globalization schemes of the Bush's, Clnton's, and the rest of the Wall Street crowd... e.g. morons. There are plenty of people running around that actively want to beliee in something, that things will get better. Unfortunately, history repeats itself and pre-revolutionary France was in exactly our straights back in the 1780's and 90's, complete with "free trade", "guest workers", an enormous war debt (the Seven Years War), a government budget based on borrowed and largely foreign debt, etc. etc. In the end, we all know how well that turned out. Oh well, replace the Guillotine (also introduced as less barbaric means of capitol punishment) with the table and needle and we can all watch some corporate CEO's (like that woman, a Clinton supporter mind you, who withheld reports about her companies choloresterol drug that wasn't just worthless, it killed several hundred people) take that long ride into the night.

The winner in last night's debate was the Republican Party.

I found the first half of the debate painful to watch. It made me cringe.

Almost immediately the pundits were talking about eliminating the possibility of a Clinton/Obama ticket because of the acrimony displayed between the two. In my opinion, a Clinton/Obama ticket is the only way to repair the split taking place within the Democratic Party - be it generational, or as it appeared last night, racial.

I can't understand why anyone would vote for Obama. I am on the email lists for all three of the front-runners and Obama is just smoke and mirrors. He has done nothing except run for President (even as a state representative in Illinois- I saw him on Oprah and they were talking about the possibility even then). I don't care whether Illinois allows people to vote "present" - that is the coward's way out. And I am amazed that no one talks about his drug problem as a youth, as though that is not going to come up against him if he gets the nomination and has to face Republicans. I, as a Democrat, do not hold it against him - his overcoming of the problem can be considered character building. But between his lack of experience, his lack of substance and his former problems with hard drugs - well, it won't be pretty and I will be furious if we blow the chance to defeat the Republicans in the fall.

Sounds Like An X-Wife: Hillary sounds a lot like an X-WIFE more than an X-FIRST LADY! You guys remember the X-wife; always butting in, never lets you finish a sentence, twists your words and comments, makes mountains out of mole hills, everyone else is wrong but her, fails to remember her own comments and actions; doesn't that all sound familiar? Is that why she is getting the women's vote? How many men have had to live with that kind of abuse?

claudialong - "gee dave--does it occur to you that we may not agree with many of his positions [i don't], but we think he is probably a decent man? that we care more about our country than ideology?"

From you and many on this blog, yes, it occurs to me. From the Democratic candidates that are running and the political establishment behind those candidates, that thought would never occur to me. Proud is probably right about the MSM - they are probably, at this point at least, looking at McCain as a good story. But the incessant chatter about who is most electable (or not electable) has a motive behind it. Who was the last Republican elected president that was an "electable moderate" (or at least talked about by their opponents as one)? Ike? In the last several decades, it's Democrats that get elected being moderates, not republicans.

drindl, I read it after you called my attention to it. Thanks.

Boko, Thanks for the tutorial on Romney. Sounds like he is Bush on steroids...aaahhhggggh. You've opened my eyes.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

mark did you read dionne today? good mccain piece on the closed primaries. you've read people in the R base who post here--they will not vote for him.

i fear it's looking bad for him now--so i do hope bloomberg jumps in if it's mitt. he's a million times better--he's not a robot or a flilpflopping richboy.

DJIA below 12,000. GOP preparing Bush's convention disinvitation.

ryan writes "Obama didn't help his cause any either..." last night.

I totally agree. Obama's tortured explanation of his 123 "present" votes was a window by which we could finally see past his smooth exterior. I thought Edwards did a great job of hammering on that issue, and portraying it as a broader question of ability to make tough choices and face the consequences. Obama is clearly not up to the task.

Remember the '06 formulation from the Bloomberg camp was that he was only interested if it turned out to be HRC v. not-McC.

Boko and Blarg, one reason I dismissed WMR was that you both argued so strongly about his failures as MA's Gov. Another was Seamus. Another was that I could not tell who he was. But for those without the benefit of this blog, does his sudden interest in fixing the economy and business background strengthen his hand? Is that why Rasmussen has charted a big upside surge for him in FL?

Meanwhile, like Proud, I am very hopeful that McC regains the FL momentum. It is a closed primary and that may be a problem for him. It begins to look like TX and OH, in March, will be meaningful, at least on the R side.

As I have said before, money is a real problem for candidates here. Brownsville is closer to Mexico City than to Austin and
El Paso is closer to San Diego than to Houston.

Birddog08 writes
"I predict that after the dust settles from a bruising primary season and Hillary eckes out a narrow victory as the Democratic candidate, that the only role Obama will end up with will be Jr Senator from Illinois."

If that happens, Obama will be perfectly positioned to either challenge McCain in 2012 or challenge whichever Repub follows Clinton's single term in 2016. In my opinion, if HRC wins the Dem nomination & wins the general election this year, the Dems will immediately shift to the governing style demonstrated by the Repubs from 2002 until 2006. This will position the Repubs perfectly to resume their 'Contract with America' style campaign of 1994, likely led by the same man that put that program together. They will likely take over the White House after 4 more years of Clinton nonsense.

I'd prefer that the Dems cut to the chase & nominate Obama this time around & save us the pain.

Birddog08: Obama's ego is no bigger than any of the other candidates. In fact, one of the reasons I like him is that he seems to present himself as a facilitator of public/national goals rather than claiming, as most presidential candidates seem to, that he'll go change the government all by himself without help (or input) from anybody.

He will not be the junior Senator from Illinois for long. If he doesn't win the nomination/presidency, I suspect he'll be running for governor here in Illinois in 2010.

After that performance last night, McCain is looking like the real agent of "change". Clinton secured her spot of not receiving my vote, Obama didn't help his cause any either...

'Does it not bother you that the Dems and the MSM appear to be cheering for McCain to be the nominee?'

gee dave--does it occur to you that we may not agree with many of his positions [i don't], but we think he is probably a decent man? that we care more about our country than ideology?

boko, i'm prtty much where you are -- could vote for obama or edwards or mccain [depending on his running mate] but no other possible republican. so if it comes down to Hillary and any non-mccain, i will indeed vote for her.

although if bloomberg enters the picture--hmm. yeah i said he's obnoxious. he is. he couldn't have created an empire without a huge ego. however, unlike mitt, he made his own money and he does a good job of understanding ordinary people's needs, as mayor of new york. he doesn't pander but he does feel like everybody's mayor.

Interesting earlier comment that "Obama would make a good Vice-Presidential candidate, he earned it". On the contrary, Obama with his entitlement persona finally and throughly revealed during the latest Democratic debates, neither Clinton OR Edwards would seriously consider asking him aboard the Ship of State. It was evident from his behavior on CNN that this young fellow would have a hard time subsuming his massive ego ,as playing anything other than Captain, on behalf of the greater good of a Democratic lead Administration. I predict that after the dust settles from a bruising primary season and Hillary eckes out a narrow victory as the Democratic candidate, that the only role Obama will end up with will be Jr Senator from Illinois. Too bad though, if Obama wanted to and could accept the fact that he needs to get a few more miles under his belt to be a truley great leader (ala JFK) , I think he would be a super President in around the year 2016....However, I doubt that as is the case with so many other generation X'ers or Tweeners, Obama's ego would not stand the delay of instant gratification.....

I think the Dem. candidates talk about McCain as if he were "the one" because they consider him to be the toughest of their likely opponents and each Dem. wants to prove that he or she would be the most effective running against him. As a leftist, but independent, voter (I've been known to go Green), I agree with their assessment. McCain has a lot of positions I strongly disagree with, but I'm honestly not quite sure how I would vote if he and Clinton were the major party candidates. I admire him for really standing up to his party on torture, immigration, and environmental issues, and his candor is also worth a lot to me.

I don't want a Republican in the Whitehouse again, for many reasons, but I don't know if I can vote for Hillary Clinton. In a McCain/Clinton matchup, the facts that McCain doesn't utterly horrify me and that I am not a Clinton fan might just drive me to essentially bow out and vote Green (probably Cynthia McKinney). In any other Republican matchup against Clinton, I think I would just ignore all my reservations and vote for her because I REALLY don't want any of the other Republican candidates to become president (Huckabee and Giuliani most of all).

"Does it not bother you that the Dems and the MSM appear to be cheering for McCain to be the nominee?"

dave, The MSM has been wrong more often than they are right this election cycle, so it really doesn't matter what they think. The Ds are probably concerned about facing a formidable opponent in McCain. He has consistently beaten them in natl head-to-head match ups. None of the other Rs can beat the D in the general election! If I were Anne Coulter, I'd be more concerned with Romney's viability in the general election (he has none) than whether the Ds and Is are talking about McCain.

Romney cannot win crossover votes, he cannot inspire people to come out and vote, and he has no message of his own to rally the base.

With the economy now in the forefront as well as Iraq, McCain's message of cutting govt spending and winning in Iraq are just the ticket. It's time to cut up the federal credit card, and Mack's just the guy to do it!

This is a historical race in two ways, the first viable female and african american candidates, and also a former President who is stumping for his wife. If Hillary were not running, would Bill Clinton be saying the same things about Obama?

Obama is right when he says he's running against Bill and Hillary. It's hard to defend yourself when one says one thing and the other says another thing. As one of the post debate commentators remarked, it's like they are playing good cop bad cop. It's unfair the way the two attack Obama's character and record. They have learned to fight back through their long years in office. America does not need their kind of leadership. In TODAY'S world we need a leader who can get people to put aside party partisanship and work together to solve our problems. If this is how the Clinton's will run the White House by playing good cop bad cop we will be no better offf than we are today. Those staunch Democrats and old ladies need to wake up. Voting with your heart and not your mind has contributed to the mess we are in today. The younger generation sees that path to a better America is through a transformation of the way we do business which requires a change in the way we judge candidates ablity to LEAD the change. Obama wants to lead by changing the way we do business - by unifying Democrats and Repbulicans to work for the good of the people whereas, Hillary wants the status quo to work on the changes, her solution will not work because it does not address how she can resolve the bickering between Congressional members and between Congress and the White House.

MLK said a person should be judged by the content of their character. Obama has better character than Hillary.

George Will as an unusually readable and worthwhile piece today (see the Opinion section), the most amusing section of which I've excerpted for those too lazy to seek out the original:

"Someone should tell [Edwards] the joke that another populist, William Jennings Bryan, told on himself after losing three presidential elections (1896, 1900 and 1908) as the Democrats' nominee:

A man tried three times to enter a saloon and three times was tossed out. After the third time he dusted himself off and said, "I'm beginning to think those fellows don't want me in there." "

"...you won't have to keep clearing the vines of delusion." Sheesh...Yikes. I thought the writers were still on strike!

it's interesting that most of the posters here care to propagate their ideas

"about perception,"

and "substance and actual ability," has no place in their repertoire...

why a good teacher could reinvent politics by teaching the public how their impressions were being skewed...

and their votes being stolen by people of little intellect and an aversion to honesty...

it would take about 3 weeks of continuous hammering about what was being presented

"the illusion,"

and why...

why would repulisick skammers want Obama?

he doesn't believe that they exist. He thinks everyone should be given a fair break....a start from ground zero...

even if that "ground zero," is republican framing...

see? you are visible...and given about 15 minutes of airtime AMERICA would be healed of the miasma

the sickness even, the stupidity...

teach honesty, not opinion, and you won't have to keep clearing the vines of delusion.

I guarantee it!

.

Truth Hunter, no time right now, but quickly on Romney (my gov. for four years) just say no! He really doesn't care about, understand, or have any interest in life as we who are not billionaires know it - AND he raised fees (if not taxes) substantially, and cut needed public services (and privatized them) brutally, leaving them worse - severely underfunded and/or managed by for-profit teams whose goal was (obviously) NOT primarily the good of the state, but rather the good of the balance sheet.

And even with all of his much-praised business experience, he left the state with a $1.5 billion deficit after having spent most of the previous year mocking it to red-state audiences. He may have made some good decisions - and capitalized on his family name and money - at key points in his career, but none of them took place on his watch as MA governor, and his track record does not speak well for his potential as president.

Truth_Hunter - "Now the MSM is saying he's the one".

Forget the MSM, the three Dems are saying he's the one! All this is very interesting seeing as how the R race is still unprecedented in my life time wide open. Anybody that says someone is "the one" at this point has other motives.

Proud,
Does it not bother you that the Dems and the MSM appear to be cheering for McCain to be the nominee?

truth hunter writes
"Just as the MSM, I wrote off McCain and am surprised by his rebound. Now the MSM is saying he's the one, so I wonder if they are right this time."

You overstate the MSM's position. Some call him the front-runner, many hedge that bet citing that FL could restructure the whole race. I don't think anyone in the media is calling him 'the one'.

I got this in an email this morning, and I'm surprised that not more of the media is covering this. Edwards mentioned it last night during the final question. It's basically an endorsement from MLK III, whom Edwards met with prior to the debate.

You can read the letter at

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20080121-mlk3/

bokonon13,
The Gravel video was, um, something. I personally like the one comment of it on the site - 'You die seven days after you watch this.'

The video aside, I am at a failure as to why people consider him a loon. If you go by his website and his stance on the issues, he is very much in line with the Democratic party (other than the Fair Tax proposal). What makes him a 'loon'?

" Now that he is getting into closed primaries, he is toast because the dems and indenpendents cannot save him.
Posted by: vbhoomes | January 22, 2008 09:51 AM"

Good point, bhoomes.

Which leaves me wondering what will happen to the GOP turnout in November. MH's supporters are likely to stay home for purely religious reasons unless MH is the nominee, thus suppressing the evangelical vote that the GOP has recently relied upon (that's what happens when you let the religion genie out of the bottle). If (by some miracle) McCain wins, a big component of the base that suffers from McCain Derangement Syndrome will stay home. If Romney wins will McCain's supporters be more flexible? MH's certainly won't support Mitt.

bokonon, You are seeing things about the same way that I do... no to Clinton (although I'm not crazy about Edwards either), Obama (still looking at), McCain iffy, Romney at least has some idea of finance (would seem increasingly important) although not Bloomberg.... he can't win so why muddy the waters.

Just as the MSM, I wrote off McCain and am surprised by his rebound. Now the MSM is saying he's the one, so I wonder if they are right this time. Romney seems better positioned in terms of money, message and organization.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Blarg, McCain is a consistent social conservative, so the right-to-lifers have no quibble there. The folks who fault him for being a maverick and not toeing the party line at all times are not going to be convinced unless he gets the nomination, a possibility that is looking increasingly more likely. The rest of the field is also flawed and McCain is running a great campaign, rising up like a phoenix from the ashes of defeat this summer.

Go McCain GO!!!

Mark in Austin... I agree that McCain is showing courage against the loud GOP drumbeat for tax cuts, especially in the face of increased spending starting with the war in Iraq which isn't included in budget figures. Imagine what our true national deficit position really is....

Well, the world has figured it out and are deserting our collapsing economy. I think the time for candidate debate is over, Clinton and Obama need to apply themselves to their current jobs to help craft a way forward.... next January will be too late. Our hair is on fire now!

In my view, Obama won the debate even though he stooped to a food fight at times. I also can't get over my dislike of Hillary, and her playground-bully smirk last night didn't help.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

drindl, I could vote for Obama. I could vote for Edwards if he were the nominee, although there is something about him which seems phony to me. I could convince myself to vote for McCain maybe... still thinking about this. (I disagree with most of his positions on policy, i.e. Iran, Iraq, the Bush tax cuts - wasn't he originally a deficit hawk? - reproductive choice...) but he seems like at least a genuine guy (to some extent) who is not for sale. I will say, though, that I was much more impressed by him in 2000, before he began planting big wet neo-kisses on Bush's behind.

I could not vote for Clinton or any Republican other than McCain. I am still considering Bloomberg, if he runs... I know you said at one point that he was not a good neighbor with hiw horses -? but on a scale of 1 to Romney, Bloomberg and Edwards are neck and neck, at least for me, with both ahead of McCain. Apres McCain, le cut-off point.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know if Mike Gravel is still running? He's a loon, but I enjoyed the one commercial I saw of his more than any from anyone else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rZdAB4V_j8

Drindl: Judge's 9:50 post linked to a discussion of all the plans.

Proud: McCain's record means that a lot of Republicans won't support him. They're not big fans of global warming, corporate reform, campaign finance, torture, tobacco regulation, or McCain's brand of immigration reform. Are you worried that he doesn't appeal to your party's establishment?

prozek wrote:

Come on with the 'poor Hillary' feminism cry. I've heard people make fun of JE's haircut, BO's ears, and let's not start on the Republicans. And I'm an ugly woman so I can say that. I don't know who I'm going to vote for, but the constant cry of 'sexism' is tiresome.

tela responds:

hey, the point is that birvin9999, is employing the "standard tactic," of the neocon probushCO and CRONYs...

appeal to emotion.

which is fallicious reasoning, and if done purposely and knowingly as a tactic

a lie, disinformation...

it is an attempt to brand a product...

negrah lover, homo lover, injun lover, wimmens libber, laborers, yankee doodle dandy...

would be some of the more memorable ones...

it should be noted for what it is, a tactic of liars...and a gop standard...a tactic that the CIA has used to topple government after government, including democratically elected ones...

see Panama, Ecuador, Colombia, Nicaragua, Honduras, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Argentina, Chile, Peru

SEARCH on John Negroponte, Honduras, zmag

SEARCH on Gary Webb, Parry, cocaine, george bush

SEARCH on John Negroponte, Paul Wolfowitz, Porter Goss, Walker, Bush, Yale

get to know what hillary barack and john are fighting against...

and sometimes understand that the people feeding the "rumor mills," are bushCO and CRONY people

trying to divide and conquer...the truth makes things more visible. letting others frame with illegitimate topics like race

is kind of stupid. if Bill Clinton raises good points, address them. He is part of her team. When you elect a president you elect his team

or his fathers and Nixons in George W's case...IRAN CONTRA and PNAC running the shyyytehouse.

.

What a great day we had yesterday!! Here's a few of the highlights....

Now, if the Republicans can just be, collectively, smart enough NOT to cave in to the braying jackals on the extreme right and have the good sense to nominate John McCain, since national polls consistently show him as their strongest candidate vis-a-vis either Clinton or Obama, they have a very realistic chance of being able to retain the White House.

Paul Hewitt had a magnificent piece today on www.townhall.com about how the big losers in South Carolina were really all the far right wing "talk radio" wombats like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Their bark has been shown to be a lot worse than their bite and their influence is definitely on the wane. Warms my heart. I really want to take the Republican Party back from these intolerant retards.

GO McCAIN GO!!!

Posted by: danram | January 21, 2008 06:17 PM

And this from kingofzouk "[McCain's] victory speech was a very good one. he is certainly a good campaigner, better than the others."

Glowing praise from the king, no less!

McCain is, of course, the R who would have the best chance to defeat Hillary. She can't pull the old experience gambit on this long term Senator and his record on everything from global warming to corporate reform to campaign finance to torture to tobacco regulation to immigration reform makes it very hard for Hillary to defeat him. And, because of his appeal to Hispanics left over from his battle for the immigration plan, he is ideally suited to take minority voters, burned by Hillary's scorched earth policy against Obama, away from the Ds.

The icing on the cake was watching Obama and Hillary's verbal smack-down last night in Myrtle Beach.

GO McCain GO!!!

Another thought on the fact-checking that someone mentioned above.

In the debate, Sen Clinton claimed that Bill had criticized Obama's comments about Reagan, but that she had not. This, too, is an outright lie. I don't recall on which show I saw the clip, but one of the Sunday AM shows played a clip where she claimed that Obama was complimenting the policies of Reagan, which is a falsity. Where's the truth squad?

haing said that boko, who could you vote for?

we all are going to have to vote for someone, whether we like it or not.

and the corporate interests who control the GOP will simply not going to allow McCain to win. Hannity, Rush, Mann, all the 'populist' radical right pundits, who are the public face of these corporations, can easily demonize him and persuade their legions of fans to vote against him in the primaries.

'The Dingell plan is probably my favorite, as it would have states in different regions voting at the same time'

sounds actually rational, blarg--got a link? first think needs to be done is to get rid of the absurdist caucuses.

Judge: Interesting link. I think the Modified Delaware Plan is a bad idea. It assumes that it's easier to campaign in low-population states, instead of states small in area. It's extremely difficult to campaign in North Dakota or Alaska, so the plan doesn't really allow retail politics. I think most candidates would ignore the sparsely-populated and inconvenient states (like Hawaii) to focus on RI, DE, and others where it's easier to campaign.

The Dingell plan is probably my favorite, as it would have states in different regions voting at the same time. It seems the most fair. The other plans are decent too. Anything's better than the chaos we have now.

Blarg @8:48, JimD@9:03, Judge Crater @9:04, three cheers for the three of you. I agree with all of the points each of you makes. I would only add that I think at this point, it's pretty hard to see these debates objectively, after what has been a very long campaign already, and with a lot said.

For example, although I can understand - if not agree with - a lot of the points made by (the more polite) Hillary supporters, I can't imagine voting for her. Just can't. She has come across to me as insincere, by which I mean willing to say or do whatever she must to achieve her goal.

Her husband too - I can't say I ever "liked" Bill Clinton in the sense that I thought I would get along with him, but I did find him to be intelligent, occasionally funny, and more or less human. His wife is intelligent, too, but her "humor" seems as scripted and focus-grouped as the rest of her personality, and -especially when it comes to things political - she does not seem to have any goal other than her - and her husband's, but primarily her - glorious place in history. I can't say that I get the sense that she understands humor or life as does her husband, and while I may not need to want to have a beer with my president, I do need to feel that someone somewhere conceivably could.

And it's too bad that I feel that I need to say this, but I most emphatically do not feel this way because Hillary is a woman. Nor do I care what she looks like. I get the impression I get from her speech and actions, and those of her campaign, and my reaction to these has not been positive. I have no problem with electing a woman, but as is true of a man, I would need to feel that she would be the best candidate running. My impression of Hillary would be no different if she were a man - her "experience" (all but the years 2001-2008) is of questionable value, her decisions and accomplishments in the Senate range from disastrous (the Iraq vote) to forgettable (most everything else), the one other thing she is chiefly known for (health care '93) led to the shelving of universal coverage for 15 years, her sense of entitlement is irrelevant in a democracy, her ability to mobilize GOP voters in what should be a Democratic year presents problems, the whole Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton thing leaves a really bad taste in my mouth, and so on.

vbhoomes: The thing to watch for is how the Huckster does in Fla. and how much the support of Jeb Bush will help Mitt. Fred doesn't matter that much, since most already know he and McCain are close personal friends, and expect him to go that route. I have heard more than 20% already have voted, maybe more, and this would appear to favor Rudy. Anyway I look, there is a good chance for any of them to win, I can't give more than an honest--I don't have a clue as to who the winner will be.

vbhoomes writes
"Do not discount the strong dislike the base & file republicans have for McCain. Now that he is getting into closed primaries, he is toast because the dems and indenpendents cannot save him."


If the GOP clings to its failed misinterpretation of conservatism, look for a clear loss in November - even if the opponent is HRC.

'Do not discount the strong dislike the base & file republicans have for McCain. Now that he is getting into closed primaries, he is toast because the dems and indenpendents cannot save him.'

See, kids, the base intends to kill off McCain as fast as they can. So it looks like it's going to be mittens. This is funny, in a sad kind of way:

'Mr. Romney, the Republican candidate from Massachusetts by way of Michigan and Utah who enjoys a milkshake at the end of a long day, stopped by a staging area for a Martin Luther King Birthday parade here. In his dress shirt and tie, and with his fixed smile, he walked over and posed for photographs with a group of black youngsters. Putting his arm around a teenage girl, he waved to the cameras and offered, "Who let the dogs out?" He added a tepid "woof woof."

Somewhere, the Baha Men, the Bahamian group whose 2000 song the candidate was referencing, must have been shuddering.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/us/politics/22romney.html?adxnnl=1&ref=todayspaper&adxnnlx=1201014016-2duP4AfmywyCTp8qtKh4gg

Bhoomes, watch as every candidate but McCain talks about massive federal intervention in the economy [beyond rate cuts and extending unemployment comp payouts].

Last night Blitzer egged the Ds on about sho had the biggest giveaway
and I do not care if it is a spending giveaway or a tax giveaway it is bad to make huge policy decisions under fire.

McCain may lose by saying he does not want to support tax cuts without budget cuts, but he may eventually cave to the pressure, which is huge, but IMHO, stupid.

your Lib media at work:

"On MSNBC's January 19 primary coverage, Chris Matthews told Rudy Giuliani: "You know, Mayor, for months now, I think I've been one of the troubadours for you out there in terms of your prospects. I have always seen the Giuliani advantage in a party that treasures leadership."

the party that 'treasures' leadership. hilarious. can i lick your boots, Mr. Mayor?

Judgecrater: Thompson will most likely endorse McCain because they are personal friends but it will not matter because the majority of Fred's support will go to Mitt as the only other real republican still in the race. Do not discount the strong dislike the base & file republicans have for McCain. Now that he is getting into closed primaries, he is toast because the dems and indenpendents cannot save him.

For the true political junkies among us, http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002658056
has a listing of the detailed primary plans (Modified Delaware, etc) that the GOP is considering to 'fix' the current problems. If the DNC agrees 2012 could be a whole different ball game.

"What Did They Talk About?
Sen. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards "met privately backstage following a very contentious Democratic presidential debate in this coastal city," sources with both campaigns confirm to CNN. "The meeting took place in the Edwards campaign green room." "

Edwards to drop out if HRC picks him up as VP?

JimD - "Obama is another matter because I think he could be a transformational figure."

I was thinking about that last night as I did get a chance to see most of the debate. In a earlier post I said that Republicans won due to the personal attacks and mean spiritedness up on stage last night. In thinking about it, I think the big loser of the night was Obama. Obama is the candidate that is basing his campaign on a message of changing the way things are done in DC - the political climate as well as the way the president acts. Last night, Obama looked like any other politician hurling mud, certainly not one that could argue he would be able to work with others across the aisle in a different manner than what we have seen the last couple of decades. Based on last night's performance, he can't even work well with people of his own party who, for the most part, have very similar positions. That fact that he sunk to HRCs level *almost* made Edwards come out looking good. I think from here on out, he will have a hard time arguing that he is the 'uniter' of the group. And for those Obama supports, you should make sure you are for him based on issues and not get your hopes up that he will be able to change the political environment.

Hey CC, if Thompson quits who will he endorse? Thompson could be a kingmaker in both SC and FL.

'shaking out'? it's a tad worse than that:

'As Bill Conway, a founder of the Carlyle Group and the investment guru of the private-equity firm, told The Post's Thomas Heath last week: "We are nearer the beginning than we are the end . . . there are very significant problems ahead."

I was very troubled by Hillary's distortions of Obama's words. The word that comes to mind is "Rove-ian".

I deeply want one of the three of them in the White House, and would still vote for H. if she wins the nomination.

But her conduct last night was repellent. My concern about the Clintons has always been questions about the lengths they go to, the compromises their willing to make, to win power.

About the HRC comments: at men's group last night, Chris, a reliable D voter, Nam vet [Navy], IBM senior engineer,father of two adult daughters who move in and out of his house periodically - and supporter of "women's" issues said:

"I feel guilty about my dislike for HRC, but I cannot shake the dislike."

The old Clinton is back. Bill's abandonment of elder statesman for hatchet man on behalf of Hillary will confirm many of us never to vote for Hillary under any circumstances.

they don't do fact check, blarg, they don't teach you that in steno school.

i am sooo tired of this already, i feel like the campaign has lasted 8 years and every one of the candidates is vying to see who can make me dislike them the most. and the winner is -- you guessed it!

'Mr. Giuliani was a pugilist in a city of political brawlers. But far more than his predecessors, historians and politicians say, his toughness edged toward ruthlessnessand became a defining aspect of his mayoralty. One result: New York City spent at least $7 million in settling civil rights lawsuits and paying retaliatory damages during the Giuliani years.

After AIDS activists with Housing Works challenged the mayor, city officials sabotaged the group's application for a federal housing grant. A caseworker who spoke of missteps in the death of a child was fired. After unidentified city workers complained of pressure to hand contracts to Giuliani-favored organizations, investigators examined not the charges but the identity of the leakers.

"There were constant loyalty tests: 'Will you shoot your brother?' " said Marilyn Gelber, who served as environmental commissioner under Mr. Giuliani. "People were marked for destruction for disloyal jokes."

When former Mayors Edward I. Koch and David N. Dinkins spoke publicly of Mr. Giuliani's foibles, mayoral aides removed their official portraits from the ceremonial Blue Room at City Hall. Mr. Koch, who wrote a book titled "Giuliani: Nasty Man," shrugs.

"David Dinkins and I are lucky that Rudy didn't cast our portraits onto a bonfire along with the First Amendment, which he enjoyed violating daily," Mr. Koch said in a recent interview.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/us/politics/22giuliani.html?_r=2&ref=politics&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

just imagine what he could do as the most powerful man on earth...

The economy looks strong in Austin, and in most of Texas. I am guessing we have regional highs and lows.

Aside from monetary relief, provided by the FedRes in spades this morning, I would think extending unemployment comp payouts is the only other immediate relief available and effective.

Tax rebates that will come to folks in May or later, will have some marginal effect then - but very likely small, and worse, unmeasurable and untimely.

The beauty of extending unemployment comp is that it is self-compensating. TX may not need it so it will not be spent here. If the slump is mild, the cost is low. If the slump is deep it provides a safety net.

This is Bernanke's core proposal, and all the pols, the Ds last night and the Rs as well, ignore it at our peril.

Some shaking out is good. As JD is fond of pointing out. And Gov can only soften the edges. As JD is fond of pointing out.

I notice that everyone quotes Clinton's line about Rezko. It's in two debate articles on the main page, and in CC's post above. But nobody includes Obama's explanation, that his law firm worked a few hours for a charity that was related to Rezko.

I don't know if Obama is telling the truth, though I'm far more inclined to believe him than Hillary. But it would be nice if the media could fact-check this assertion and tell us who's right, instead of just parroting the attack.

'Jan. 22 (Bloomberg) -- Bank of America Corp., the second- largest U.S. bank, said earnings dropped 95 percent after $5.28 billion of mortgage-related writedowns and higher provisions for future loan losses.

Fourth-quarter net income fell to $268 million, or 5 cents a share, from $5.26 billion, or $1.16, a year earlier, Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America said today in a statement. '

this is why social security should not be invested in stocks. because these things happen. of course, were it not for shoddy financial practices, they wouldn't be this bad -- but as long as people playing the game get to write the rules, they will be.

i know i've been harping on this for months, but i could see it was inevitable. when people would call and offer me loans and tell me i didn't need credit, good bad or indifferent, that i wouldn't even need to show proof of income, i knew something was very wrong. i've worked with financial companies, there used to be rules... and common sense. but greed of course can overcome everything else. and so here we have it. the whole world is affected.

now when the people at the head of the ponzi scheme have collected their winnings and gone on to new frauds, everybody else is left holding the bag, losing their homes and life savings, and the bobbing head financial pundits like samuelson will be saying how we really needed this, it's a good thing.

recession is good! no, really...

Robinson today ( washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/21/AR2008012101864.html?nav=hcmodule ) hits the nail on the head:
"Whether it was advisable for Obama to play the role of presidential historian in the midst of a no-holds-barred contest for the Democratic nomination, it's hard to argue with what he said. I think Bill Clinton was a good president, at times very good. And I wouldn't have voted for Reagan if you'd held a gun to my head. But even I have to recognize that Reagan -- like Margaret Thatcher in Britain and Mikhail Gorbachev in the Soviet Union -- was a transformational figure, for better or worse."

Bill seems to be driven to make it harder for me to vote for his wife in the general election.

Obama is totally right about Hillary, she cannot not run without her husband's constant help. If you vote for Hillary then you are voting to put Bill back in as President because its so obvious he totally controls that maariage and she is simply his lackey and hanger-on.

"I think Hillary is a uniter not a divider."

posted by iowatreasures

What are you smoking? She is absolutely despised by a very large segment of the population. I, along with many other independent, swing voters, will vote for McCain over Clinton. If it is Clinton versus another R, I will be hoping for Bloomberg. Obama is another matter because I think he could be a transformational figure.

Chris Cillizza,

You have added the Rezko waltz to the hit parade.

In your mind is this relevant or not:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_commentary/commentary_by_dick_morris/hillary_clinton_s_massive_conflict_of_interests

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/opinion/24cohen.html?scp=2&sq=clinton+library+foundation

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20clinton.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=clinton+library+foundation&oref=slogin

This is the first debate that I actually watched. (Which is a little embarrassing, considering how much time I spend here.) Wolf Blitzer promised at the beginning that they'd discuss substantive policy issues, but half of CNN's questions were about race or recent pseudo-controversies. The questions were designed to make the candidates attack each other, defend themselves against those attacks, and spout platitudes about equality and opportunity.

I thought Hillary came off terribly. She spent more time on the attack than anyone, repeatedly bringing up specific votes from Obama's record, no matter what the question was. I think she also spent the least time talking about her actual plans for the country. But I might just feel that way because I was already biased against her.

Fed Reserve just dropped interest rates 3/4%. Stunning.

house of cards about to fall--whoever is elected better know how to appoint savvy and honest economic advisors. .. it's gonna take a lot of pull us out of the hole that is coming:

'NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Wall Street looked set to join the global market rout early Tuesday, as the threat of a U.S. recession battered sentiment worldwide.

At 7:48 a.m. ET, futures were indicating a disastrous start. Dow futures were down 4.5 percent while S&P futures lost 5 percent. Such a decline would mark the sharpest drop at the open for U.S. stocks since the first session following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

"It's going to be a very rough ride this morning for U.S. equities," said Art Hogan, chief market analyst at Jefferies & Co.'

The debates at first blush are discouraging to someone who can and will support either of the candidates in the general election. While the attacks make you uncomfortable are they nearly as tough as the Republican hate machine will generate in November, I doubt it. If we do not have well seasoned candidates this fall it will be bloody. I have little doubt that Hillary can be "Swift-boated" it is time to test Obama's metal. I would still love to see a Hillary-Obama ticket with Bill Clinton holding the Republican candidates honest.

supersasha Jan. 21, 10:57 PM

Re:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674

So, was it a cut and paste job?

I do not see the quotation marks.

I do see at the bottom of said page an announcement:

"PAID FOR BY HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT".

to toospeed and disgusting pig birvin, Bill Clinton may have been a bad husband, but Bush and the repugs have destroyed the country.

I was originally an Edwards supporter and was very much against Hillary at the beginning of this race. I must say, I was very impressed with Hillary tonight. I truly believe she honestly found her voice. She was calm, cool, collected and quite frankly, Presidential. I could see her firmly and confidently taking on the Republicans, or talking tough with world leaders after tonights debate.

Edwards looked very good, but at this point doesn't seem to be a realistic choice.

Obama was obviously angry when put on the defensive.

I will be supporting Hillary.

tonights debate just showed how far people will go to win.Do people really beleive for 1 minute that Hillary will bring the change America really needs.Didn't people get enough of lies from her husband when he was persident.I mean he lied under oath,because he didn't know what the meaning of IS was or What sexual contact was.I don't remember him going to jail for lying but someone on steriods lies they go to jail.I don;t think Bill Clinton should ever be allowed back in the white house,wasn't he impeached by the way.People think!

Edwards showed why he is the best candidate and the best future president. Tonight I was glad to see him highlight his specifics for social security-that is just one example of his platform. It has specifics while BO and HC talk in platitudes. The media needs to give him a chance and follow-up on his comments and not revert to their rivalry coverage that has been the norm of this campaign.

poh and rd,

I find it interesting that people are presuming McCain to be the nominee. Although I don't particularly like the thought of a Romney presidency, Romney has three wins to match McCain's two, and with the economy so jittery right now, Romney (despite a dismal economic record in Massachusetts) could easily slip in as the "proven business leader" who can right the economy.

In fact, I predict that this election will be more about the economy than about Iraq. People want out of Iraq, but ultimately people are selfish. Most people will care more about what happens to their retirement portfolio and bank account than what happens on the other side of the globe, and they will vote based on the fear that is closest to them. As long as the economy is shaky (and especially if it heads into a recession), this will be the single issue that defines the election.

As for Clinton's prospects, while 40% of the likely voters will absolutely not vote for Clinton, virtually none of those people would vote for any Democrat, so this number is only marginally relevant. As always, the battle is really in that remaining 10% or so, and, regardless who is the nominee, that last 10% will be a tough battle.

This said, while I think Clinton will be a tough fight for the Republicans, I think Obama is the more seductive figure who could, potentially, lure in more voters. On the other hand, he could also potentially flop dramatically. With Clinton, I think we could expect a tight race. With Obama, I suspect he would either win big or fail hugely. Democrats are going to have to decide if they want to take the bigger risk on Obama with the potential of a bigger payoff or stick with the somewhat safer Clinton, who could still easily lose, just not by as much.

I also dispute the idea that the election will be decided on issues like Iraq, tax cuts, SCOTUS, etc., and not on personality. These issues matter, to a degree, and mainly only to ideologues whose votes are generally already decided along party lines. In fact, were it not for electability as a consideration in people's votes, I'd argue that these issues would be weighed more carefully in the primary where parties are facing themselves. In the general election, however, a large number of swing voters, who are the people ultimately deciding elections, make their decisions based on which candidate they most trust and like. This intangible factor is often decided in a split second when the person sees or hears a candidate. Don't be surprised if "image" is ultimately a deciding factor, although between Clinton and McCain, should they be the nominees, it's hard to call a winner. McCain seems just a bit too old and Clinton just a bit too shrill.

In fact, all of the leading candidates in both parties have a lot of potentially negative traits weighing against them, so I'm a bit at a loss to predict how specific match-ups will play out. My gut instinct tells me, however, that Clinton could probably trounce anyone except McCain.

The question is whether Republicans could really get excited about McCain. He looks his age, and I can imagine him playing out more like a Bob Dole than like a Ronald Reagan. Like Clinton, McCain is the "safe" candidate, but it's hard to say whether he is actually the best.

What about the congressional white caucus debate? Hillary is kickin Hussein Obama's butt in front of the whole lot. This country is quite a few decades away from electing a negro president. Bill will see to that. Go get em' wild Bill.....!

Edwards looked good mostly because he wasn't being attacked by Hillary. I actually enjoyed it when Edwards and Obama were talking about the differences in their plans, because they were disagreeing without being disagreeable. That's what's supposed to happen in these debates.

Hillary relied on insults - and looked like some smirking kid on the playground while she said them. I cringed.

The more I see of Hillary, the more I realize she really doesn't know how to work with other people, let along disagree with them. I never believed those White House rumors of her screaming and throwing things at Bill when they had a disagreement. Until now.

Obviously we'll have months to debate McCain, but ending the war in Iraq or not is not a vote for class president.

He will not pick up anyone that doesn't want to continue Bush policies, Bush on steroids as Pat Buchanan says.

rd

Poh, thanks for the youtube link. It seems that Obama's comment was an exhortation of Kennedy to support the union workers.

Regarding a potential Clinton vs. McCain general, a lot of idependents will be voting for McCain because of his straight talk, and efforts to clean up govenment. Clinton does not have much to offer in this department.

RD: I understand that there are policy differences between McCain and Clinton. That doesn't change the fact that there are voters out there who are saying "I'd rather vote for the Republican nominee (McCain usually being cited as the example because of his supposed Maverick positions) over Clinton. I don't know that these voters are representative of anything in reality since this IS the blogosphere, but Clinton won't have much of a margin for error either way.

Yes McCain wants the war to continue. Yes, he's still a Republican. But he also has the most liberal stances of any of the Republicans in the field, and that may be just enough (combined with Clinton fatique or Hillary hatred) to cause a lot of swing voters to mark their check in the red column.

You are assuming that voters necessarily vote on those pesky issues. A lot of voters vote based on gut feeling, image and popularity. Some people don't draw much of a distinction between President of the United States and President of the Senior Class, particularly if they "just don't like someone."

Gosh, what happened to all that good will from the Nevada debate? Two words: True colors. Hillary let her vindictive, nasty, expedient side shine thru like a champ -- and not surprisingly, got booed and catcalled for it. She wants this so bad, she will stop at nothing...fortunately, we have other viable candidates who have different playbooks and some self esteem to boot. Simple formula as I see it: Hillary wins, we lose...no chance she becomes President, but a large opening created for Edwards, Gore, or Bloomberg as an independant candidate. If she gets the nomination, there will be scads of people camping out on Gore's lawn to urge him in the race -- you read it here.

poh: There are fundamental differences between McCain and Clinton. 70% want to wind up the Iraq war. McCain wants to continue it. Also Supreme Court appointments, continuation of Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and Republican trade/jobs positions are all McCain positions why this won't be a popularity contest for voters.

rd

I thought they all did pretty well. Edwards was good tonight, largely because he left his anger at the door. However, I don't think he'll get the support he was hoping for this Saturday. The crowd was obviously pro-Obama, due to locale.
For me, and those I watched it with, Hillary is still our choice as the strongest and most forceful leader we believe this country needs. Obama side-steps the issues too much, is still too vague, and he doesn't seem seasoned enough, or tough enough, to take on the GOP machine this fall.

I find RudydPimp's comment very interesting. It's something that I've encountered on this and other blogs. I've even had staunch Republican friends tell me that we better nominate Obama if we want a chance at winning in November (but he's a Republican, so take what he says with a grain of salt, right?).

In all seriousness, I think Hillary is fine on her merits as a candidate, but I fear that we can't select her as if the election would be held in a vacuum. If Obama is in the Democrat slot, it'd be an honest fight between McCain and Obama for the swing vote. I don't see many swing voters siding with Clinton. You hear stats about how 40+ percent of likely voters have said that they would never vote for her. I wonder how hard it'd be for someone like McCain to get an additional 11 percent. Read: Not hard at all.

I'm really frustrated as a loyal Democrat. I really was an "anyone but Hillary" guy, because I think she has tons of baggage that will make it difficult for her to govern, because I don't want to re-fight the same old garbage of the 90s with the right wingers, because I hate triangulation and a lot of the "micro-politics" of the 96 campaign, because I believe we have the chance to have a transformational presidency, and finally because I thought the dynastic element of Clinton-Clinton after Bush-Bush is corrosive to democracy.

But.

Ms. Clinton is a damn good candidate. No one, not even the haters, can deny that. My hope is, after this debate, Obama or Edwards can step up their candidacy. I was originally an Edwards guy, but he appears to have lost viability.

So I'm hoping Obama can match Hillary. He will have to. If he can't, we get a flawed, scarred, but still *very* strong candidate in Hillary.

In the end, her candidacy says something about how women have evolved in our society. She's smarter, she works harder, and she's better prepared than anyone else. In a "pure" meritocracy she already would have been eletected. But, ironically, her position is often credited (by mediocre MSM white male hacks like Chris Matthews) to her spouse.

Iowatreasures,
Thank you for the reply. I wrote a long, brilliant and eloquent reply to you that the Post's websit