Hillary has played the gender card and then denied it. She has played the race card and denied it. We are seeing more Rovian campaign tricks than Karl Rove provides. I don't think Democrats care if Hillary wants to use her push calls and negative campaigning against the Republicans. I just hope it will backfire against her in the Democratic campaign. I hope the Democrats mean it when they say they don't want business as usual in Washington. Obama and to some degree Edwards actually offer that to us. So why are you supporting this negative campaigning coming out of the Clinton camp?
Calling Obama and empty shirt doesn't make it so. It is so far from the truth.

Three remarks after reading this whole string:

In a long and intermittently contentious discussion (especially when you-know-who starts leaning on his "enter" key), nobody has yet accused Obama of being a Muslim. This may be a first.

Hardly anyone has spoken up for Edwards. In the Las Vegas debate, he made some good points, but too few, and he kept coming back to them--easily winning the prize for repetition. Did anyone else get the feeling he was running for secretary of health or maybe secretary of energy?

Finally: thank you, Chris, for letting comments be arranged in rational order, i.e. chronologically. At all too many other locations on the WP site, the arrangement is bass-ackward, i.e. newest first, and there doesn't seem to be any way to change it.

I recently decided to vote for Obama. I am a Chicago Democrat living in Nevada. I grew up 6 blocks from where Hillary grew up in Park Ridge. I have always been a huge Bill Clinton supporter. I made my decision based on what I thought was reprehensible behavior by Hillary. In NH, when she made the comment about England being attacked when Gordon Brown became PM, and implied that we would be attacked here if Barrack becomes President, to me is despicable. I would expect this type of comment from George W. Bush. Hillary was desperate in NH and went to the Rovian strategy of fear politics. Shame on you Hillary. Get back to discussing real issues or join the Republican party. You could probably win their nomination with all the bad candidates they have.

Let's see, Hillary won NH by a margin of 39% to 37%. 2% is not a landslide victory. To compare Obama to Hart & Bradley makes no sense. Hart shot himself in the foot by having an affair. Bradley had sound ideas but lacked the charisma to connect with voters. Obama has taken more questions from voters then Clinton and does not plant questioners in his audiences. Media types give themselves way too much credit in thinking they know how the public will vote or what they think. They would be wise to just report the news instead of trying to make news.

Bai's magical advise is "substantive speaches" and "interactive" meetings? Does this guy actually get paid for these gems of wisdom? If so, I am in the wrong business.

What people seem to forget is that just 3 weeks before the NH primary, Obama trailed by upwards of 15 points. The mere fact that it was close in NH (a place that the Clintons were said to have "owned") shows his strength. Clinton should not be happy with a 3-pt margin of "victory" in that state, especially since she and Obama got the same number of delegates from that state.

It will be interesting to see what the hand recount shows once it is complete. The Clintons will do whatever is necessary to win (hence the lawsuit in Nevada filed by a surrogate to prevent the culinary workers' union from having caucus locations at the casinos).

Obama has the support of the people. Clinton's base of support lies with corporations, lobbyists, PACs, and traditional establishment.

PG

a few points bsimon.

first of all, an education will not get you anywhere if there are no jobs for the educated.

when I talked to recruiters at the college campuses at schools I visited recently, they said that they have students crying about not finding jobs. and students enrolling in PhD and Masters programs because they can't find work.

and having taught school where minority students were the MAJORITY, I would say further that an education will not improve their lives if they don't have the social skills to pursue an education, or the discipline from a good family life to support them.

There needs to be an intervention done to teach children what their parents aren't on a daily basis. In all of the grades AT THE SAME TIME, with a different emphasis for each grade level...

high school should be all about becoming an adult

grade school should be all about learning to analyze and communicate.

middle school should be about changing from child to young adult as well as education...thinking about the future, group projects, learning to work in teams...

Mark writes
"The Ds want to expand early childhood development programs and community college sytems, but I haven't seen their budget analyses :-)so I think its just "talk". That's what they do."

and
"affirmative action for poor kids who have either the work ethic or the raw talent [preferably both, of course] will broaden the talent pool of the skilled."

My gut feel is that it would be cheaper to provide a decent education, starting with early childhood development, for the poor than it is to incarcerate significant numbers of them when they reach adulthood. But I can't prove it.

I think that with an education & the chance at a decent future, we'd find a lot of poor kids do have the work ethic & raw talent to excel in our society.

USMC_Mike you are either ignorant beyond belief of a liar...

I think the latter is the case.

What do you do for a living and where do you work, what city????

Have you been outside the beltway recently???

Do you know that there has been a liquidity crisis of late? Do you know why the FED is pumping money into the market??? Is it my illusion or one shared by Bernake.

and as far as personal attack goes, you launch first....

don't whine she man....

you use appeal to emotion and "hand waving," as your argument

you have said nothing of substance and still haven't replied to why I said making the ECONOMY and INFRASTRUCTURE A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE

would change the direction of the economy.

Either you're a whitehouse staffer, or ignorant beyond belief.

EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT RELEVANCE GDP has, prove to me you know what I am talking about. Nothing you have done does that.

a small point:

3 out of four former factory workers are now working retail... are they employed fully?

3,000,000 COMPUTER JOBS WENT OVERSEAS....

companies were first down sized then internationalized. what that means is that a lot of

"AMERICAN" companies have no allegiance to this country and could care less whether or not they make decisions that adversely affect the United States...

those companies with over 15PERCENT of their employees overseas, and that include subsidiaries, should be treated as FOREIGN COMPETITORS.

are you really as dense as you respond. look up "hand waving," nothing you said has any substance supporting it.

you did not answer one question that I posed....are you afraid of me, or just outclassed.... you are too pathetic to even wear on the end of my boot.

.

Mike, if you come back to this later, I agree with you that education is a national security issue. But our federal constitution does not even mention education, and that has always made it hard for me to listen to Prez candidates talk about it.

I have some thoughts, not original with me.

The states that adopt 5 week summers, and disperse the other 11 weeks of vacation throughout the year, will find that their students do better because teachers do not have to spend 6 weeks revisiting the previous year's work.

States that mandate two years of education post HS - vocational or academic, will build more skilled and adaptable work forces.

Local districts that insist on parental involvement will do better than those that do not.

The feds could help with nutrition issues through USDA - killing the sugar binge is a good idea.

affirmative action for poor kids who have either the work ethic or the raw talent [preferably both, of course] will broaden the talent pool of the skilled. Maybe feds could help there if it were part of a broadened service to America program - mil or civ service.
---------------
You got ideas?

Mike, if you come back to this later, I agree with you that education is a national security issue. But our federal constitution does not even mention education, and that has always made it hard for me to listen to Prez candidates talk about it.

I have some thoughts, not original with me.

The states that adopt 5 week summers, and disperse the other 11 weeks of vacation throughout the year, will find that their students do better because teachers do not have to spend 6 weeks revisiting the previous year's work.

States that mandate two years of education post HS - vocational or academic, will build more skilled and adaptable work forces.

Local districts that insist on parental involvement will do better than those that do not.

The feds could help with nutrition issues through USDA - killing the sugar binge is a good idea.

affirmative action for poor kids who have either the work ethic or the raw talent [preferably both, of course] will broaden the talent pool of the skilled. Maybe feds could help there if it were part of a broadened service to America program - mil or civ service.
---------------
You got ideas?

The vote fraud claims -- laughable. Read the exit polls people. Iowa = Obama won men and women. NH = Obama won men; Hillary won women = Hillary won because women = 57% of voters. DONE. Stop complaining.

Mike, if you come back to this later, I agree with you that education is a national security issue. But our federal constitution does not even mention education, and that has always made it hard for me to listen to Prez candidates talk about it.

I have some thoughts, not original with me.

The states that adopt 5 week summers, and disperse the other 11 weeks of vacation throughout the year, will find that their students do better because teachers do not have to spend 6 weeks revisiting the previous year's work.

States that mandate two years of education post HS - vocational or academic, will build more skilled and adaptable work forces.

Local districts that insist on parental involvement will do better than those that do not.

The feds could help with nutrition issues through USDA - killing the sugar binge is a good idea.

affirmative action for poor kids who have either the work ethic or the raw talent [preferably both, of course] will broaden the talent pool of the skilled. Maybe feds could help there if it were part of a broadened service to America program - mil or civ service.
---------------
You got ideas?

I think the debate last night showed that Obama's the movement, Clinton's the campaign.

Obama's the community-organizer, getting other people involved, open to different ideas, moving forward. Clinton's the top-down control freak, holding people 'accountable every single day' and 'managing the bureaucracy'. That's it? Reminds me of the first Bush talking about 'on his watch'. That's it? Just watching? Same old same old?

Obama has 'the vision thing' and is comfortable delegating what he doesn't personally need to do. Clinton's the micro-manager who drives people crazy. (I thought she would have learned from her health care attempt, but apparently not.)

They're both intelligent people, but I can't see Clinton's approach being able to turn around the country.

Obama's resume shows a lot of different kinds of experience. Clinton's is mostly being First Lady of Arkansas and the U.S. As the saying goes, there's a difference between 10 years of experience, and one year of experience 10 times. What exactly has she learned from her experience? Other than old-style politics and old-style management?

But yes, I agree that Obama has to make those differences clear to all the voters.

tesla2 -- what you lack in substantive analysis you more than make up for in your personal attacks - a sure sign of someone who lacks anything meaningful to say at all.

tesla2,

despite my better judgement, I am going to respond. However, I'm shutting her down after this and moving on to other things. As you have already done on this thread, you can take my future silence as a victory to your rhetorical skills and make claims that you scare me and have wiped me on the bottom of your dancing shoe.

"the economy sucks,"
This isn't something you get to just say and make it true. We live in a place called reality, where we can't just will something to be so just because we say it. It's interesting that the trolls like you are suddenly going on and on about the economy rather than Iraq - not only is it a classic, predictable move by the left, but it is an act of desperation to distract the public from success in Iraq. Regardless, you have absolutely nothing to verify your statement. Economists spend half their time trying to decide if we are currently in a recession or not - or if we will be. There is no consensus, and there are mixed signals. But, if a R is in the White House, bad news is good news to a Liberal, right?

"because the middle class has been stripped of jobs to save labor costs..."
This is an interesting point because last time I checked, we had, and have had, record low unemployment rates. Record, as in, lower than 40 years. If you ever take an economics class (which I doubt you have, or ever will), you will understand the relationship between unemployment and GDP. My point here is, unemployment was almost reaching a dangerously low point. But then again, facts and data seem to be but obsticles in your portrayal of a particular world-view. If companies are so focused on saving on labor costs, and you really do believe that is the worst thing that can happen economically, why would you (and your kind) support drastically raising that labor cost, through an unprecedented minimum wage increase, with the full knowledge that it would drive even more middle-class jobs overseas? I'm thinking because buying votes is more important than solving problems to a liberal.

"middle class people routinely spend 85 PERCENT OF THEIR PAYCHECK..."
Assuming I just take your word for it, and I'm not going to, but even if I do, this still doesn't prove much. Outside of it being a bad thing that our savings rates are so low (which is probably something I won't discuss with you, since I'm just trying to keep it on a level you understand), I am assuming you are operating under the impression that rich people bury their money in coffee cans. Because only then does your liquidity argument work. Unfortunately for you, those annoying facts keep getting in the way of your storyline. The fact is, rich people like being rich, and want to get richer - so they invest their money - in stocks, bonds, real estate, hedge funds, mutual funds, and other assets. This money changes hands, grows, is reinvested, and essentially swirls around the economy creating jobs, paying taxes, and helping everyone out.

"wealthy people invest in the stock market giving corporations funds for investing in their manufacturing overseas...which moves money out of the country permanently"
As I said above, rich people do invest - a lot. But, as already discussed ealier in the thread, there is a difference between primary and secondary markets. The fact is, the VAST majority of trades are in the secondary market -- that is, assets changing hands here in the States. You SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED primary markets -- IE, IPO's (Initial Public Offerings), which are actually sold by companies to raise capital when you said this:
"IPO

is not the stock market in general."
Hence, you are limiting the discussion to the 2ndary market, which is a market that generally exists in the United States, and is actually a place where money flows IN to the US, not OUT of the US (as many foreigners like to invest in US assets, as well as publically trade their assets here). So in reality, your analysis about some hypothetical liquidity shortage is 100% wrong.

A final note about moving jobs overseas and them never returning. I would suggest, if you can read, Thomas Freidman's (a left-of-center writer) book entitled The World is Flat. In it, he discusses the fact that not all outsourcing is bad; that it can result in net gains to the US in a variety of ways; that we are seeing more insourcing overall (IE, Toyota opening a plant here - imagine that). You have to view the world economy as something that is intrinsically intertwined - that what happens here affects other parts of the world, etc. Of course, that might be a bit above your pay grade, so for now, just buy the book.

As I said, it was against my better judgement to even dignify you with a response. I don't expect you to do the same because I have things to do this evening -- you can interpret that as a victory dance, as you did above.

how do we keep jobs and money in the United States?

you'd have to make it a National Security Issue.

the infrastructure and economy would have to be seen as National Security Issues.

with outsourcing being regulated. _ILLEGALS_ stopped by arresting employers and revisting the NAFTA agreement.

that and arresting the current cabal in the Whitehouse would be a good start.

I am going to eat.

as far as being a liberal, that must make you a homosexual....that's what I see you as, albeit a particular kind of one.

since you get to give me the label of "liberal", I give you what seems to be your label.....

your presenting persuasion...

and I don't mean that in a derogatory fashion, as I am sure you didn't mean your labeling me a "liberal," as a derogatory statement....it's just something that seems to be part of your position...the way you hold/handle yourself like Larry Craig does....saying one thing and doing another...

are you from I da ho? hypocrite....neo con spriator/zionist/blackwater kinda guy....

you seem like Jeff Gannon kinda guy.

Whether the movement catches fire and propels Obama to the nomination and presidency, or if it doesn't succeed in reaching critical mass, it IS a movement.

I won't be sad for Obama if he comes up short, I'll be sad for America because it will again have failed to choose a leader for these difficult times. There is an inevitability to an Obama presidency at some point, but our problems will grow bigger the longer we wait. How much time do we have? "The fierce urgency of now" is not just a phrase borrowed from Martin Luther King. It describes the rationale for this candidacy and this movement.

USMC_Mike created an illusion of having an insight:

tesla's non-answer to a simple question, as summarized:

-make it a nat. sec. issue

-arrest EMPLOYERS of illegals

-arrest Bush

tesla replies:

and how are those non answers, how truly stupid are you?

can you even correctly interpret what I write? do I need to hold your hand so that you can look from the screen to the keyboard to actually understand what I've written?

or are you purposely misinterpreting what I am saying as a position?

take the first statement....what does it mean? why would I say that?

I have some business to attend to. why don't you reply to what I have written this time wuss?

do you need to fabricate to win, we call that "strawman," little girl.

.

I suspected Obama was more or less supported by the DNC bosses for a while to drum up younger voter's interest in the election and increase turnout for HRC in the Fall election. I suspect his campaign and organizational funding will dry up even if he manages to do well in huge March Primary. Sen. Clinton has the lock on the mainstream Democratic Party moneybrokers except a few government labor unions. Take a look at her financial backers. Take a look at his. Someone said on one of these WAPO blogs that we have so much more free media than before. I assume he was referring to the internet. Really? what percentage of people get news from the internet? Mostly high school, college students and some computer savy older adults mostly in the Northeast and west coast. The TV press still picks the candidates to a very large extent. That's five major networks. Visual media is aat least an order a magnitude more powerful than audio and at least two orders of magnitude more powerful than print media, especially with respect to emotion,and I think emotion sways people more than policy, which is scant highly filtered by campaigns anyway. Digging up dirt on a candidate seems to be the most effective way of campaigning from what I'v seen.

'But the way it has been vehemently used by anti-nuclear environmentalists is a hoax.'

But Mike, the only reason there weren't fatalities is because an extremely careful and precise cleanup operation was conducted. At great taxpayer expense--a billion in 1979 dollars, I might add, I don't beleive the utility had to pay anything, although correct me if I am wrong here.

I'm just saying that nuclear power will always involve tremendous, expensive risks and that those should be factored into the benefit equation.

And I think it would be great, actually, if whatever nuclear power we do use would be managed by the military, where there is the needed redundancy and accountability.

the point is this:

putting the "money of the economy," in the hands of a few...

insures that there is very little liquidity.

every middle class family buys large ticket items, a lot of them are manufactured items...or built items...

a very few riche people, buy around the same number of items.....albeit more pricey, still they usually don't buy 1,000 refrigerators and a thousand cars for the money that they get for cutting 1,000 jobs and moving manufacturing to the philipines...

are you still with my little girl?

.

let's examine what I said little wussy:

the economy sucks,

because the middle class has been stripped of jobs to save labor costs...

middle class people routinely spend 85 PERCENT OF THEIR PAYCHECK...

which creates lidquidity in the economy...that is now missing.

wealthy people invest in the stock market giving corporations funds for investing in their manufacturing overseas...which moves money out of the country permanently

which creates lack_of_liquidity...

it's a synopsis. do you know what a synopsis is?

are you a pathological liar and a she man or just a she man???

.

hey she man mike,

you still there?

need some help thinking?

I recently read an article by Madeleine Kunin who was elected governor of Vermont in 1984. It's an interesting angle - one that I had not heard before.

Her take on why Obama lost in NH is:

The answer is that some parts of the country are more ready than others. And it may have to do with the number of women who have been elected to high office in those states.

Forget the pollsters' predictions and apologies for getting it wrong in New Hampshire. Iowa and New Hampshire have different political histories and cultures with regard to electing women. Similar differences among states may play out in voting this month and on Super Tuesday in February.

New Hampshire elected a popular female governor three times, and it has the nation's second-highest percentage of women in its legislature -- 35.8 percent. (My state ranks first, at 37.8 percent.) Iowa hovers near the national average, at 22.7 percent, but it is one of two states (the other is Mississippi) that have never elected a woman to Congress or the governor's seat. Women in high office are not visible to Iowa's electorate.
Women came out in droves for Democratic voting in both New Hampshire and Iowa. The numbers in the two states were nearly identical -- 57 percent women and 43 percent men. But in New Hampshire those women supported Sen. Hillary Clinton over Sen. Barack Obama 46 to 29 percent, while in Iowa they backed Obama 35 to 30 percent.
Why the difference?

Aside from having elected a woman as governor, New Hampshire has become accustomed to seeing women wield the legislative gavel. Both its House speaker and Senate president are women. Their voices and their faces are on the nightly news. It's not startling to see women in power, because they are there in significant numbers. Their hairstyles, color choices and range of emotions are less newsworthy because they are no longer one of a kind.

When researching my forthcoming book, I concluded that electing women is contagious. The states with two female U.S. senators -- Washington, California and Maine -- also have large female congressional delegations and a high percentage of women in their state legislatures. Washington has the added bonus of a female governor. These elected women serve as powerful role models for other women, who see them in action and ask themselves, why not?
They have the further effect of demonstrating to the voters that the diversity that women bring to the political process has its rewards: new ideas, priorities and leadership styles.

Her prediction is:

When the campaigns turn to Nevada, South Carolina and beyond, will women continue to turn out for Clinton in large numbers? South Carolina will be tough. It ranks at the bottom in the percentage of women in its legislature: 8.8 percent. There are not many female role models, and the tradition that a Southern woman's place is in the home still lingers.

Nevada and Florida are friendlier territory. Nevada's legislature is 30.2 percent female, and women hold the offices of attorney general, treasurer and controller. In Florida's legislature, 23.1 percent of the members are women, and the state has five women in Congress.
The more women head legislative bodies and the more women who hold state elective offices, the less often it will be asked whether the country is "ready for a female president."

New Hampshire is ready. As for the rest of the nation, the next primaries may give us the answer.

If this article is credible, I would say to those women supporting Clinton, that I am a female and have waited for 57 years to elect a female president. But this is not the female I want to be the first female president. I would want the first female president to be highly successful and would hate to see her fail because it would mean many more years before the country would be ready to elect another female president. BUT HILLARY IS NOT THE RIGHT FEMALE FOR THE POSITION OF PRESIDENT AT THIS CRITICAL STAGE IN OUR HISTORY. I don't think she has the right leadership skills to navigate our country through the treacherous days that lay ahead. We need someone who is a unifier and not a divider and that person is Obama.

One last comment about last night when Clinton brought up a possible terrorist attack shortly after the new president takes office and suggested she would be the one who could best handle such a situation. Didn't the first attack on the World Trade Center occur during Bill Clinton's presidency? He responded by bombing an empty terrorist training camp. If this is the experience that she brings, it's not enough.

I recently read an article by Madeleine Kunin who was elected governor of Vermont in 1984. It's an interesting angle - one that I had not heard before.

Her take on why Obama lost in NH is:

The answer is that some parts of the country are more ready than others. And it may have to do with the number of women who have been elected to high office in those states.

Forget the pollsters' predictions and apologies for getting it wrong in New Hampshire. Iowa and New Hampshire have different political histories and cultures with regard to electing women. Similar differences among states may play out in voting this month and on Super Tuesday in February.

New Hampshire elected a popular female governor three times, and it has the nation's second-highest percentage of women in its legislature -- 35.8 percent. (My state ranks first, at 37.8 percent.) Iowa hovers near the national average, at 22.7 percent, but it is one of two states (the other is Mississippi) that have never elected a woman to Congress or the governor's seat. Women in high office are not visible to Iowa's electorate.
Women came out in droves for Democratic voting in both New Hampshire and Iowa. The numbers in the two states were nearly identical -- 57 percent women and 43 percent men. But in New Hampshire those women supported Sen. Hillary Clinton over Sen. Barack Obama 46 to 29 percent, while in Iowa they backed Obama 35 to 30 percent.
Why the difference?

Aside from having elected a woman as governor, New Hampshire has become accustomed to seeing women wield the legislative gavel. Both its House speaker and Senate president are women. Their voices and their faces are on the nightly news. It's not startling to see women in power, because they are there in significant numbers. Their hairstyles, color choices and range of emotions are less newsworthy because they are no longer one of a kind.

When researching my forthcoming book, I concluded that electing women is contagious. The states with two female U.S. senators -- Washington, California and Maine -- also have large female congressional delegations and a high percentage of women in their state legislatures. Washington has the added bonus of a female governor. These elected women serve as powerful role models for other women, who see them in action and ask themselves, why not?
They have the further effect of demonstrating to the voters that the diversity that women bring to the political process has its rewards: new ideas, priorities and leadership styles.

Her prediction is:

When the campaigns turn to Nevada, South Carolina and beyond, will women continue to turn out for Clinton in large numbers? South Carolina will be tough. It ranks at the bottom in the percentage of women in its legislature: 8.8 percent. There are not many female role models, and the tradition that a Southern woman's place is in the home still lingers.

Nevada and Florida are friendlier territory. Nevada's legislature is 30.2 percent female, and women hold the offices of attorney general, treasurer and controller. In Florida's legislature, 23.1 percent of the members are women, and the state has five women in Congress.
The more women head legislative bodies and the more women who hold state elective offices, the less often it will be asked whether the country is "ready for a female president."

New Hampshire is ready. As for the rest of the nation, the next primaries may give us the answer.

If this article is credible, I would say to those women supporting Clinton, that I am a female and have waited for 57 years to elect a female president. But this is not the female I want to be the first female president. I would want the first female president to be highly successful and would hate to see her fail because it would mean many more years before the country would be ready to elect another female president. BUT HILLARY IS NOT THE RIGHT FEMALE FOR THE POSITION OF PRESIDENT AT THIS CRITICAL STAGE IN OUR HISTORY. I don't think she has the right leadership skills to navigate our country through the treacherous days that lay ahead. We need someone who is a unifier and not a divider and that person is Obama.

One last comment about last night when Clinton brought up a possible terrorist attack shortly after the new president takes office and suggested she would be the one who could best handle such a situation. Didn't the first attack on the World Trade Center occur during Bill Clinton's presidency? He responded by bombing an empty terrorist training camp. If this is the experience that she brings, it's not enough.

bsimon -- that's less a fundamental disagreement than a problem of implementation.

On face, what you're saying sounds reasonable.

Mark -- I get the same feeling, although not exclusively from the D's (paying lip service without plans, figures, or tangible goals).

I think we need a complete rehaul of the entire ed. system.

Scrap it and start over.

We've got new competition in the world, and they aren't messing around. Education is not only a prerequisite to Democracy, it's a fundamental part of a fair, free market society. And it's something *someone* is going to have to tackle.

claudia -- a hoax in that there wasn't a single casualty or fatality. Was it bad? Yes. But the way it has been vehemently used by anti-nuclear environmentalists is a hoax.

Sorry, I should have clarified earlier.

Mike you said 3 Miles Island was a 'hoax' on the other thread--and then left. Perhaps you were not born yet, but it was quite real:

'The cleanup of the damaged nuclear reactor system at TMI-2 took nearly 12 years and cost approximately $973 million. The cleanup was uniquely challenging technically and radiologically. Plant surfaces had to be decontaminated. Water used and stored during the cleanup had to be processed. And about 100 tonnes of damaged uranium fuel had to be removed from the reactor vessel -- all without hazard to cleanup workers or the public.

A cleanup plan was developed and carried out safely and successfully by a team of more than 1000 skilled workers.

When I see the pseudonym ""Tesla2" I envision a mad experimenter with hair flying from static electricity.

I also skip its posts. Rufi has been doing so much better lately that I hope he does not take offense when I say Tesla2 reminds me of the worst of old Rufi and "che".
It's the style of the posts and the repetition - none of us can claim wonderful substance for each post, although some of you come close.

Mike and bsimon, thanks for providing some civil discourse. The Ds want to expand early childhood development programs and community college sytems, but I haven't seen their budget analyses :-)so I think its just "talk". That's what they do.

"What have we heard, from either side, in any of the debates, about education (other than BR wanting to "be the Education President")?"

Don't know what the Dems have said, if anything. I know a couple GOPers think that school competition via vouchers will improve schools (I disagree*). Lastly, I believe it was George Herbert Walker Bush who wanted to be the Education President. That others are still looking to claim the title is testament to his progress in that area.

* Nutshell disagreement with vouchers: gov't is required to take all comers in public schools. If schools that accept vouchers are likewise required to accept special needs kids, etc, I'm willing to experiment with the idea. If private schools don't want to meet such criteria, they shouldn't get gov't money.

tesla's non-answer to a simple question, as summarized:

-make it a nat. sec. issue

-arrest illegals

-arrest Bush

And, she's gone - to eat (and hopefully, *think*).

bsimon -- I agree with about 85% of what you said. Education, schools, training. I'd rather not see carbon taxes, though.

Your 2nd paragraph is 100% dead on -- and I think most Americans would agree with your analysis. HOW we go about it, is of course, another thing.

What have we heard, from either side, in any of the debates, about education (other than BR wanting to "be the Education President")?

You know tesla, for someone who claims to dance so well

You do so awfully slowly.

And considering the quality of your responses thus far, I'm not sure how much deep thought it is taking to construct them.

"*What is your solution for keeping jobs in America*"

I think you are addressing Tesla, but my answer is: education. Long term that means focusing on improving schools. Shorter term, that means job retraining programs. It might also require some gov't incentives to promote research into new technology. Though other indirect incentives could be imposed via things like a carbon tax and/or gas tax. Point being: advancing technology will be a huge boon to domestic industry & manufacturing. Many of those jobs require more skills than traditional blue collar / manufacturing jobs, thus the need for training programs and improvement of schools.

What really ticks me off though, in terms of the failure of our society to act & solve a problem, is the number of people that we are not utilizing effectively. Every person on welfare represents an un or underutilized resource. Every person we can move off welfare and into the job force reduces gov't expenses on social programs & boosts gov't revenue through income tax collection. That is a benefit to all taxpayers.

IPO

is not the stock market in general.

your misconstruing what I said doesn't make your fabrication or analysis correct.

how do we keep jobs and money in the United States?

you'd have to make it a National Security Issue.

the infrastructure and economy would have to be seen as National Security Issues.

with outsourcing being regulated. _ILLEGALS_ stopped by arresting employers and revisting the NAFTA agreement.

that and arresting the current cabal in the Whitehouse would be a good start.

I am going to eat.

as far as being a liberal, that must make you a homosexual....

since you get to give me my label, I give you what seems to be your label..persuasion...

and I don't mean it in a derogatory fashion, as I am sure you didn't mean your label in a derogatory fashion....it's just something that seems to be part of your position.

.

"what I am really saying..."

The sure tell of a professional spinner.

"No, I didn't say you were a liar. What I am *REALLY* saying, is that you are ethically challenged in truth-telling".

What a great performance!

Well you are a fine dancer -- you danced around my answer.

So, we've established that you don't understand:

-The purpose of an IPO or other offering
-The difference between a primary and secondary market
-The link between our capital markets and our economy as a whole

You liberals are so good at tearing others down, without offering a solution of your own.

One question for you. And I hope you answer.

*What is your solution for keeping jobs in America*

I disagree with the comparison between Barack Obama and Senators Bradley and Hart. I think Barack Obama is more than an insurgent or a liberal lion but a force without a clear contemporary comparison.
Checkout what Veracifier.com says about this.
The veracifier.com/forum also has some interesting debates on this topic.

actually you are confusing a part of what I said.

what I am really saying is that the robustness of the stock market has nothing to do with the economy of the country...

which is what many people don't understand as GDP has been linked with paper transactions that have nothing to do with anything being produced....which is misleading.

investing in the stockmarket, gives the company resources, which it spends to make more money....historically that investment would be in_country

buying equipment, building, or hiring people for manufacturing/sales/computer_work etc.

nowdays, you have a portion of quasi AMERICAN companies with a few people in_country with a greater group overseas, and a resulting expenditure overseas that never reaches the pockets of the in country people that have had their jobs out_sourced.

.

By some measures, Barack Obama has a thin record. He's a Senate newcomer who has never worked in the White House governed a state or run a business.
Democratic presidential rival Hillary Rodham Clinton points to his resume as evidence that Obama is not ready for the White House. "He was a part-time state senator for a few years, and then he came to the Senate and immediately started running for president," she says dismissively.
Obama's accomplishments are more substantial and varied than Clinton suggests. And he has a longer record in elected office than she does, as a second-term New York senator.
Obama was a community organizer and led a voter-registration effort in Chicago that added tens of thousands of people to the rolls. He was a civil rights attorney and taught at one of the nation's premier universities. He helped pass complicated measures in the Illinois legislature on the death penalty, racial profiling, health care and more. In Washington, he has worked with Republicans on nuclear proliferation, government waste and global warming, amassing a record that speaks to a fast start while lacking the heft of years of service.
The Illinois Democrat likes to quote something Bill Clinton once said: "The truth is, you can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience. Mine is rooted in the real lives of real people, and it will bring real results if we have the courage to change."
After college, Obama moved to Chicago for a low-paying job as a community organizer. He worked with poor families on the South Side to get improvements in public housing, particularly the removal of asbestos.
"Nobody else running for president has jumped off the career track for three or four years to help people," said Jerry Kellman, who first hired Obama as a community organizer.
Obama also fought for student summer jobs and a program to keep at-risk children from dropping out of school. More importantly, say those who worked with Obama, he showed people how to organize and confront powerful interests.
"He had to train residents to stand up for their own rights," said former organizer Loretta Augustine-Herron, who was part of Obama's Developing Communities Project.
Obama left that job to get a law degree. Afterward, he returned to Chicago and ran Project VOTE. The organization recruited hundreds of registrars to sign up new voters, particularly within the city's black population. Registration jumped nearly 15 points between the 1992 primary and the general election.
The registration wave was credited with making Carol Moseley Braun the first black female senator and helping Bill Clinton carry Illinois in his first presidential race. It also got insiders talking about Obama as a political candidate.
Obama then spent several years focusing on the law, both as an attorney at a small firm specializing in civil rights and as a lecturer on constitutional law at the University of Chicago.
As an attorney, he was on the team that successfully sued the state of Illinois for failing to implement a federal voter-registration law. Obama also worked on case of a whistle-blower who lost her job after exposing waste and corruption in a medical research project. The whistle-blower ended up with a $5 million settlement.
Obama was elected to the Illinois state Senate in 1996, when Democrats were in the minority. He proposed hundreds of new laws, including universal health care, tougher gun control and expanded welfare, but saw most of them spiked by Republican leadership.
He did have some successes, though -- particularly in passing legislation sharply restricting the gifts that Illinois politicians could accept from lobbyists. Illinois has notoriously weak government ethics laws, and the Gift Ban Act was the first major new restriction since the Watergate era.
Obama also helped set up Illinois' "KidCare" program that provided health care to children in families that did not qualify for Medicaid.
John Bouman, president of the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, said Obama's work helped make the program more consumer-friendly. He also said Obama was often willing to give up credit for the legislation if that helped win Republican support.
"It tells you something that as a relatively junior member in the minority party, he was an important negotiator," Bouman said.
When Democrats gained a majority in the Senate, Obama's political mentor, Senate President Emil Jones, gave him high-profile assignments, including two contentious issues involving police -- videotaped interrogations and racial profiling.
Police weren't happy about recording their interrogations of murder suspects or having to study racial bias in traffic stops. Initially, they opposed both pieces of legislation.
But Obama made clear that something was going to pass with or without their support. Ultimately, police groups endorsed both bills and they won unanimous approval in the Senate.
Obama was generally regarded as an effective and practical, although decidedly liberal, state lawmaker. One of his Republican colleagues was so wowed that he has appeared in an Obama campaign ad, but others aren't impressed by his legislative record.
"I would say it was run of the mill, honestly," said Sen. Christine Radogno, R-Lemont, who entered the legislature at the same time Obama did.
Obama was a part-time state senator in that he served in the Illinois legislature at the same time he practiced law. He became a state lawmaker in 1997, four years ahead of Hillary Clinton's entrance into elected office, as U.S. senator.
When Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate, he said he wished to get things done rather than grab headlines, and cited Hillary Clinton as the sort of workhorse he wanted to be.
He teamed with Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., to study the dangers of nuclear proliferation and pass legislation meant to keep nuclear material from falling into the hands of terrorists.
Obama also joined with Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., after Hurricane Katrina to improve oversight of federal spending.
And he shared billing with a Republican presidential hopeful when he joined Arizona Sen. John McCain in sponsoring legislation that called for sharp, mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. The effort failed.

I'm glad you think so highly of yourself.

If only your analysis matched your self-opinion.

"what do companies do with money that they receive in sale of stocks?

some give dividends, and reinvest that money in the company....currently a lot of manufacturing investment is going overseas. "

I've NEVER heard of a company who went public with an offering, to use the money as dividends.

You are obviously insane.

Company A wants to buy bldg. They sell stock to Investor B.

B--$$-->A
A--ownership-->B.

NOT, as you suggest,

Company A wants to give some dividends. They sell stock to Investory B.

B--$$-->A
A--$$-->B

What's the point?

You are linking 2 different things together (stock offerings and outsourcing).

USMC_Mike replies snidely:

hey tesla, if you buy a stock, whom do you think you buy it from?

a corporation?

no, it's called a secondary market.

The money is here, and stays here.

liquidity is not an issue.

stick to foil hats.

tesla replies:

some of it does, but by in large investment in a company by purchasing it's stock gives the corporation liquidity. The money spent on the transaction is negligible. what do companies do with money that they receive in sale of stocks?

some give dividends, and reinvest that money in the company....currently a lot of manufacturing investment is going overseas.

outsourcing is sending whitecollar jobs overseas at the same rate as bluecollar jobs....surgeries are starting to be done overseas

I admire your deep and thoughtful approach to using neocon selling points like disparagement as a tactic, wanna dance?

I will be wearing you on the end of my shoe.

.

the middle class has historically funded the govnerment, since the 50's, been the biggest tax base...

people like George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush have never worked for a living....they earn their money by providing and doing favors...

graft/payola/grift/insidertrading/assassination/influencepeddling/pork/comity

they don't know how to do a job right, have no understanding of the principles of engineering or the ecology of a market place...

they inherit their skillset, connections

they don't understand that there isn't any room for stupidity in decision making.

that we are in an era in history where several things are overlapping simultaneously that could create problems

because of the size of the population, the interconnectedness of economies and the ecologies of the world interacting with no thought towards damping those interactions...

damping refers to "smoothing out" penduluum reactions...

swings/oscillations of systems that are undamped,

a normal part of reality....predictable, unavoidable.

OIL/ENERGY/FOOD/ARIBLE LAND/POPULATION/WEATHER

are all inextricably connected right now...

populations too high, bushCO and CRONYs are focusing on making the deal not the impact their using the United States Military as a business tool will have on the world or the United States LONGTERM.

.

hey tesla, if you buy a stock, whom do you think you buy it from?

a corporation?

no, it's called a secondary market.

The money is here, and stays here.

liquidity is not an issue.

stick to foil hats.

the economy sucks,

because the middle class has been stripped of jobs to save labor costs...

middle class people routinely spend 85 PERCENT OF THEIR PAYCHECK...

which creates lidquidity in the economy...that is now missing.

wealthy people invest in the stock market giving corporations funds for investing in their manufacturing overseas...which moves money out of the country permanently

which creates lack_of_liquidity.

oh come on, what do you think?

so why is the economy in the state that it's in.

and what's wrong with the current administration?

' ignoring the very real fact that we are all in a whole lot trouble with every candidate utterly clueless as to what to do.'

i'm not. i'm scared for my kid's future. but what are we gonna do about it?

What I am afraid of is the future for this country. The economic mess we're in is something that not even Edwards has any idea of how to deal with. Instead, the various partisan's opn forums like this one are busily engaged in trading insults and rumors, enthusiastically and mindlessly cheerleading various candidates, and ignoring the very real fact that we are all in a whole lot trouble with every candidate utterly clueless as to what to do.

novamatt writes a pretty cogent discussion.

what the candidates need to understand is that they should look at questions such as

"have you stopped beating your wife yet,"

as implicating the questioners, in leading the audience to conclusions....

that any fair judge would sustain an objection to a rebuttal of the question asked that attempts to frame or cast the candidate in a certain way....

the candidates need to learn how to rebut biased questions, without taking the direction of the moderators as worthy of defense...

I am tired of the race/sex spin.

what do they stand for, how effective can they be.

"Substantive speeches" and "interactive town halls"

Obama needs to give a Major Policy Address to some Major Policy Organization like CFR or Brookings or even just the National Press Club in order to re-assert his foreign policy bona fides.

But one speech on that and maybe one on domestic issues should be enough. The media won't even cover the substance of a substantive speech. They would just obsess about how the "new substantive strategy" was playing and how Hillary might respond. And then we'd be back to "Ovaries or Melanin: We Report, You Decide." Voters would only hear the speech itself if they happened to be clicking past C-SPAN late at night.

Oh, and there's about another five days before the candidates all pack away their "interactive town hall" props for the season. Bai makes a pretty sucky strategist.

I don't have a problem with people not liking a candidate.

I have a problem with them not being able to back that opinion up with something tangible.

I looked at a couple of mibrooks posts in March of 2007 and they seemed to show a certain insight into the IRAQ situation... And an understanding of the World situation.

I worked in Washington D.C. pre 80's to 2000+

I don't have opinions that I can't back up. I also worked Defense, and have some intelligence background.

My personal opinion is that people of merit should be working to remove the deadwood currently running things, not waste energy attacking each other in appeal to emotion forays.

I would like Dennis K., Edwards, Obama, Clinton to go down to the wire together, simply because more would get said of import. As Perot and Tsongas helped to raise people's awareness of issues when they were there....

Tsongas was critically ill and knew that there was a good chance he might not live and wasn't afraid to speak the truth.

Perot was so rich, he wanted nothing more than to speak the truth to a listening audience...

I applaud insight. I disapprove of appeal to emotion....I can use it, but I prefer to educate.

I enjoyed Portland Oregon and fished a couple of times on the Sandy, and Willamette...as well as some desert trout fishing near the Indian Reservation past Welches.

"Apparently his state campaign director was arrested for cocaine and it got a lot of press. boo hoo..."

Nice catch, Drindl. Wasn't aware of that. Yes, let's cry Rudy a river.

tesla: mibrooks is scared of many things and types of people. He is probably also mad because his chosen candidate, John Edwards, is running a poor third.

'Good point, Colin. "Liberal insurgent" sounds a lot like a phrase designed to designate liberals as terrorists. More GOP-speak from the MSM? Shouldn't McCain be labeled an insurgent Republican?'

Abso, judge and colin. One of the dem's problems in how the MSM describes everything in republican frames. I think much of hte time they aren't even aware of it.. And yes, CC is very young.

I was listening just now to NPR and editors and pollsters from S. Carolina. McCain has 'surged' ahead of Huckabee, as it were, and it it thought that Fred will beat Mitt, although close. Rudy, who started ahead with 19% is now down to 3. Apparently his state campaign director was arrested for cocaine and it got a lot of press. boo hoo...

are you afraid of me mibrooks27 ???

seems like your position as a Clinton basher would put you squarely into the Kampe of the repulsive_scammers

wouldn't it?

.

o gosh mibrooks27,

you sure put me in my place didn't you.

ha ha ha....

the maelstrom is the lack of insight you are trying to sell.

.

drek0002 - "Why not just use "Obama, adulterer!!!" as your next headline and skip the subtlety? Nice journalism."
The Clitnon campaign already used that one against Edwards. They literally invented a National Inquirer front page and that idiot Matt Drudge dutifully published it.

it could be a back handed swipe at the INDEPENDANTS...

I understand Hart is making some commitment to them...

being manipulated by CIA DISINFORMATION TACTICS....

is not something that the people of the United States should have to contend with when making their choices.

I would hold the media to higher standards than the posters....

but it doesn't seem to be the truth. many times comments contain more truth on a percentage basis than the articles....

truth is considered less relevant than manipulation....

no wonder AMERICA is depressed.

Like all analogies, the establishment versus insurgent is simplistic.

Insurgents are "movement" candidates only because their pitch is usually that Dems need to expand their coalition in order to win the general election and get something done. When the insurgents are right, they win the nomination and the Presidency: JFK in 1960, defeating older, more "establishment" Dems like LBJ, Humphrey and Symington. McGovern '72 is a case of an insurgent winning the nomination but losing the general. Everyone wants to be the next Kennedy -- no one wants to be tagged as the next McGovern.

The Establishment candidate is generally trying to rally the existing troops, who are only to happy to support the establishment, the known quantity. But such candidates, when they succeed in getting the nomination, never win the general election: HHH in 1968, Mondale in 1984, Gore in 2000, Kerry in 2004.

Of course, the Democratic contest isn't always about an "establishment" versus an "insurgent" candidate: e.g. 1976, 1988 and 1992.

It is questionable whether this year's contest is really Establishment versus Insurgent rather than more like 1976, 1988 or 1992. HRC, unlike Humphrey '68 & '72, Mondale '84, Gore '00, is NOT a former VP or nominee. She is not, like LBJ and Humphrey in 1960, an elected leader in the Senate Democratic caucus. While Obama is a "movement" type candidate in the fashion of JFK, McGovern, Hart and Bradley, he is NOT, unlike them, challenging party "orthodoxy" on any big issue or up against an incumbent VP or former VP or nominee. And unlike Hart and Bradley, he has a well-financed, nationwide campaign with lots of support from Democratic office holders, though not as much as Clinton.

While NH may have looked like a classic Establishment-Insurgency contest, Iowa did not and it remains to see how this will play out in the other states.

tesla2 - ...and you are a blithering idiot, an easily manipulated fool, and someone so willfully stupid that you deserve the extinction that is surely your lot in the looming crisis.

Using the headline "Obama, the new Gary Hart?" is a pretty nasty thing to do. Especially when the only time in your text that you refer to Hart is to refer to hem as a "classic liberal insurgent."

You know, or should know, that the one asociation Gary Hart is most known for is being caught with his blonde girlfriend on the Monkey Business when he was running for president. I saw your headline and clicked it fully expecting to see some sort of innuendo about an affair- instead I got a rehashed NYTimes piece.

Why not just use "Obama, adulterer!!!" as your next headline and skip the subtlety? Nice journalism.

After reading several of these FIX articles from Chris it is pretty obvious that he is a big Clinton supporter. I don't think I have seen one critical piece on Clinton yet. He sure does like to questions the legitimacy of the Obama campaign though. In yesterdays article he even seemed to lay most of the blame for the racial back and forth on Obama, rather than Clinton.

Another good, objective piece of garbage from a so-called reporter.

Monkey Business and philandering hurt/killed Hart in '88, but really did not affect him in '84. there was talk about changing his signature, shaving a year off his age, and being on the outs with his colleagues in the Senate in '84, but the extra-marital stuff was merely background. It has nothing to do with the insurgency / movement argument or its succes or failure.

mibrooks27 how are you?

why do you make up stuff and pretend to be legitimate journalist in your real job?

.

I sense that aepelbaum ist der ZIONISTAs

pretending to offer a sincere viewpoint...

like Karl Rove did...

somehow the backup tapes were reused.....

what a mystery, how could that happen?

it couldn't without someone commiting a crime.

arrest someone even if it's the system admin....start there.

.

how is it possible that "insurgents,"

a branding by and for neocons finds acceptance in the MSM ???

are you sure that whoever is using the word "insurgents,"

isn't manipulating the situation by trying to use

"APPEAL TO EMOTION,"

how simple are you all, that you let this happen in AMERICA.

what a despicable bunch of shallowness...

baahhhhhhhhh baaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhh baaaaaaaaa

herding is the only thing you know.

.

Statisticians and election specialists believe that the recount underway in New Hampshire will show that Obama carried the Granite State by the 7 or 8 percent anticipated in the polls. When asked about that earlier, you ducked the question. The NH election results do not make any sense no matter how one corrects for demographics, sex, education, population density of the precinct -- and all the rationalizations presented in the mainstream press are just that. If this is the case, and we'll know in a few weeks, all your mutterings and prognostications are just a disservice to your paper and readers. There is a carelessness in the press that borders on the irresponsible. One person's candidate may be another's movement, for in an absolute world, movements are a relative thing. If both you and Matt Bai had hoped to write the same thing, it's just the latest fad that's in the air, and no doubt wrong -- like all the geniuses that were determined to convince the world that democracy was about the marketplace, it will pass.

Uh, Chris. Pardon me for posting before reading the other posts, but the Obama as Hart thesis fundamentally mischaracterizes the NH voter. That was the state that launched Hart, while in Iowa Mondale cleaned up. Yes, Hart won in rural areas enough to finish a surprising 2d, but he was still <20%, if I recall correctly. NH then and now has always had an antiestablishment core that pops between primaries, while the Iowa Ds pretty much has been an estblishment vote since 1980 (Carter, Mondale, Gephardt, Harkin (local establishment), Gore, and Kerry (v. Dean)). You can say the flavor of his campaign is "movement," but you can't say his strong / weak state correlate well to the historic movement v establishment geography.

What could make Obama a lot different than the Bradley / Tsongas / Hart insurgent profile would be if he is also able to tack on African Americans. African Americans had a lot to do with Mondale, WJClinton, and Gore winning once the nomination season moved outside the 1st two states, and that is likely to keep this nomination in play beyond 2/5.

claudialong: "Hillary won one little state?"

Since the only measure of win/loss that counts are delegate numbers, and since both Obama and Clinton received 9, then it is wrong to say Hillary won. They tied.

By the same measure Obama is ahead in total delegates (by 1), not counting super-delegates who will just vote for the runaway frontrunner at convention.

I think it is in the best interests of Obama and the Clintons to consider that any baiting in the press,

in supporters of either side is probably

being paid for by insider WASHINGTON DOLLARS...

repulsive_scammers, bushCO and CRONYs Military Industrial Complex, latino drug people, Sand Brothers....UAE/SAUDI/KUWIAT, ZIONISTS

those people don't want to lose control of the UNITED STATES ECONOMY or MILITARY to use for their personal fun and profit...

bushCO and CRONYS HAVE THE MONEY IN THEIR HANDS RIGHT NOW...they don't want to give it up...

just like any good embezzlers they will be leaving a paper trail linking it to "anyone but them,"

if OBAMA OR THE CLINTONS think their most dangerous enemy is "each other,"

they are both clueless.

for example: Kerry lost in 2004 against an alcoholic draftdodger who lives to be paid off by his fathers friends...George W.

is THE MOST VULNERABLE TO THE TRUTH of any president we have ever had....so why did Kerry lose?????

maybe he took a dive....maybe he is now part of the WHITEHOUSE CREWE...and Obama has been infiltrated....

to weird? please

SEARCH on BUSH CRIME FAMILY, NAZIS if you want weird...

war profiteering for the Bush family starts in WWI....

they get rich on WAR_UH!!!

...it's what they do.

howz the eoconomy kidz????

outsource all the jobs?

and wonder where a vibrant economy went?

please, pull your head out of your endos

.

"It seems like any criticism of Obama for being an empty shirt or for anything at all gets met with substanceless howls of protest."

Well said.

I have a hard time buying "good judgement" as a substitution for any and all qualifications for the office.

"Good point, Colin. "Liberal insurgent" sounds a lot like a phrase designed to designate liberals as terrorists. More GOP-speak from the MSM? Shouldn't McCain be labeled an insurgent Republican? "

My personal view of liberalism notwithstanding, I agree. Either use it on both or neither. Although, I do think he has referred to McCain as such.

Regardless, I would prefer a scrupulously unbias American Media than what we have today.

Chris, you really need to stop hanging around Chris Matthews and the rest of the beltway inbreds. Y'all completely missed how the debate came across last night...just as you missed how Hillary came across in New Hampshire.

Do some real journalism and hang out in the malls, school cafeterias, airports, subways and busses....and listen to what real voters are saying.

Edwards and Obama rocked that debate and Hillary's "power-grab" was taken as a negative, not a positive. Matthews was completely off on that one.

Head into the Hispanic areas and you'll find hear of anti-Obama (aka anti-black) talk. This is what the Clintons hope to take advantage of by playing the race card.

Now, go work for your pay.

But Obama has a good slice of mainstream Dems on his side. And NH is just a wacky state. It'll be a close slugfest the rest of the way between all three candidates.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

I don't support Obama (I find his speeches completely vacuous) but I don't agree with the premise of this column. Reagan was a "movement" candidate and he won. Carter, who came in "to heal", won as well (not something we should be proud of- Ford was actually a pretty good President but a lousy campaigner). The deciding factor for both was the lame-ness of their opponent's campaign. Obama could probably have a good chance to beat any Republican running right now except McCain- the others are all hobbled by their ties to the policies of the current administration. That does not mean that Obama should be the President at this point in his career- far from it. But a "movement" candidate can beat a bad candidate or a bad platform.

colin - worse than funny - peculiar rewrite of history. That's why I mentioned BB as one of the great tax cutters of the 20th C.

Ironic to call him the "liberal" insurgent.

Now we have bad history and bad journalism and CC's admission that he wishes he had written it. CC is very young.

Good point, Colin. "Liberal insurgent" sounds a lot like a phrase designed to designate liberals as terrorists. More GOP-speak from the MSM? Shouldn't McCain be labeled an insurgent Republican?

The problem with Obama is that there's nothing behind the speeches.

Okay, children, learn to play nice or you have sit in over recess. The Clirtno attacks on Obama worked. He went from being the candidate of hope to being "taht black guy running for president", no different than Jesse Jackson. The "toxic hag" wrecked Obama's chances. Now, she and her managers are hoping/counting on the short memories of the dimwits that compose the voting public to forgive her in the general election, or be so frightened of the utter morons the Republican's are running that they will hold their noses and vote for Hillary anyways.

The tradegy of all of this is that neither Clinton nor Obama (but, then, neither do *any* of the leaders of either party) has a clue about the train wreck this country is embarked upon. Bith actually contributed to it and their proposed polcies will worsten the problems. At best, globalization, "free trade", was an experiment that went horribly wrong. This country, and our corporations, jumped off the globalization bridge without a clue as to what was benieth it. Now, we are reaping the worst inflation in 26 years (or, depending on which report you are reading: 17 years, 34 years, ever), a record low (and still falling) dollar, foreign debt that amounts to more than our GNP, rising inflation, rising unemployment, at the same time that we are excellerating the offshoring of our production capacity and technology. More than half of the students in our public university hard sceince, engineering, computer science, and medical schools are either Chinese or Indian nationals. Their tuition and fees are paid for in blocks by their governments. It provides as much as four times the tuition and fees to these universities as they receive from Amercian students with none of the headaches of looking for financial aide and it is a lot cheaper for the governments of China and India - it costs a lot of money to build and staff a university and using us is a lot cheaper. So, while we are distracted by this made for television bickering between "our team", this country and your future, your very survival, are fadding away. Think about this today...and play nicely amoungst yourselves.

bsimon | January 16, 2008 02:06 PM

Yes, NPR those Nice Polite Republicans would fall all over Republican-lite Obama's economic package. After all, it was developed by neoclassical economists like Austan Goolsbee who think the free market is the answer to everything.

The person who liked Obama's proposal so much was David Wessel, economics editor at the Wall St. Journal, which tends to lean to the right so it's little wonder he liked Obama's package.

Does anyone else think its funny that this post talks about Bradley and Hart as "liberal insurgents?" Both men were certainly insurgents, but against a more liberal democratic establishments. Hart and Bradley were both "new" kinds of democrats who were trying to take the party in a different direction.

Obama is probably more progressive than either of those two guys, although he shares their desire to get beyond ideological fighting so we can actually solve problems. All three are also great on "good government" process oriented issues. But ideological comparisons are shallow and really not on point here.

For heaven's sake, people, make up your minds. First it was "Obama is the new JFK," followed by "Obama is the new RFK," and "Obama is the new MLK." And now he's the "new Gary Hart"? Please be reminded that Gary Hart's candidacy ended with a photo of a blonde who was not his wife sitting on his lap. I can hardly wait to see who'd be sitting on Obama's lap....

Matt Bai lacks perception. His NY Times magazine story on Howard Dean in October 2006 was slightly better than a hatchet job. In the midst of trying to deliver a balanced story Bai dug the knife rather deeply whenever he could:

[he] "unleash[ed] his usual brand of havoc"

A "flawed visionary" like Woody Allen

His behavior "seemed somewhat bizarre ... also strange"

"Dean is treated like a Beatle by rank-and-file activists who have rarely seen a party leader in their midst, but for the rest of the country, Dean is that lefty who howled on national TV."

Bai's focus was on the in-fighting between Dean and the DC Establishment, overshadowing any real accomplishments. Bai is a hacktackular writer. No surprise Cillizza thinks he's the bee's knees.

On the Obama campaign, I think he needs to do what I said he needed to do 10 days ago. He needs to get back to policy; the 'movement' thing is fun. The soaring speeches about a new kind of politics is great, its inspirational and all that. But its not what drives the voters to the polls. He shouldn't give up the 'new kind of politics' thing, in addition he has to demonstrate that his critics are misleading the public when they claim he doesn't know the details.

As is discussed on the prior thread, Sen Obama has a detailed energy plan - one that many folks seem to find superior to others' proposals. This AM on NPR there was some discussion of economic stimulus packages; the person they interviewed pointed out that the Obama plan was more on-point because it would have a more immediate impact on the economy, whereas the Clinton & Edwards plans would take longer to implement. I paraphrase, but he said something like "Clinton & Edwards's plans have the usual problem of a long pipeline & don't end up taking effect until the economy is already in the recovery stages".

Chris: I generally enjoy your work, so it's probably not right that I only email to critique, but that's the way it goes. Your analogy is flawed in many ways. Certainly, there are some comparisons between Obama / Hart: they're both young, intelligent, inspiring to many. There are many more dissimilarities: philandering, their backgrounds, the different eras. And they're up against different opponents. Did anyone really think that HRC would be as on the ropes as she has been (media-wide commentary just 8 days ago implied--rightly--that her entire campaign was on the verge of implosion and, maybe, total collapse). Because she nipped Obama in NH, she's suddenly on top of the world again? I don't think so. Obama appears headed to a good finish in NV (and could easily win), and a probable win (maybe a large one) in SC. That would give him 2 or 3 wins in the first 4 states, with perhaps one or two close losses. That will be a better record than HRC's heading into Feb. 5. Even though he began with far, far lower name recognition than Clinton and has had to introduce himself to so many voters who knew not a thing about him, and even though the primary schedule in many ways favors the already well-known candidate, Obama looks poised right now to be very competitive thru Feb. 5 and beyond. It's certainly hard to see how HRC shakes him in the next two weeks. It's also very conceivable that he'd be ahead of her, in wins and in delegates, on Feb. 6. With the probable dropout of Edwards at that point, these two evenly matched heavyweights could really go at it for some time. Rather than writing at this stage that Obama may fade away like Hart, isn't is equally likely that HRC will be unable to parlay her superior starting position into the nomination, due to her own polarizing nature and Obama's skill? By the way, the guy the Dems went with instead of Hart got smoked, lest we forget...why not focus a column on the pervasive dread red-state Dems have of HRC winning? How much better Obama will do turning states blue, how much longer his coattails will be compared to hers? What's the opposite metaphor for a coattail, anyway? An anchor?

but yes i have to agree with CC on this one: Obama will be the next bradley & hart. LOSER!

Chris, you are bandwagon jumping again. First on the Momentum thing, now on the next trend making its way, like wildfire, through the punditocracy. Stop. Take a deep breath. Ignore the other voices, whether Mr Bai or Blumenthal or whomever else you admire in your field. Take a look at what's going on & come up with your own conclusions. Try to dig deep & see through the daily media releases from the various campaigns & find the pulse of the electorate. Its there, somewhere, and its your job to find it.

"a glimpse of the man behind the rethoric"?? as if that's enough!
we're electing a president of america and you're all basing it on friggin speeches????

big media were supposed to be the smart ones. but it looks like you're all just the same as obama:
emperor with no clothes!

I think Obama may be an "empty shirt", but even if so, the comparison to Gary Hart is off target. Gary Hart told the media that the rumors about him were false and he essentially dared the media to prove him wrong. They did. It wasn't a crime, but it did raise questions about the candidate's judgement, and the voters chose other candidates instead.

In New Hampshire, Clinton proved that talking to actual voters was more important than talking to the media. The Democratic Party is about more than just the flavor of the month. Organizational skills on the ground matter. Super Tuesday will be interesting, however it turns out.

I like the sound of Obama/Bradley. I know Bradley is boring, but the guy had some great ideas and has the experience AND is an outsider since he left Washington eight years ago.

Also what is Bai going to say when Obama carries Nevada and takes the momentum to SC a week later.

Vwcat, Clinton won in 1992 just because there was the deep negative stream against the existing at that time White House. People do not like very much what has happened not only within last seven years, but within last, as least, twelve. So, Mrs. Clinton is symbolizing what people are seriously against, including the occurence of 9/11 and its consequences. Obama is promising and surely can deliver the serious change. He is charismatic, Mrs. Clinton is not; and she is deeply and justfully hated by a lot of people. In my opinion, she has no real shot to the honest nomination, unless the very extensive election fraud would be committed all over again, which isn't the honest way to win this nomination( I am sure that the fraud happened in NH). But it is up to Obama to pick the winning stratey under the current circumstances. He perfectly knows who Mrs. Clinton is, and he should pick the best strategy with her.

Chris
I attended 3 Obama events in new Hampshire. He took questions and answers from the audience for 40 minutes at 2 of the events. At the event at Porstmouth after the Iowa primary, he didn't take questions because he was pressed for time, but he did stay an extra 30 minutes to shake hands and briefly discuss issues with folks on the rope line.

Guys like Matt Bai probably didn't spend much time in NH and maybe only saw the last few days.

Lets not re-write history so quickly. Hillary didn't take questions at many of her events in NH. It wasn't until the day before the primary that she took questions from voters for a significant amount of time. Of course, the media happened to attend so history has been re-written.

Was Barack running out the clock? Not sure. He was in inspiration mode.

Also, last time I checked, Hillary was leading in NH by 10-15% before the Iowa totals the week before the primary. Barack closed the gap and lost by a couple thousand votes. I thought he was going to win based on the feeling on the ground, but he came close.

aepelbaum - nu, vsio idyot po planu...

Besides, I -personally still convinced that there was voting fraud in NH. It is very pitiful that nobody wants to investigate it seriously. Barack Obama is now frontrunner in national polls, but Clintons still have their national wide media and power network machine. It would be wise to eliminate Mrs. Clinton now, but like in famous song of Russian late famous bard - Vladimir Vysotsky, "Girraffe is tall, he could see better!"

Chris, I find it somewhat silly to compare an election or a candidate to past ones.
No two elections or candidates are the same.
Everyone keeps trying to put Obama in this box of him being Stevenson, Hart, Bradley, Dean, ect.
Obama is the new Obama and the old Obama. He is himself.
Different life experience, thinking and eras.
And this primary is unique just like all primaries are.
Times change, people change, circumstances change, ect.
Just like Hillary is not Bill. And it is not the 90s. Everything is different from when Bill, an unknown outsider ran in 1992 in a time of peace and economic upswings.
2008 is a time after 9-11 and terrorism, wars, upheaval and economic downturns.
Which is why I find it silly to think if Hillary is elected we will have peace and prosperity. No. The times are totally different with different players on the world stage.
The Clintons are now seasoned establishment insiders with connections with lobbyists and corporations and political iou's. They are not the outsiders with new ideas but, insiders who are rich and connected and tied to conventional wisdom and content in their well heeled world of power and money.
I wonder why no pundits ever think of these things and keep trying to make the candidates of today and the primaries of today to be the people and eras of yesterday.

If Obama is to make a comeback, he has to study and learn from Hillary in New Hampshire. It's about issues, it's about true understanding of policy. He just has to show that to us now. Watch and learn:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7hpNLudaO4

Bai's "that breed of Democrat who seems to view losing as a kind of moral validation" applies much better to the backers of the party's "electable" establishment candidates: Presidents Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Gore and Kerry. I am afraid we are about to add a Clinton to the list.

Until BHO borrows Don Henley' yacht, you can forget that comparison with Hart.

Until he learns how to bore a crowd and send it home never to come back, you can forget the Bradley comparison.

Note: I liked Bradley. A real idea guy, he led one of the great reductions in income taxation in the 20th C. He and Kemp both were former pro athletes who did not need to be in politics and who called it like they saw it. But he was in no way electrifying.

Yes, to think that Mrs. Clinton 's extremely narrow victory in NH after her tears there means anything real is ridicules. She has nOTHING to offer, though she is trying to offer as much cash now as it is only possible to name without the real blow right on the spot. Clinton's time WAS NOT GOOD, they have done a lot of things wrong. And Mrs. Clinton is not liked by people; on the contrary, she is solidly hated by a lot of them.

a few thoughts:

We would all, in my humble opinion, be better off if the Democratic Party had nominated Gary Hart. Whether or not he would hav