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 McCain-Kennedy immigration plan, he is ideally suited to take minority voters, burned by Hillary's scorched earth policy against Obama, away from the Democrats.

GO McCain GO!!!

I am glad Barack Obama is finally exposing the Clintons for the lies and distortions they are trying to put out there. This kind of behavior is unethical and unprincipaled and should be unacceptable by the American populace. After all, we teach our children to play fair -- not to lie, steal and cheat! The leaders we elect to office should be held to a higher standard and should be people of high principal and moral character, honest and forthright. I do not see this kind of behavior in the Clintons. It is hard for Obama to hit back because it is not in his nature to be confrontational. However, he must if he wants to have a chance to become President! And, finally, candidates should be fined each and every time they intentionally distort an opponent's records and held accountable for unethical behavior.

Democrats kick off final showdown before South Carolina

The top three Democratic candidates jumped into Monday night's debate with a heated discussion about how to stimulate the economy.

Who Won the CNN Democratic Debate in South Carolina?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1603

.

There is a clear strategy tonight: Clinton/Edwards vs. Obama. Hopefully the American public will see through their schemes and not be manipulated by these political operators. Obama '08!

You can watch it online at cnn.com

Does anyone know if the debate is carried on the radio?

svreader & Tony: I think you have it summed up very well.

bn1123 wrote: First, I can see I go to the end of the line to post a comment--but one has actually go twice to the end of the line with this WP technology.
-------------------------------------------

I'm glad you mentioned that bn1123. Hopefully the software guy(s) read this thread - I thought the same thing - they need to fix the software that drives this comment section.

Nothing exciting will happen tonight. It will be a respectful dialogue, no blood will be drawn. Stand down.

First, I can see I go to the end of the line to post a comment--but one has actually go twice to the end of the line with this WP technology.
More importantly, I can't see the Obama people would contest an outcome in which their candidates got more delegates although he got--what? 5% or 6% less of the votes than Senator Clinton.
Give me a break--and give me a break The Fix

--------quote-----------------
"Reagan started the huge national debt and turned this once mighty nation into a paper tiger with his "borrow from the future to please the present" manipulation. He also deregulated the media to allow a few superrich to control chains of TV and presses. For anyone cares to notice, Reagan represent the rich. Are these things the "changes" that Obama was talking about? "

-------------
Indeed, change for sake of change is not enough, you got to ask, what change, how to do it? Regan changed, but that is not a change John Edward wanted - finally Edward reached to a right point after shouting "change" together with Obama for days. He is the same as Clintons today.

The latest poll numbers show support for Obama slipping.

That's good news for America and good news for the Democratic party.

The the problem with fluff is that people eventually see right through it.

Democrats can't afford to lose in November.

Obama is a garenteed loss.

When you speak to Obama's supporters, or read what they post, especially some of the more extreme ones that post on these boards, its clear they're in love with the idea of "Obama", with the way he delivers his speeches, and with the way he looks, rather than with his policy ideas and his specific plans to solve all the horrible problems and wonderful opportunities we face as a country and as a planet.

I like Senator Clinton the same way I like a good employee, a good boss, or a good partner.

I know she knows what she's doing, that she'll do a really good job, that's she has extremely high standards for herself and others, that she works really, really, hard (you can't afford to underestimate the importance of that, in my opinion), and that she'll just simply do a better job than anyone else.

That's what I mean by the phrase "We're electing a President, not choosing a boyfriend"

Electing a President is the ultimate case of hiring your boss.

Experience has taught me that when hiring anyone, especially your boss, that you should go for the best and most competent person you can find, not the flashiest or just the best salesman.

For a lot of you out there, Obama is a new thing.

I've hired a lot of salesmen, sales managers, VP's of Marketing and Sales, etc, over the years.

I've seen Obama's type before.

That's why you put sales guys on commission.

It's easy to look good.

Delivering is what matters.

I know Senator Clinton has thought things out in detail and come up with well thought out detailed plans.

I know she can deliver on health coverage for everybody.

That's probably the most important life and death issue for everyone on this board.

I know Senator Clinton can end the war and bring our troops home.

I know Senator Clinton can balance the budget.

I know Senator Clinton can get all of us a middle-class tax cut.

Clinton supporters are in love with Hillary Clinton's ideas.

It would be fun to have Beer with Obama.

But we'd love to have Hillary for President.

So, Michelle is not as famous as Bill, so that's why it isn't fair that he campaign for Hillary.

OoooKaaaay: could Obama please tell Oprah not to campaign for him? After all, she is just too famous to be allowed to have a say.

And, on our last incessant anti-Clinton blogger, can someone please tell me why in the world the Clinton years are being equated in any way with the Bush years? Dynasty my eye! Hilary is standing in her own right, and the people will vote for - or against - her. A dynasty only exists when the people have no say. You are having you say now. if HRC wins the Deomcratic nomination it will be because the people have chosen her. The same is equally truly (of course) for Obama, Edwards et al.

Blarg & bsimon: I kinda enjoy teaching you youngsters a little bit about politics. Take some time and look at the life of Hillary, as I have. Where you can find another person as dedicated as Hillary in her trying to better the lives of those less fortunate, is a big task. The economy will be the main issue in this election, and who better to advise and council her than Bubba?, BTW, his terms in office was the best times in our country. History bears this out.

VOTERS: do you truly want another 8 years of the Clintons and their lies, sleeze and scandels? Do you really believe Hillary's claim that she has 35 years of "experience" when she never specifies WHAT EXPERIENCE she is referring to?? For her whole career in Arkansas, she was a patent lawyer... NOT appropriate experience. Then she was First Lady... NOT appropriate experience (maybe we should nominate Laura Bush, at least she doesn't have the negative poll numbers that Hillary does). And there is her implied claim that with Bill in the White House again, everything will be OK, because she'll be able to talk things out with him. DOESN'T THIS BOTHER YOU??? We are not supposed to have 3 term presidents in this country. DOESN'T IT BOTHER YOU THAT THE CLINTON DYNASTY MIGHT STILL BE IN WASHINGTON??? It sure bothers me !! I want the Clintons AND the Bushes OUT OF WASHINGTON ONCE AND FOR ALL !!!

VOTERS: do you truly want another 8 years of the Clintons and their lies, sleeze and scandels? Do you really believe Hillary's claim that she has 35 years of "experience" when she never specifies WHAT EXPERIENCE she is referring to?? For her whole career in Arkansas, she was a patent lawyer... NOT appropriate experience. Then she was First Lady... NOT appropriate experience (maybe we should nominate Laura Bush, at least she doesn't have the negative poll numbers that Hillary does). And there is her implied claim that with Bill in the White House again, everything will be OK, because she'll be able to talk things out with him. DOESN'T THIS BOTHER YOU??? We are not supposed to have 3 term presidents in this country. DOESN'T IT BOTHER YOU THAT THE CLINTON DYNASTY MIGHT STILL BE IN WASHINGTON??? It sure bothers me !! I want the Clintons AND the Bushes OUT OF WASHINGTON ONCE AND FOR ALL !!!

Just In: Bad news for Hillary's "electability" argument

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/01/blacks.html

New poll: U.S. more ready for black prez than female one
A new poll just out from CNN/Opinion Research tied to Martin Luther King Day today finds blacks and whites optimistic and pretty much in agreement -- 84% whites, 78% blacks -- that a lot or moderate progress has been made toward the civil rights leader's dream of equality in American society.

But hidden near the bottom of the survey of nearly 1,400 adult Americans Jan. 14-17 is some disturbing news for Sen. Hillary Clinton heading into tonight's Democratic debate in South Carolina and the party's primary there Saturday.

VOTERS: do you truly want another 8 years of the Clintons and their lies, sleeze and scandels? Do you really believe Hillary's claim that she has 35 years of "experience" when she never specifies WHAT EXPERIENCE she is referring to?? For her whole career in Arkansas, she was a patent lawyer... NOT appropriate experience. Then she was First Lady... NOT appropriate experience (maybe we should nominate Laura Bush, at least she doesn't have the negative poll numbers that Hillary does). And there is her implied claim that with Bill in the White House again, everything will be OK, because she'll be able to talk things out with him. DOESN'T THIS BOTHER YOU??? We are not supposed to have 3 term presidents in this country. DOESN'T IT BOTHER YOU THAT THE CLINTON DYNASTY MIGHT STILL BE IN WASHINGTON??? It sure bothers me !! I want the Clintons AND the Bushes OUT OF WASHINGTON ONCE AND FOR ALL !!!

VOTERS: do you truly want another 8 years of the Clintons and their lies, sleeze and scandels? Do you really believe Hillary's claim that she has 35 years of "experience" when she never specifies WHAT EXPERIENCE she is referring to?? For her whole career in Arkansas, she was a patent lawyer... NOT appropriate experience. Then she was First Lady... NOT appropriate experience (maybe we should nominate Laura Bush, at least she doesn't have the negative poll numbers that Hillary does). And there is her implied claim that with Bill in the White House again, everything will be OK, because she'll be able to talk things out with him. DOESN'T THIS BOTHER YOU??? We are not supposed to have 3 term presidents in this country. DOESN'T IT BOTHER YOU THAT THE CLINTON DYNASTY MIGHT STILL BE IN WASHINGTON??? It sure bothers me !! I want the Clintons AND the Bushes OUT OF WASHINGTON ONCE AND FOR ALL !!!

VOTERS: do you truly want another 8 years of the Clintons and their lies, sleeze and scandels? Do you really believe Hillary's claim that she has 35 years of "experience" when she never specifies WHAT EXPERIENCE she is referring to?? For her whole career in Arkansas, she was a patent lawyer... NOT appropriate experience. Then she was First Lady... NOT appropriate experience (maybe we should nominate Laura Bush, at least she doesn't have the negative poll numbers that Hillary does). And there is her implied claim that with Bill in the White House again, everything will be OK, because she'll be able to talk things out with him. DOESN'T THIS BOTHER YOU??? We are not supposed to have 3 term presidents in this country. DOESN'T IT BOTHER YOU THAT THE CLINTON DYNASTY MIGHT STILL BE IN WASHINGTON??? It sure bothers me !! I want the Clintons AND the Bushes OUT OF WASHINGTON ONCE AND FOR ALL !!!

VOTERS: do you truly want another 8 years of the Clintons and their lies, sleeze and scandels? Do you really believe Hillary's claim that she has 35 years of "experience" when she never specifies WHAT EXPERIENCE she is referring to?? For her whole career in Arkansas, she was a patent lawyer... NOT appropriate experience. Then she was First Lady... NOT appropriate experience (maybe we should nominate Laura Bush, at least she doesn't have the negative poll numbers that Hillary does). And there is her implied claim that with Bill in the White House again, everything will be OK, because she'll be able to talk things out with him. DOESN'T THIS BOTHER YOU??? We are not supposed to have 3 term presidents in this country. DOESN'T IT BOTHER YOU THAT THE CLINTON DYNASTY MIGHT STILL BE IN WASHINGTON??? It sure bothers me !! I want the Clintons AND the Bushes OUT OF WASHINGTON ONCE AND FOR ALL !!!

VOTERS: do you truly want another 8 years of the Clintons and their lies, sleeze and scandels? Do you really believe Hillary's claim that she has 35 years of "experience" when she never specifies WHAT EXPERIENCE she is referring to?? For her whole career in Arkansas, she was a patent lawyer... NOT appropriate experience. Then she was First Lady... NOT appropriate experience (maybe we should nominate Laura Bush, at least she doesn't have the negative poll numbers that Hillary does). And there is her implied claim that with Bill in the White House again, everything will be OK, because she'll be able to talk things out with him. DOESN'T THIS BOTHER YOU??? We are not supposed to have 3 term presidents in this country. DOESN'T IT BOTHER YOU THAT THE CLINTON DYNASTY MIGHT STILL BE IN WASHINGTON??? It sure bothers me !! I want the Clintons AND the Bushes OUT OF WASHINGTON ONCE AND FOR ALL !!!

VOTERS: do you truly want another 8 years of the Clintons and their lies, sleeze and scandels? Do you really believe Hillary's claim that she has 35 years of "experience" when she never specifies WHAT EXPERIENCE she is referring to?? For her whole career in Arkansas, she was a patent lawyer... NOT appropriate experience. Then she was First Lady... NOT appropriate experience (maybe we should nominate Laura Bush, at least she doesn't have the negative poll numbers that Hillary does). And there is her implied claim that with Bill in the White House again, everything will be OK, because she'll be able to talk things out with him. DOESN'T THIS BOTHER YOU??? We are not supposed to have 3 term presidents in this country. DOESN'T IT BOTHER YOU THAT THE CLINTON DYNASTY MIGHT STILL BE IN WASHINGTON??? It sure bothers me !! I want the Clintons AND the Bushes OUT OF WASHINGTON ONCE AND FOR ALL !!!

an out of work writer and a part time musician and still no time left after blogging for any interaction with the poor emotionally stunted kid?'

out of work -- YOU talk about being out of work? LOL.

husband is fully employed as web designer for major global non profits and still has time to pursue musical interests -- and you?

'poor kid' gets straight A's in advanced placement calculus and physics at 16, wins a science fair award, scores in the 95 percentile on psats and still has time to do sound score on school play and work on voter registration and various fundraising activities for local charities --and you?

and we still manage to live in one of the most affluent counties in the country?

yes, poor us. but why bother with you, one of the world's biggest losers? so having said that, i won't.

When Obama was trailing Hillary in the month preceeding the Iowa primary, the media blatantly encouraged Obama campaign to attack Hillary if he wants to have any chance in the primary elections. He did, and the media glorified his attacks and the media happily cornated him as the most memorable candidate with no match in the primary election process. Today, the Obama campaign and the media continue their attacks on Hillary, but they want Hillary and Bill Clinton not to fight back. Obama personally downgraded the legacy of Bill Clinton when comparing to that of the former Republican president Ronald Regan. And, now Obama wants Bill Clinton to step aside. Obama has always used his race to get black votes, and then he accuses Hillary of playing the race card. Hillary naturally plays her gender card, but no, that is a no no for the media pundits. The media unhesitatingly supports all his tactics, but wants Hillary to play dead. Come on, this is getting as nasty as it can get, and I am afraid, that it is not good for Obama himsef. He is an able candidate, and the media is only doing him harm, as happened in New Hampshire. Let us not see race and gender in every word any one utters, as long as it is civilized and relevant. Hillary and Bill Clinton have their right to play their tactics, if Obama can play his. Let the media not take sides on this. Both campaigns are playing up their strengths, and let the democratic voters decide what they want to do.

"I can't imagine why I, or Barack Obama, would be using Ronald Reagan as an example of change," Edwards told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "I would never use him as an example of change. I can tell you that."

Reagan started the huge national debt and turned this once mighty nation into a paper tiger with his "borrow from the future to please the present" manipulation. He also deregulated the media to allow a few superrich to control chains of TV and presses. For anyone cares to notice, Reagan represent the rich. Are these things the "changes" that Obama was talking about?

"McCain believes that America's economic and environmental interests are not mutually exclusive, but rather inextricably linked. That is not a partisan stance, but it is a patriotic one.
Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 21, 2008 05:13 PM"

Of course, Proud, but I am reminded of the uncountable number of times we have heard from the R's that we cannot afford to address global warming. That it will "put us behind in competing with China and India and THEY should do something first not us, no, no, no..." etc, etc ad infinitum.

I expected support to shift to McCain if he truly becomes the frontrunner but if this about face on global warming suddenly extends to ALL R's that would be a truly breathtaking display of moral flexibility.

an out of work writer and a part time musician and still no time left after blogging for any interaction with the poor emotionally stunted kid?

Maybe hillary and her village can step in and operate your household for you instead.

Hey, I'm no TV programming, political guru, but isn't this the second Democrat Party debate in a row that was scheduled on either MLK's birthday, or his federal/national holiday day?

Hmmm?

Now, why would anyone accuse the MSM of "coincidentally" promoting race as a factor as of late in this primary when there's so many other consequential subjects to explore?

Like how Hill-OR-Billary asserts their greater experience rather than dare debate Obama on who has the innate better judgement?

Were not Cheatin' Cheney, Dumb Rumsfeld, Where Are You Now Powell and Take the Fall for Us All Tenet all experienced men? Did not the Senator from New York fall for their tricks and lies? Has she not still defended her ignorance with still more arrogance?

"The ignorant work for their own profit; the wise work for the welfare of the world." --Bhagavad-Gita

'drindl, back away from the economics. It makes you look even more batty than usual.'

pot calling the kettle black-- teehee.

drindl, back away from the economics. It makes you look even more batty than usual.

'Mark, perhaps so, but after awhile you have to stop wrestling against reality.'

considering that you are widely considered to be among the most reality-based posters here, i have to take umbrage in your defense.

btw, my husband, who is a part-time musician, still has one vacuum tube amp and swears it is superior.

danram - it's going to be Mack, Rudy or Mitt at this point. We'll know soon enough. I would be satisfied with any of the three although I still prefer Rudy. He would make a good President but he seems to lack in the campaigning department.

'It's really as simple as that.'

no, jd, it isn't/

'also, it is generally now accepted that FDR's big government policies actually worsened and lengthened the depression.'

by lunatics and historical revisionists like you, yes. but you're the radical rightwing fringe, of course.

The Republican plan for America is FUBAR, no going back. Time to move on.

I believe Bill Clinton is too interested in being one-half of a couple who have both been president of the US. This has never happened before and in all likelihood will never happen again. What glory! He can hardly contain himself. Maybe he will get so carried away he will overstep the bounds of good campaigning, and Hillary will lose.
I like Bill Clinton...I voted for him twice, but I am tired of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton, and I would dearly love to vote for an African American for President once in my life. I believe I could tolerate a ticket of Clinton/Obama, since he would be in line for President in 8 years. What I really understand is that we must not have another Republican in office now. I surely fear for our country in that event.

Hee hee .... This is rapidly degenerating into a very nasty blacks vs. feminists war for the Democratic nomination. Whatever side loses out (most likely Obama's, in my uninformed opinion) is going to harbor a great deal of resentment heading into the general election about their "first" candidate ("first black" or "first woman") being denied their fair shot at the Oval Office. They won't vote Republican, to be sure, but they may stay at home on Election Day, which is, in effect, the same thing.

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!!!

Mark, perhaps so, but after awhile you have to stop wrestling against reality.

Take a look at what happens to Treasury rev when taxes are cut. Every time, at least since post WWII, when marginal tax rates go down, rev to the treas goes up.

Tough to argue with a 100% empirical record. Of course, now the big-govies will say, 'what about the deficits'? To which I'd reply, that's because the spending went up even more than the rev.

A graphical representation of what I'm talking about is here

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/charts_C/c1.cfm

Proud - since Mccain is old and his
VP will likely be handed the office in 4 or 8 years, I would consider an announcement of his VP as a bonus for the voter. In this one situation, I would consider the VP choice to be very important. the others I don't care. call it ageism.

simple simon - I don't prefer to sell my old car or house when I get a new one either, but I must. nothing is ever true or false with you spinning Libs is it? you Kerryites have never gotten over a nuanced postion on everything. what is your favorite flavor of free hillary ice cream?

" in order to pay off other obligations" - well , if the seller is a Lib, they can just get hillary to bail them out of obligations, you know how forgiving the Dems are. student loans, mortgages, past taxes, immigration fines, etc.

also, it is generally now accepted that FDR's big government policies actually worsened and lengthened the depression. Yet hillary thinks big government intervention is the best thing we can do.

koz, I read an interesting article by rich Lowry today on Natl Review. He says Mack should pick Chris Cox as his VP. That's pretty good advice, I think.

Breaking:

Larry Sinclair alledges Barack Obama of using cocaine with him and having homosexual relations with him, in 1999, while Obama served in the IL legislature.

Sinclair offers to take polygraph.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY

Posted by: dpand1 | January 21, 2008 03:55 PM

something about clinton fingerprints all over this one.

Chris Farrel, of Marketplace Money, writes:

"John Kenneth Galbraith's classic account of the Great Depression lists five major weaknesses of the U.S. economy in 1929: an unequal distribution of income; bad corporate governance; a weak banking structure; a 'dubious' balance of trade position; and bad economic advice.

Sound familar?"

http://www.publicradio.org/columns/marketplace/farrell/2008/01/john_kenneth_galbraith.html

"I think it is a good thing that sellers of products find buyers of products. this is called a win-win and everyone goes away happy."

You make assumptions. When the seller is forced to sell something in order to pay off other obligations but would otherwise have preferred not to sell, you cannot characterize the sale as a 'win'. It may be a superior alternative to not selling, but 'win' may overstate the case.

Mr. Cilliza:

Why do you and other media personalities keep saying Hillary Clinton "won" Nevada when she did not when the majority of delegates.

This is like saying "Gore" won the 2000 presidential election.

I think recent comments and tactics from Bill and Hillary are a taste of the tone we can expect in the general election if she becomes the nominee and her presidency if she makes it that far. I think she's burning bridges that would come back to haunt her in low turnout and/or redirected votes in November.

I think her linkage to the divisiveness of the last 16 years is why so many people want "change." They want change from Bush, but they also don't want to just go back in time. I also think the "legacy" issue of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton is undermentioned right now. I think there will be a lot of people who if it comes down to Clinton-McCain or Clinton-Romney or whatever, will have a hard time voting for Clinton, even if they're predisposed to vote Democrat. They may simply not show up to the polls.

Instead of all this very silly back-and-forth on personalities and dirty tricks, how about some focus on these issues:

The War on Selected Terrorists:

Iraq - How do we tamp down violence and withdraw forces without destabilizing the very tenuous civil situation. How do we restore Iraq to some semblance of normalcy? Could the restoration of utilities and economic coherence be a possibility? How?

Afghanistan - Ditto.

Pakistan - How can we help a long-term ally overcome its internal strife and stabilize its democratic institutions while enlisting support for real help on rooting out Bin Laden.

Homeland Security:

What are the top three issues that must be addressed with regard to homeland security? How should they be addressed?

Middle East:

How do we help to broker a peace agreement that involves moderate Arab states to bolster both sides?

How do we help to ensure that nuclear non-proliferation does not die in a mushroom cloud over some town or U.S. base?

Environment:

How do we begin to radically reduce our nation's long-term dependence on foreign oil? Or, does that really matter in the grand scheme of things?

What is the relationship of that effort to a reduction in our global emissions? Where can American ingenuity (and quest for new markets) be directed to achieve both?

Economy:

What should be done to restore consumer confidence and improve our economy? What role does decreasing federal spending have in our economic well-being? What is a proper level of taxation for the next several years? What are the tradeoffs?

What are the key elements to be addressed in the current housing market distress? How big is the impending crisis in the credit markets? How should that issue be addressed?

Education:

What is the proper role for the federal government in local education? How should local and state governments manage unfunded federal mandates?

Health Care:

What, if anything, should be done in the next 4 years to improve the healthcare cost problem and extend benefits to the uninsured?

Transportation and Infrastructure:

What priority should be placed on the nation's highways and especially its bridges? Who should bear the costs?

What role should the Corps of Engineers play in mitigating the eventuality of catastrophic disaster? Who pays?

Workforce development:

How should we approach the economic dislocation being felt by large segments of America's manufacturing sector?

How do we deal with the immigration issue as it relates to workforce availability?

Proud, his victory speech was a very good one. he is certainly a good campaigner, better than the others.

now if he would simply proclaim he was wrong on campaign finance reform and that he will repeal it, we can get where we need to go.

I am hoping that, as a first question they will ask all cadidates to present their stand on illegal immgration. That should tell all South Carolina voters everything they want, or need, to know, about the Democratic candidates.

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama challenged Bill Clinton's truthfulness Monday in a deepening feud with the husband of Obama's Democratic presidential rival.

If he is just now realizing that the clintons lie, how long will it take to determine that Al Queda wants to kill us - right after the mushroom cloud I guess. Must be a Dem thing, Hillary was the last to know bill was a floozy.

Judge: I have seen several times Obama making remarks that were way over the top. I can give slack to his supporters being mainly the "Hillary Haters" that are all over the place spewing LIES. When he does it himself, it is an altogether different matter. The Media in general seldom reports these things, I think because they are some of his strongest supporters, and we have to go to Media of other countries. Someone Posted a video and audio clip today that I had seen on this alternate Media.

The endorsements are welcome, proud.

Several leading Florida newspapers, including The Palm Beach Post, Orlando Sentinel, and Gainesville Sun, have endorsed John McCain for president.

The Orlando Sentinel hailed McCain's "maverick's record of taking on GOP leaders and special interests," saying it "shows he can be the agent of change for which many voters are clamoring."

And the Gainesville Sun described McCain as a "Republican maverick who has never marched in lockstep with his party." He's his "own man," the newspaper said, adding that it most admires McCain "for his principled stand on immigration reform."

http://www.cnsnews.com/ThisHour.asp#McCain's%20'Maverick'%20Streak%20Appeals%20to%20Newspapers

Far right wing xenophobes beware...the border states' voters have the most at stake in the immigration debate and they have the most savvy as well, and will decide based on merit who is the most authentic on this issue.

first mouse - interesting. Bill's only saving grace was his association with the DLC. hillary, of course snubbed them in favor of Kos. and that is why she will never win an election.

didn't you hear - Keynes is long past his freshness date. Only big government libs still try to cite him and they are laughed at in the process. Monetarism is king - thinks uncle miltie.

DAvid Brooks said this afternoon on NPR's All Things Considered that within a year of a Clinton presidency (or co-presidency), we could expect to see a division between the Hillary folks and the Bill folks.

"Generally, increased gov spending is worse for the economy,
less gov spending is better. "

JD, that is certainly un-Keynesian of you.

JD, you might as well try to teach a fish to sing.

bsimon, as late as 1983, I could hear the subtle difference between a great vacuum tube amp and a transistorized one. I could prefer some analog to some digital recordings. But by the time I was 50 [1993] the clarity of the best digital cds was preferable to the "warmth" of analog - because my hearing had slipped, slightly.

At 64 I swear by transistors and digital recordings. Crisp and clear is no longer harsh to my ears, but welcome.

In the Navy I could hear up to 18k - now 13k. This will happen to you too.

BTW, I built my own amps and speakers for years. I sold all my vinyl and my turntable in '90.

claudia, please pay attention.

Governments can do things to help the economy, at the macro level. By reducing regulation and tax burdens, they can create climate of growth and investment by companies, which then generates GDP and tax revenue.

They *cannot* suspend the economic cycle, although they can make it appreciably better or worse. Generally, increased gov spending is worse for the economy, less gov spending is better. It's really as simple as that.

simple simon - I think it is a good thing that sellers of products find buyers of products. this is called a win-win and everyone goes away happy.

everyone except Libs who would have preferred to manage the entire situation into unprofitability.

the Dems are offering in this election:

A return to clinton 3, with the associated scandals, criminality, fecklessness, needy emotionalism and corruption.

OR

A return to Carter 2 with the associated immaturity, cluelessness, arrogance, micromanaging, overt liberalism, feel-good doctrinaire, cowardly foreign policy, ignorant economic meddling, bureaucratic control and strangulation, environmental jihadism and confusion.

"i saw what i think was tull's debut in this country at the pasadena rose palace, 1969. if i'm remembering right, he opened for brian eno and the trinity and led zeppelin debuting 'stairway to heaven'..."

- finally, something drindl actually knows something about - sitting in the cheap seats, getting stoned and listening to music. sort of related to the lack of any knowledge on anything else I suppose.

judge- vinyl is back! Of course, the real audiophiles prefer vacuum tubes to digital.

'When Reagan ended the long national nightmare known as the Carter admin,'

but JD you just said that economies have cycles and that presidents and parties don't have anything to do with them. which is it?

"Judge, here's another trivia item for you: about 15 years ago, I bought Tull's three-CD set celebrating 25 years of Jethro Tull...
Posted by: bsimon | January 21, 2008 04:57 PM"

Thanks, bsimon. For some reason that makes me feel better until I remember that I have the original Aqualung album - bought with my own two hands using money from my paper route - in my stack of records at home.

Analysts say black women this year never have been more engaged in a political campaign or held such power in determining the Democratic nominee.Recent polls show black women are expected to make up more than a third of all Democratic voters in South Carolina's primary in five days.For these women, a unique, and most unexpected dilemma, presents itself: Should they vote their race, or should they vote their gender?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1601

.

judge writes: "Even more interesting/funny is that if it comes down to McCain versus a Generic D, the "global warming is a myth" crowd will have no one to vote for. McCain favors aggressive action on warming."

The way I see it, and the way John McCain sees it I believe, is not as an R or D issue, but as an issue of stewardship and responsibility. As he said, "Americans solve problems. We don't run from them."

His plans include common sense approaches to limit carbon emissions by harnessing market forces that will bring advanced technologies, such as nuclear energy, to the market faster, reducing our dependence on foreign supplies of energy, and seeing to it that America leads in a way that ensures all nations do their rightful share.

McCain believes that America's economic and environmental interests are not mutually exclusive, but rather inextricably linked. That is not a partisan stance, but it is a patriotic one.

judge/bsimon -- i saw what i think was tull's debut in this country at the pasadena rose palace, 1969. if i'm remembering right, he opened for brian eno and the trinity and led zeppelin debuting 'stairway to heaven'...

'Count the astonishing number of posts that Kingofzouk made in one day. Gotta get that lithium refill first thing tomorrow, dude!'

he does that most days. doesn't seem to have any other life. bu considering his personality, that isn't surprising.

me: "[I don't think] it bodes well for our economy that our corporations are coming increasingly under foreign ownership"

Z: "so let me get this straight - foreign investors find the best place to put their money is in US corporations. and that is because our economy is so bad compared to the rest of the world."

Perhaps I was unclear. As you note, foreign investors find our assets cheap now & thus are buying them. The result is that US-generated profits will move offshore (or be reinvested in the US, putting more equity into foreign control). Call me provincial, but I'd prefer to see, generally, US assets in US hands. I'd like to see US profits go to US owners. Do you think its a good thing that US-generated profits are being sent off to state-owned entities run by the Saudis, Kuwaitis, Chinese and others? Personally, I'd prefer to see Americans benefitting from those dollars. Though as I noted above, the silver lining is that economic ties will likely bind us tighter than treaties ever would.

crater, as I've said before, there is no such thing as a generic D. This race is far more about the D than the R.

If it's HRC, there will be so many that turn out on the R side to *vote against her*, not necessarily vote for the R. By that logic, the R's would to well to nominate a Casper Milquetoast, someone who doesn't stand out as anything but the safe alternative to Her Thighness.

That could be McCain, as the safest choice. Mitt's got the Mormon/cult thing working against him, Rudy's has baggage, Huck is too weird in his beliefs, and Thompson's out of money.

I'm just kidding, of course.

Craig, you say Reagan's 'ignorance' of economics caused a recession? You want to put some proof out there for that? Or are you just a troll who likes to throw bombs?

When Reagan ended the long national nightmare known as the Carter admin, inflation was about 14%, mortgage rates in the 20s, and unemployment was about 10%. When he left, inflation was about 4.7%, mortages down to about 7%, and unemployment about 5.5%.

Federal revenue soared 50% despite (or perhaps because of) the dramatic tax cuts that unshackled the economy.

So.... you want to back up your statement? Otherwise, shush, adults talking here.

ooops.

"if you were going to bet, the safe money is on Coleman."

should read

"if you were going to bet, the safe money is on Franken."

South of the border and especially South of Mexico the practice of a spouse succeeding her husband as the country's leader is occasionally referred to as "Banana Republicanism."

rpy1 writes
" what's your take on the Senate race right now? I think this got covered earlier, but does it seem like Franken has a chance? It would sure be nice (from where I sit) to have someone in Wellstone's old seat that could passably represent the state."

MPR had a long piece this AM wherein they inteviewed some DFL activists/delegates about who they support for Senate. Its not a scientific sample, but sounded like they're leaning towards Franken. Also sounds like many like Nelson-Pallmeyer, but fear he's too unknown to be able to beat Coleman. So... if you were going to bet, the safe money is on Coleman. The amusing aspect of the story was when the party people speculated on 'electability'; I don't think party activists have the first clue about how swing/independent voters select candidates. Of course, we see that at the national level as well...

With all due respect to John Edwards, apparently he's forgotten an op-ed he wrote in September of last year..

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86502/john-edwards/reengaging-with-the-world.html

"We need a new path, one that will lead to reengagement with the world and restoration of the United States' moral authority in the community of nations. President Harry Truman once said, "No one nation alone can bring peace. Together, nations can build a strong defense against aggression and combine the energy of free men everywhere in building a better future for all." For 50 years, presidents from Truman and Dwight Eisenhower to Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton built strong alliances and deepened the world's respect for us. We gained that respect by viewing our military strength not as an end in itself but as a means to protect a system of laws and institutions that gave hope to billions across the globe. In avoiding the temptation to rule as an empire, we hastened the fall of a corrupt and evil one in the Soviet Union. The lesson is that we cannot only be warriors; we must be thinkers and leaders as well."
.........

"Millions of people imprisoned behind the Iron Curtain silently cheered the day President Reagan declared, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Even if these ordinary men and women did not always agree with our policies, they looked to our president and saw a person -- and a nation -- they could trust."

In response to a comment here, as far as Michelle Obama campaigning for her husband, and Bill Clinton campaigning for his wife, first, Michelle does not distort, nor lie about Senator Clinton's record. Secondly, she is not a former President of the United States, so her influence can hardly be considered equivalent. No one disputes Bill Clinton's right to forcefully campaign in support of his wife. What people are appalled about, is the disgraceful Rove-like tactics being used. And before anyone calls me an Obama-bot or right-wing nut..I am a 56 year old woman, lifelong Democrat who voted twice for President Clinton.

"Interesting piece in today's WaPo by an admitted liberal; he's very very afraid that the GOP is going to win the Presidential election now, and might even be thought of as the favorite (especially if it's McCain)."

Even more interesting/funny is that if it comes down to McCain versus a Generic D, the "global warming is a myth" crowd will have no one to vote for. McCain favors aggressive action on warming.

"it bodes well for our economy that our corporations are coming increasingly under foreign ownership"

so let me get this straight - foreign investors find the best place to put their money is in US corporations. and that is because our economy is so bad compared to the rest of the world.

Still not following Lib logic.

Pop psychology musings:

does bill want to remain the only victorious Dem in modern times and thus sabotage his wife somehow?

Or would he prefer to rehabilitate his sad image and legacy with another four years of his polcies?

Ultimately, he can't help but make it all about him and the love everyone is supposed to have for him. We don't. We are just not that into you, or your wife. time to moveon.org

Kucinich: Is CNN excluding him?

I've already had to boycott watching ABC and NBC.

Never have watched FOX.

CNN is about my last TV-news hope.

P.S. I've boycotted Exxon for over 15 (?) years now.
I'm on the verge of boycotting Time-Warner cable--
no World Series or Super Bowl coverage.
I guess Kucinich should not be too disheartened to be on a par with the World Series and the Super Bowl.

What ever happened to public TV?

Bob Hughes
Post Falls, Idaho

judgecrater writes
"When did I get to be soooo old?"

Judge, here's another trivia item for you: about 15 years ago, I bought Tull's three-CD set celebrating 25 years of Jethro Tull...

"BHO will win the SC Primary.
He only must appear tonight and not say 'mumble.' Actually,
he could say 'mumble.' There will be no effect. None."

Too funny, Mark.

I happen to agree with you where Obama is concerned. The demographics just don't bode well for Hillary.

The debate, however, will affect Edwards: it will mean the difference between being close enough to HRC's 2nd place or being so far behind as he was in NV that to stay in the race will seem foolhardy.

bsimon - "Thing is, those might be leftover from 04."

That is what I thought a ways back when I began to notice the phenomonom but many are on newer model cars (post 2004). These are virtually the only stickers I see. Almost no other 2008 candidates. No current Virginia races. I've heard the DC area is like an alternate universe but this is ridiculous...

Reagan is definitely not the president to refer to as having a positive effect on the U.S., especially when his ignorance about economics resulted in a recession.
How can anyone think that "George Bush's image will have been rehabilitated" in a few years? There's no way to a control an incurable disease. Just think, it's infiltrated the Republican Party and ruined any productive possibilities it had. Take a look back at the great president and Republican Teddy Roosevelt. The Republicans have incorporated a total reversal to such positive times.

When you think of Hillary, she's exactly what the Republicans want. She says she'll change things and stop the murder of troops in the Middle East, but when you look at her actions you'll notice that she voted for Bush to receive total control of our armed forces be the sole person to decide if/when war will be declared. We certainly don't want a dictator nor do we want someone who doesn't follow up on promises.

I'm an independent and it's easy to see that the Republicans are happy to have the opportunity to run against a female or a minority. Don't believe that I'm a racist or sexist; it's mere common sense that the odds are against a woman or anyone who is black. Unfortunately, the persons most qualified for the presidency are smart enough not to run or they end up not having the looks/money to get the votes. Don't vote based on looks or money. Think about the nation now and what's best for future generations. Of course, that means not voting for someone who enjoys/promotes war as in the "bomb, bomb, bomb"-infected candidate on TV about every day.

True Texans need to return to their mother
party. Who wants an infiltrator of our state smearing it, the nation, and the world? It seems like a lot do since it's happened and is ongoing. Are you willing to get us back on track? If so, do what it takes.

bsimon, what's your take on the Senate race right now? I think this got covered earlier, but does it seem like Franken has a chance? It would sure be nice (from where I sit) to have someone in Wellstone's old seat that could passably represent the state.

Reagan is definitely not the president to refer to as having a positive effect on the U.S., especially when his ignorance about economics resulted in a recession.
How can anyone think that "George Bush's image will have been rehabilitated" in a few years? There's no way to a control an incurable disease. Just think, it's infiltrated the Republican Party and ruined any productive possibilities it had. Take a look back at the great president and Republican Teddy Roosevelt. The Republicans have incorporated a total reversal to such positive times.

When you think of Hillary, she's exactly what the Republicans want. She says she'll change things and stop the murder of troops in the Middle East, but when you look at her actions you'll notice that she voted for Bush to receive total control of our armed forces be the sole person to decide if/when war will be declared. We certainly don't want a dictator nor do we want someone who doesn't follow up on promises.

I'm an independent and it's easy to see that the Republicans are happy to have the opportunity to run against a female or a minority. Don't believe that I'm a racist or sexist; it's mere common sense that the odds are against a woman or anyone who is black. Unfortunately, the persons most qualified for the presidency are smart enough not to run or they end up not having the looks/money to get the votes. Don't vote based on looks or money. Think about the nation now and what's best for future generations. Of course, that means not voting for someone who enjoys/promotes war as in the "bomb, bomb, bomb"-infected candidate on TV about every day.

True Texans need to return to their mother
party. Who wants an infiltrator of our state smearing it, the nation, and the world? It seems like a lot do since it's happened and is ongoing. Are you willing to get us back on track? If so, do what it takes.

Interesting piece in today's WaPo by an admitted liberal; he's very very afraid that the GOP is going to win the Presidential election now, and might even be thought of as the favorite (especially if it's McCain).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/18/AR2008011802870.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

As for the economy; how much hubris does it take to believe that the Government can repeal the economic cycle and avoid recessions... It's very funny to hear some of the big-gov types (including HRC and some on this board) come out with all these plans to avoid any economic pain for all Americans, including bribing me with my own money.

Guess what: the economy moves in cycles. You aren't going to repeal the business cycle. Further, we are far more dependent on global influences than most believe; it's part and parcel of the modern world.

Deal with it. Don't blame Republicans or Democrats, or try to use it as a talking point.

(unless you want to sound like an idiot...)

"I can only guess that the Libs would prefer we don't sell things at a fair price."

The question is not whether or not things are priced fairly. The question is whether or not it bodes well for our economy that our corporations are coming increasingly under foreign ownership. The net effect is that profits distributed to overseas owners will suck more dollars out of our own economy - exacerbating the trade imbalance. In the grand scheme of things, I don't necessarily think its an iherently bad thing, but it is something we need to be aware of. I'm in the school of thought that thinks a globally interconnected economy is a good thing - when ownership of assets are spread globally, it creates an incentive for peaceful relations between countries. Also, all things are cyclical. When Japan's economy was overheated, they bought up a bunch of US assets, at inflated prices, which returned dollars to the US that we had spent there on goods & services. Then their economy crashed, and new buyers scooped up those assets for fire-sale prices. So perhaps when we find alternatives to oil, the Saudi/UAE/Kuwait economies will crash & we'll be able to buy back the assets they're buying now.

"Bill Clinton is definitely overstepping his bounds. I thought Hillary Clinton was a strong, independent woman who got where she is today because of her merits. So why is her husband doing so much campaigning on her behalf?"

Blarg, I'm a staunch HRC supporter, but it does appear that Bill may be getting carried away. Worse yet, it often seems that he's spending more time forming public opinion about his presidency than campaigning for Hillary!

That said, his campaigning for Hillary is to be expected. ALL spouses campaign. If he didn't, what would people say? That he doesn't support his wife's bid for the presidency?

Finally, his campaigning on her behalf in no way reflects on her independence, strength, or individual merits as your second sentence suggest or as Peggy Noonan spent the weekend promoting on the political talk shows.

Take a look back at the great president and Democrat Harry Truman. The Liberals have incorporated a total reversal to such positive times.

It appears from the buzz that Obama might pull out the race card again tonight by being "irate" about things that are said about his background, and hinting it comes from the Clinton camp. Then, her response is characterized, after the debate, as "racist". This is getting tiresome. But in light of the demographics of South Carolina's voters, he won't be able to resist the advice he gets to take the easy shot to push up his win percentage there. Of course, it is a mistake he has been making all along, because in the long run it hurts him for the votes to fall along racial lines, but it's doubtful he'll be able to stop himself from doing it once again.

I expect more negativity from Hillary Clinton in the debate. Maybe her campaign thinks that she can't win with an honest debate on the issues. I could even tolerate her criticism of other candidates, if it was driven by her beliefs on issues instead of merely Clintonian ambition for elected office.

Looks like Hillary has a bit of work to do, at least with the number of people visiting her web site in comparison to Barack's:

Monthly Unique Visitors:
hillaryclinton.com 317,760
barackobama.com 488,911
johnedwards.com 177,667

SOURCE:
http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=40

Reagan is definitely not the president to refer to as having a positive effect on the U.S., especially when his ignorance of what economics resulted in a recession.
How can anyone think that "George Bush's image will have been rehabilitated" in a few years? There's no way to a control an incurable disease. Just think, it's infiltrated the Republican Party and ruined any productive possibilities it had. Take a look back at the great president and Republican Teddy Roosevelt. The Republicans have incorporated a total reversal to such positive times.

When you think of Hillary, she's exactly what the Republicans want. She says she'll change things and stop the murder of troops in the Middle East, but when you look at her actions you'll notice that she voted for Bush to receive total control of our armed forces be the sole person to decide if war can be declared. We certainly don't want a dictator nor do we want someone who doesn't follow up on promises.

I'm an independent and it's easy to see that the Republicans are happy to have the opportunity to run against a female or a minority. Don't believe that I'm a racist or sexist; it's mere common sense that the odds are against a woman or anyone who is black. Unfortunately, the persons most qualified for the presidency are smart enough not to run or they end up not having the looks/money to get the votes. Don't vote based on looks or money. Think about the nation now and what's best for future generations. Of course, that means not voting for someone who enjoys/promotes war as in the "bomb, bomb, bomb"-infected candidate on TV about every day.

True Texans need to return to their mother
party. Who wants an infiltrator of our state smearing it, the nation, and the world? It seems like a lot do since it's happened and is ongoing. Are you willing to get us back on track? If so, do what it takes.

"hey judge -- jethro tull.
Posted by: claudialong | January 21, 2008 02:52 PM"

Took me a minute, Drindl but eventually "Bungle in the Jungle" surfaced in my memory banks. Brings to mind "Aqualung" and "Cross-Eyed Mary" and the incredible "Locomotive Breath." I regard the latter as far and away their best song. When did I get to be soooo old?

"I don't know who will win tonight's debate but if I am judging from bumper stickers, Kerry is a lock for the nomination"

They're cropping up around here, though few are for the Pres race. The ones I have seen have been for the Senate - not for President. Mostly for Franken, a couple for Ciresi & today saw my first 'Coleman 08' sticker. Obama leads the Pres sticker race, though I've seen Kucinich as well. Thing is, those might be leftover from 04.