ltveazb
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4593 buy online ultram

ltveazb
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4593 buy online ultram

fpgm lqwnukc
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4501 50 mg ultram

fztonv btaowl csjoi javr
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4587 cheap online ultram

fztonv btaowl csjoi javr
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4587 cheap online ultram

ifsu krpajo
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4571 ultram overdose

ifsu krpajo
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4571 ultram overdose

bhoxeqs jwopzey wumhz
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4530 buy dir ultram

pnzwisg aytxr unhwx
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4554 overdose ultram

srgwzx
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4463 drug effects more side ultram

bfpy awxjkop okrmhu mzgnpsec meiglqov tshg hfoxadeil http://www.kstwodxfb.ydjthf.com

rpeajxyk osnchvti ibumr iuxyc nbgxvmujw bmao vtlbdg

As much as I love the fact that Obama has been able to maintain his delegate lead by NOT engaging in the divisive strategies that the Clinton campaign employed (to apparent success) in winning Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island, it's time to fight fire with fire. If she's willing to rip the party asunder and risk giving McCain a 3 month head start in fundraising and campaigning for the general election, then Obama has to be willing to do the same. I'm hopeful that while Obama is in Chicago for the next few days his campaign strategists convince him to:
A) Step up the calls to release the tax returns RIGHT AWAY - ridicule her for trying to make us believe that the Clintons don't have an accountant who can produce previous returns immediately.
B) Dig into and exploit: the scandals that the Clintons were involved in during Bill's administration, the legal troubles Hillary will soon be facing (as a defendant), and the strong ties between Mark Penn and special interests.
C) Expose the "experience" argument as a fraud. Enough of this nonsense about being ready to answer the phone at 3AM. What crisis (other than the laying bare of her marital problems on worldwide TV) has she ever truly dealt with as the head decision maker? She must be forced to answer that question. Ask about exactly what she did on her visits to 80 countries. High tea with the spouse of a head of state doesn't count. Visits to orphanages, while a nice gesture, have no bearing on foreign policy. Show that it was Madeline Albright, not Senator Clinton, who cleaned up the situation with the Kosovars.
D) Hit her hard on the jobs issue first raised by Tim Russert in the last debate. She claimed that she couldn't make good on her promise of thousands of new jobs in western New York because she "thought that there would be a Democratic president". If that was the case, how will she advance her positions as President if the House or Senate revert to Republican control?
E) Point out that despite being the presumptive presumptive (yes, I know I used the word twice, think about it) nominee as much as a year ago, SHE has yet to knock HIM out of the race. We keep hearing this foolishness about Obama having had 3 chances to "put her away" (New Hampshire, Super Tuesday, and last night). Does anyone REALLY think she would have pulled out of the race had she lost New Hampshire? As to Super Tuesday, if anything, that was HER chance to knock HIM out of the race and she failed to do so. Last night, her campaign admittedly rode an "everything including the kitchen sink" strategy to win Ohio by 10 points and Texas by 4 (this after Obama was down 20 points in both states 6 weeks ago.
F) Point out that the good Senator Clinton, who claims to be the champion of the little guy, has lived a life of relative privilege since becoming the first lady of Arkansas in the 80's (Governor's mansions, corporate boards, the White House, Chappaqua). The Obamas were able to pay off their school loans only within the last 8 years (with the publishing of his first book). Who might be closer to the realities of lower and middle class voters?
G) Show that Clinton's shameless pandering to women actually denigrates the feminist movement. Saying (as she did at the end of the Cleveland debate) "vote for me because I'm a woman" - even if you accompany it with, "I'm also smart and capable" - actually downplays the accomplishments women have made in this country. Obama has NEVER said vote for me because I'm black. In fact, he has assiduously avoided saying that.
H) Get after her on health care. Show clearly that her "with me or against me" attitude on universal health care doomed it in '93 and will do so again.
I) Play up the idea that the Clinton name is like red meat to the Republican party. There's no one - not even a black guy whose middle name is Hussein - who is going to fire up the Republican base (and attack machine) more than her (and by association, her husband). Let the voters know that if she wins the nomination, they will have to hear about Monica, impeachments, Whitewater, Mark Rich, et al all over again.

He's got to take the gloves off at this point. Demonstrate to those on the fence voters in the last states and the uncommitted superdelegates that she's not the only one who can fight. If she wants a fight so be it. The hope (for Obama supporters) is that he maintains his delegate lead and that the fight gets so nasty in the coming weeks that the superdelegates have to step in and throw their weight behind him before McCain gets to far ahead on the road to the general election.

Final note: going into this campaign I at least respected Senator Clinton. As a resident of NY, I voted for her over both Lazio and whoever it was she ran against the 2nd time. However, I must say at this point that that good will is gone. She has shown that she'll stop at nothing to win this nomination - at the risk of alienating half the party with her mockery of Obama supporters.

here is my proof about Zogby its the brother who also runs Zogby research. I remember reading this story just wasn't sure wher and hearing John Zogby confronted by Russert on Meet the Press weeks ago about it. I don't come here just making up bs as some want to do to advance their candidate. Does it effect their polling which always seems to inflate B.O polling spreads, you decide, but you were wrong and here is the proof from myDD a progressive proObama site. How about Brazinksy are you going to try and convince me that that her BO cheerleading has no connection to her dad who is B.O.'s foreign affairs top advisor. See a pattern here of conflicts? Do you want proof that Zbignew Brazinky is Mika's dad?
Apparently others have pointed out these conflicts by the media which no one wants to confront.

Zogby Analyst is Obama Superdelegate
by silver spring, Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:42:35 AM EST

I found this interesting story in the Legal Times this morning:

http://www.law.com/jsp/dc/PubArticleDC.j sp?id=1201601143051&hub=TopStoriesMo re

"The Battle for Superdelegates Heats Up in D.C."

"James Zogby is firmly in the Obama camp -- so much so that he's worked other superdelegates on behalf of the Obama campaign. The president of the Arab American Institute says he first heard Obama speak at the 2004 convention, when Obama burst onto the national political stage, and he was impressed.

And then in February 2006, Obama spoke at a DNC meeting, giving "a thoughtful discourse on the idea of cynicism, and talked about how we need to install idealism in politics." That was enough for Zogby, who gave Obama workers his phone number. Zogby became an official supporter this past summer.

Zogby has made at least a couple of dozen calls to other superdelegates to rally support for Obama. He's had some success winning over a few..."

I looked up the Zogbys on Wikipedia and found this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Zogby

"(James) Zogby is also a senior analyst with the polling firm Zogby International, founded and managed by his brother John Zogby, and is a prominent lecturer and scholar on Middle East issues..."

So, it's interesting to note that one of the senior analysts with Zogby Polling -- the pollster who is predicting big Obama wins for today -- is also a major Obama superdelegate.

There is no proof, of course, of any bias resulting from this apparent juxtaposition, but this is nevertheless an interesting part of today's picture.

Tags: Zogby, Polls, Obama, Superdelegate

I am waiting for an apology.

co host on CNBC's Morning Joe Mika's Brazinsky's dad Is B.O. foreign policy advisor and Zogby is a DNC superdelegate and influential member on the DNC who has publicly come out for B.O. Can we spell conflict of interest? Its not whining to discuss these obvious conflicts of interest in the media and confused that others don't appreciate this conflict.

Should Repubs be allowed to vote in our primary. Not those who then laugh and say they have no intention of voting for the Dem nominee in Nov and realistically you can t get them to sign loyalty oaths. I just have a problem with B.O relying on these primary voters. I would prefer that Dems pick our nominee but unfortunately Texas does not have party registration like other state

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eHpTenxBqco

is a karaoke of hilary and barack singing ebony and ivory. I think its really funny.

my was supposed to be "his", I was typing too fast.

Only the media and Hillary supporters (from her supporters you expect it) are again rearranging the rules. The Media are slugs. Had Obama made that promise he would be raked over the coals if he backtracked, just as they are trying to say about my "promising" to accept public financing emphatically. He did not. But the media wants you to believe he did.

If she loses either TX or Ohio, she should be done! The public should hold her feet to the fire if she doesn't. But the best wake to sink the Media and the lying behind Clintons is for Texas and Ohio to vote her butt out and put this to rest!

I believe as long as Hillary is gaining delegates, she should stay. The naysayers should stop crying and vote for Hillary. I would hope all the people would wake up and support her, since she is the best of all the candidates out there. She can and will be a better president than Bush, or Obama, or McCain.

She should get out unless she wins the popular vote and the delegates in 3 of the four states, with at least Ohio being a big win (55-45 or better). Right now, all she is doing is alienating Democrats by the millions as she trashes the candidate who will represent us in the fall regardless of how she does on March 4. She can't catch him in popular vote; she can't catch him in elected delegates; if she catches him via super delegates who overrule the popular vote, the party will basically split apart and she will lose big to McCain in the fall. Get out before you do any more damage!

She should get out unless she wins the popular vote and the delegates in 3 of the four states, with at least Ohio being a big win (55-45 or better). Right now, all she is doing is alienating Democrats by the millions as she trashes the candidate who will represent us in the fall regardless of how she does on March 4. She can't catch him in popular vote; she can't catch him in elected delegates; if she catches him via super delegates who overrule the popular vote, the party will basically split apart and she will lose big to McCain in the fall. Get out before you do any more damage!

claudialong,

It's not that uncommon for the IRS to investigate more liberal churches. All Saints in Pasadena, California was investigated by the IRS--they were considering revoking the church's tax exemption--for speaking out against Bush in the 2004 election. The investigation was later dropped, but it's hardly a new tactic.

February 27, 2008
White House blames Clinton for document delay
Posted: 08:45 PM ET

The White House said Wednesday the Clintons are responsible for delaying the release of documents.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- White House spokeswoman Dana Perino briefly waded into the presidential campaign on Wednesday, denying a suggestion by Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, that the Bush administration may be slowing down the release of more than 11,000 pages of documents related to her time as first lady.

Perino said the Bush administration has previously moved fast to release roughly 550,000 pages of documents from the Clinton administration. She said in this case the White House is waiting for a representative for former President Clinton, Bruce Lindsey, to approve the release of the new documents and then formally ask the Bush administration to do so.

"And if the Clinton representative approves the release of the records, we act as quickly as practical to get them out," Perino said, when a reporter asked about the controversy at the White House daily briefing. "And as I said, we don't have anything pending at the moment."

During a debate with Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, on Tuesday night, a journalist pressed Clinton on whether she will make sure the documents are released during the primary season to give voters a clearer view of her experience as first lady. "I have urged that our end of it move as expeditiously as we can," said Clinton. "Now, also, President Bush claims the right to look at anything that is released, and I would urge the Bush White House to move as quickly as possible."

Clinton spokesman Jay Carson told CNN the senator was not trying to cast any blame on the president. "All she did was note President Bush is part of the process, not that he's in any way holding this up," said Carson. "He's not [delaying this], and she's not either."

Carson said the latest batch of documents, which consist of her schedules during eight years as first lady, were cleared by the National Archives on Jan. 31. That triggered a 45-day period for Lindsey to review the documents for any sensitive material before he has to give the White House a recommendation on whether or not to release the papers.

Does anyone else think that it is ridiculous to let non-Democrats vote in the primary? If the idea of doing this is to allow everyone to have their say in who is running than maybe we should abolish parties (I would go for it) and have straight votes for who we nominate and elect. Otherwise, why should someone who has showed no loyalty or concern for my party have the same vote that I do in party selection. I am an agnostic, so on the god front I'm "uncommitted". Isn't voting in someone elses primary like me going into a church for the first time and helping to chose the pastor?

All of you Obama supporters, I can't wait to see your faces and hear your cries when your Obama coolaid runs out. When John McCain and the Republicans keep the White House because you supported the wrong canidate and you participated in the bias and unfair tactics against our STRONGEST CANIDATE. ENJOY McCAIN!!! YOU DESERVE HIM.

claudialong - "but the McCain question -- letting him off the hook about trying to get out of public financing, while trying to press obama on it-- was pure spin.

as was the ridiculous hypothetical about 'al queda in Iraq'"

Sorry I could not address all your points earlier. Asking Obama about something that he pledged to do and now appears to be hedging on, I think, is a perfectly acceptable question during a political campaign where all politicians are making promises. It also plays into the Obama theme that he is a different kind of politician. While it may not have been the best question of the night, I don't see it as ridiculous.

As far as al-Qaeda in Iraq, it matters not if they were part of the original group or not. They appear to be part of the group now, however loosely aligned and however they formed. To me, it is a question that would try to get the candidates to tell you what they would do if their theories did not pan out. The Dem approach to Iraq is that if we get out, the Iraqis will get there act together... or not. If they don't and terrorists, be they al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda wannabes or solo terrorists, are allowed to flourish, that does nobody any good. I don't know that an Iraq civil war is exactly the desired outcome either, IMO. Somehow I get the feeling that would not be a good thing for the Middle East. That said, it is a valid approach to the Middle East. But the question is an excellent one. What kind of leader would you be? If conditions suggested you should go back on one of your main campaign pledges, would you?

edac 1974, I agree with every single word in your comment. It is truly sickening the unfair way media is covering this race. Yesterday on CNN they had that jerk Cafferty reading anti-hillary messages posted on his blog. Totally unchallanged. I hardly ever look at a news broadcast on that channel without being reminded of how totally biaz they are.

as I recall their was a bipartisan Base Closing Commission, chaired by Republican Robert Dole.

kingofzouk,

so downsizing the military began in fiscal year 2002 and bubba was elected in November 2002, and began to govern in January 2003. Your point is...? Better reconfigure your "facts".

PS no matter how much you wish it, the sun will continue not to rise in the west and set in the east.

My guess is that depends on how bad she does. If she takes a beating I thing he'll tell her to bail.

I wonder what WJC will say if she loses Texas or Ohio and wants to stay in the race? It depends on how you define "don't deliver for her"? That will be interesting. Then again, she may pull it out.

There were yearly terrorist attacks on US soil during the Clinton administration? Do tell.

And yes, they must be on US soil. You can't start talking about attacks on allies or military installations abroad, because you claim there haven't been any attacks under Bush. And there have been numerous attacks on our allies, embassies, and soldiers abroad during Bush's presidency.

Hillary needs at least 65% of the delegates available Tuesday. The remaining states are Obama states, except possibly Pennsylvania. The one with the most delegates wins.

I think if Hillary wins either Texas or Ohio by any considerable margin she would and (probably should) stay in until PA.

If she wins both by small margins--I think the same.

However, if she loses one big or small and only wins won small; she should begin an exit strategy.

But-if she is viable at all in either state, she owes it to the party and the country to stay in and let PA (prob the "last BIG state" be the final battleground. If she can't do that then she's just bleeding from within.

Also--I think Obama will take VT and RI on 3/4

And while we have been fortunate not to have been attacked here since the Towers, there are the attacks in Spain and England.

"Technically yes, but it was planned for years based on the non-reponse to all the other terror attacks on the US under the clinton fiddling. Since then, no attacks. coincidence? Or perhaps going on the attack over there did what it was supposed to do."

One attack on US soil in the Clinton years, 1 month after he took office. Sounds like he did a good job defending gthe country by your definition...

If, however, you want to include other attacks against US interest (embassy bombings, USS Cole, etc), he did respond pretty strongly to the Embassy bombings, for which he was derided for playing "wag the dog" by conservatives. The Cole- It usually takes 3 months or so to put together a strong military reaction for a contingency. Cole was bombed 20 Oct 2000, so three months later was 20 Jan 2001- so let me ask you this, why did our fearless leader against these evil terrorists not do anything when he came to office? Why did he ignore warnings about growing terrorist threats and choose to focus all his early effort first on China and then on Iraq (even before 9-11)? How about all the numerous al Qaida attacks on our allies and US interests abroad since 911 the overall level of terrorism is up worldwide since then, you know...

The simple fact is Bush had two months of transition and eight months in office where people were shouting that terrorists were a rising threat, ten whole months, not just one. Besides that, al Qaida only emerged on the US radar in 1996, and only became a serious threat in 1998 with the embassy bombings. So it's not eight years of constant planning vs one month of little warning, it's 2-4 years of a slowly building but escalating threat vs. almost a year of constant warning plus the opportunity and political ability to react, which republicans denied Clinton after 1998. Stop passing the buck, it's just pathetic.

"There were no terrorist attacks under Clinton "

except there were, at least one every year with no response. too busy with interns and pardons I presume.

There were no terrorist attacks under Clinton except for the WTC bombing, which occurred a month after he took office. There were no attacks because global terrorists were biding their time, preparing for 9/11, while Clinton did nothing to stop them.

There have been no terrorist attacks under Bush, except for 9/11, which occurred 8 months after he took office. There have been no attacks since because Bush is whupping the terrorists all around the world, keeping us safe with warrantless wiretaps and the PATRIOT act.

The exact same situation is explained in two very different ways. Coincidentally, both of those explanations are very friendly to Bush. The logic of Bush defenders is just bizarre.

I love how the Right Wing Fox News crowd always has an excuse. Rice said they did nothing on it, even after being warned that PLANES WERE GOING TO BE USED TO ATTACK US.

sfb, i don't worry about "someone" reacting because i know you will react. it's a non-issue. You are no more advanced than one of Pavlov's dogs.

so W was expected to reecognize and fix a problem in less than a month that had been brewing unattended for 8 years. sounds reasonable. I know Repubs are more effective than Dems but not quite to that level. the mess left by the clintons was going to take longer to clean.

so the Lib defenders fo all things clinton were able to find a single memo in the entire transition that mentions the word bin laden.
------------------------
Actually that was the title of the memo, less than a month before the attack, when W and his gang of crooks were on one of his month long breaks.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 27, 2008 01:54 PM

It seems he will continue posting the same old stupid stuff until someone reacts. this is about the third day in a row. can you also regurgitate the DJIA as an explanation for something too? I think if you try every day with that one you might randomly hit something.

The memo, titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S."

Talk about non-response, but then again W and Cheney were to busy planning the Iraq war.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | February 27, 2008 01:58 PM

so the Lib defenders fo all things clinton were able to find a single memo in the entire transition that mentions the word bin laden. Sounds urgent. but not as urgent as gluing down Ws on keyboards and farewell parties all month long and don't forget issuing bought and paid for pardons and stealing silverware and air force one memorabelia.

For Senator Hillary Clinton, she must win in Texas and Ohio to drive her heart to keep her hope alive in presidential bid.

If media decides to play fair with Sen. Hillary. Her records of 35 years, she has also served eight years as First Lady and an experienced assistant to president to our former president Bill Clinton, she is running on the HOPE for Americas future political and economy system. She has a vision and wisdom to fight for what is morally right, in setting the course to reaffirm our greatness as a God honoring nation and people.

While Sen. Obama is only a junior U.S. senator. He does not have any experienced to put American values around the world.

I sincerely hope and pray that Sen. Hillary Clinton to become our next president of United States of America.!!!

"the Dem base has a natural proclivity toward anger and irrationality."

Posted by: kingofzouk

And so does the Rush Limbaugh/Ann Coulter fan club. Those two have become rich feeding on that proclivity. One of the many reasons that I, and many others, are disgusted with both parties.

"Wasn't the attack on the Towers under Bush? "

'Technically yes, but it was planned for years based on the non-reponse to all the other terror attacks on the US under the clinton fiddling.'Posted by: kingofzouk
-----------------------------

The memo, titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S."

Talk about non-response, but then again W and Cheney were to busy planning the Iraq war.

Note how each and every one of zouk's posts falls into one of four categories:

1. Nonsequiturs/strawmen
2. Insults
3. Unsupported laundry lists of GOP talking points
4. Cut and paste jobs from right-wing fishwraps

Some posts might fit into more than one category (e.g, insults combined with nonsequiturs).

"reply to you-know-who".

OK, I understand why you Libs wouldn't want to reply to any conservatives. your arguments are weak enough without having to stand open to the light of day. so continue to ignore me by talking about ignoring me all day long. It sure beats having to defend your weak principles based on surrender, defeat, envy , victimology, nannyhood and pity.

Poor, poor hillary, being questioned by that mean old reporter. and poor put-upon barack, having to fill in details in his empty rhetoric. the rules are: only Repubs answer hard questions and confront reporters. Dems ride free. Dems like free stuff. vote for them and you can get free stuff too.

"trying to argue with inanimate objects"

Are you talking about al gore here?

just amusing myself, rad, but you're right.

I used to own a 911 Targa. In TX we usually get 5-7 mph grace on the highways. Not in a 911.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 27, 2008 01:17 PM

Why did you sell it? did you ever get to stretch its legs on the open road? I have still only been up to only 100 mph, on the Jersey TP on a trip to NY. no shake, no rattle, just like sitting still, but nevertheless quire exhilerating. I have considered going to the track in WV but heard insurance doesn't cover you there. was yours a 996 or even earlier?

zouk, i have to say, and this is the last time i will waste on you"
Posted by: claudialong | February 27, 2008 12:49 PM

you mean, insane, Addrick?

Posted by: claudialong | February 27, 2008 12:59 PM

Except for that one. and the next one. :

Wait for it, it may take all of four minutes:

Ah, Addrick... but I have a string of polo ponies, you know. And then there's the jumpers and the hounds.

The poor lad, he has such a fixation on me too, you notice that? He spends hours foaming about me personally. Amusing wouldn't you say? Although clinically, quite a sad case.

Posted by: claudialong | February 27, 2008 01:18 PM

So predictable the level of hate and emotional irrationality, it is uncontrollable.

claudialong: Please, you do yourself a severe injustice even by lowering yourself to reply to you-know-who. To the rest of us, his opinion of you [or anyone] is as worthless as his ranting opinions on whatever the topic happens to be.

It is irrational to argue with an irrational person. And we [I'm presuming here] haven't time for irrelevant or irrational diversions. It's as pointless as getting angry at or trying to argue with inanimate objects--like appliances, computers, or cars. They never seem to listen or act intelligently.

"Wasn't the attack on the Towers under Bush? "

Technically yes, but it was planned for years based on the non-reponse to all the other terror attacks on the US under the clinton fiddling. Since then, no attacks. coincidence? Or perhaps going on the attack over there did what it was supposed to do.

and the subsequent loss of wealth makes the cost of the war in Iraq look like peanuts, never mind the horror of dead civilians in downtown NY.

do you forget that the sore losers who lost the election tied up cabinet appointments and many other government functions while they tried to steal the election, severly hampering the new administration from doing its job of cleaning up the mess left by the most corrupt regime in modern US history?

why are you Libs so fascinated by what kind of car I drive? Is it so far fetched that someone on this blog drive car brand X? I think it is just your typical Lib envy rearing its ugly head.

drindl drives an old beat up chevy and has to clip coupons because her husbands part time job as a roadie can't feed the kid. No consideration has been given to finding a paying job. so in response to someone else's apparent success, the only response a devoted Lib can offer is envy and an attempt to steal it for themselves. that and accusing everyone around them of lying about even the most trite things.

though i don't think clinton will win texas...ohio, maybe...there is a bigger issue at hand...she cannot beat mccain...I don't see how the democratic party can, in good conscience, back a losing horse...she's had ample opportunity to hold her own and, unfortunately, to her demise, she has not played a smart hand...as to the media's scrutinizing attention to her...they are none too quick to forget her past indiscretions, her dubious tactics to achieve her passions, her appearance of secrecy regarding papers, taxes and such, and her lack of grace and diplomacy in many general interactions...she has become their fodder..in watching last night's debate, she struck me as a woman of desperation, the little kid in the classroom, overstepping her boundaries, crying "I know, I know, pick me, pick me"...that obama has projected a "cool drink of water" attitude and is winning in the popular poll must be driving her mad...she is a fighter, of this there is no doubt, but her lack of grace and diplomacy are off-putting...obama has held his own...he answered questions specifically and succinctly, directly refuted rebuttals and accusations..refused to "take the bait", as it were, and tended to aim for grace...and in doing so, tempered the tone of the latter part of the debate...for the big win, this is what the democratic party needs...not a blustering gale blowing hither and yon...he has shown himself to be a force to be reckoned with...running a campaign that is focused, determined, streamlined...a fighter in his own right, but of a different ilk...the democratic party would be well served to have a strong leader who comes to grace and diplomacy easily,yet with a firm hand...there is the bigger battle ahead with the republican party , the veritable snakepit that is congress and the global interactions to consider...more bees with honey, baby.

some are, mark, some are ridiculous.

dave, however, i do see where the farrakhan remark came from. but the McCain question -- letting him off the hook about trying to get out of public financing, while trying to press obama on it-- was pure spin.

as was the ridiculous hypothetical about 'al queda in Iraq'

did you read my earlier post about that?

mark, if BHO should win the nomination, which is still an if, I sincerely doubt we will see him return to texas other than for fundraising.We always here that cannard but if Obama should lose Ohio next week which certainly looks probable and he still prevails, he might better spend his time in Columbus rather than Austin and that is not the Columbus here in Texas. And with BHO we will certainly here the L word ad nausea in the general election which will certainly not help Noreiga or our efforts to take back the Texas Senate.

And as I peruse this morning's posts, I am struck by the reasonableness of Dave's selection of Russert's questions, quoted in Russert's defense.

scott I doubt anyone would question that vermont is the most liberal state in the union, which is not exactly the greatest message for voters in other states. Vermont is not representative of any other state other than vermont.

Posted by: iraleichtman | February 27, 2008 01:02 PM

ira, I am not saying that Vermont is representative of any other state. I am merely pointing out the irony that the black candidate is killing the white candidate in the whitest state in the US. I find that interesting, maybe you do not.

And guess who will come to take on McCain in 2012? Hillary. She would be like "I told you so" and most likely will beat McCain in 2012.

Posted by: mike78625 | February 27, 2008 01:10 PM

----------------------
I don't Hillary raising the money for another race, plus she'd have to give up running for her Senate seat.

Ah, Addrick... but I have a string of polo ponies, you know. And then there's the jumpers and the hounds.

The poor lad, he has such a fixation on me too, you notice that? He spends hours foaming about me personally. Amusing wouldn't you say? Although clinically, quite a sad case.

I used to own a 911 Targa. In TX we usually get 5-7 mph grace on the highways. Not in a 911.

Adrick, I am glad someone answered your question while I was working. I might add that the magic google phrase for finding the government's own budget items for Iraq and Afghanistan is "Supplemental Appropriations".

RadPat, thanks for the kind words and thanks for posting the "burntorange" excerpt, which had seen, as you guessed.

But we know that TX is voting R for Prez in the Fall. Our esteemed Lege Ds are worrying about the down ticket effect. And their observation that BHO has promised to campaign in TX is all about the down-ticket. The D ceiling for prez is about 45%, I would guess [Ron Kirk territory]. If BHO tops 40% many more Ds will be elected to the Lege, and if McC gets low turnout b/c HRC is not on the ticket, Noriega has some slim chance against Cornyn. However, if KBH is the VP,
I think she can help the Rs in TX offset malaise. Remember, she strongly outran GWB in '04.

You people left out one scenario:

If Obama wins the nomination, which I doubt it, he will more than likely lose the general election to McCain. That is a certain fact. If you have any doubts, read about all the republican voters voting for Obama in the states with open primaries. These same voters will come back to give Obama a real kick in the butt and let McCain win. And guess who will come to take on McCain in 2012? Hillary. She would be like "I told you so" and most likely will beat McCain in 2012.

zouk, i have to say, and this is the last time i will waste on you"
Posted by: claudialong | February 27, 2008 12:49 PM

you mean, insane, Addrick?

Posted by: claudialong | February 27, 2008 12:59 PM

Except for that one. and the next one. If there is nastiness to slew and insults to throw, you can always count on deep, dark drindl. the pronouncements are always very temporary. she can't keep a single evil thought in her empty little head for more than about three minutes between each post.

If you have any disagreement with her perverse view of the universe in any way, you are either insane, evil, stupid or lying. there is no other option. this is fairly typical of the moonbat wing of the Dem party - the 15% ers flat earth society that still thinks Pelosi and Reid are a hoot.

They also think raising taxes in a down market is splendid, that losing wars has no consequences, that the government is the best arbitrer of all prices and wages, that the rich are evil and deserve to have their rewards confiscated while unemployed bloggers reap the rewards of sloth.

ooops. now only if I could learn how to spell it!

scott I doubt anyone would question that vermont is the most liberal state in the union, which is not exactly the greatest message for voters in other states. Vermont is not representative of any other state other than vermont.

insane perhaps, Claudia, but he has a Porche!

shhhh... don't tell anyone, but I have TWO!!!

another holiday from history - another invitation to attack us without consequence - like clinton and carter all over again.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 27, 2008 11:57 AM

Wasn't the attack on the Towers under Bush? With a Mayor Fooliani ignoring his own staff who said don't put the command center there after the first attack, which was 15 years ago yesterday.

"zouk, i have to say, and this is the last time i will waste on you"

I will open a bottle of Chateau Petrus tonight in celebration. can you encourage your fellow jackels to find another sandbox to soil also?

you mean, insane, Addrick?

claudialong - Actually, in case you missed it, this is the reason for the Farrakhan question:

A Spry Farrakhan Sings Obama's Praises
CHICAGO (AP) -- In his first major public address since a cancer crisis, Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan said Sunday that presidential candidate Barack Obama is the "hope of the entire world" that the U.S. will change for the better.

The 74-year-old Farrakhan, addressing an estimated crowd of 20,000 people at the annual Saviours' Day celebration, never outrightly endorsed Obama but spent most of the nearly two-hour speech praising the Illinois senator.

"This young man is the hope of the entire world that America will change and be made better," he said. "This young man is capturing audiences of black and brown and red and yellow. If you look at Barack Obama's audiences and look at the effect of his words, those people are being transformed."

Farrakhan compared Obama to the religion's founder, Fard Muhammad, who also had a white mother and black father.

"A black man with a white mother became a savior to us," he told the crowd of mostly followers. "A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall."

Some comments about PA on 22 April, which seems to be getting tighter.

Not much regarding the biggest date for delegates outside of 8 Feb and 4 Mar, which is 6 May when NC and IN vote.

Obama has solid leads in both states at last look, which isn't likely to change too much absent a massive string of errors. Possible, but not much to hang your hat on...

I can just hear conservatives everywhere saying, "with friends like Zouk..."

Dissent is good, Zouk. You DO contribute to this thread. I think you are an excellent representative of the Right. You might say that you actually are the epitome of the right wing.

It's interesting to me that Obama is killing Hillary in Vermont, the whitest state in the union, by a marging of 60% to 35% in the most recent poll. Obama hasn't even had a campaign event in Vermont yet. Any doubts about his ability to appeal to a white audeience should be laid to rest.

KoZ, as usual, ignores facts, runs down thousands of side discussions, gets rebuked by more facts, ignores points, then claims all others are ignoring facts and wanting to run away from the conversation simply because they're tired of his lunacy. Man, do you work for the American Enterprise Institute or something?

William F. Buckley, dead at 82.

A very nice obit for him from Rick Perlstein:

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/why-william-f-buckley-was-my-role-model

'Just because you are a total loser with no life to speak of, doesn't mean the rest of the world suffers from your inadequacies. If you had a shred of talent in your chosen field, perhaps you could eventually get some paying work. but I don't suppose there is a lot of paying demand for cutting and pasting from leftist hate sites.

envy, spite and hate are really so 1990s clinton. can't you see your chosen MO is obsolete?'

zouk, i have to say, and this is the last time i will waste on you, that you have the most complete lack of self-awareness of any human being i have ever seen. you go on and on spewing this astonishing venom and then say 'envy , spite and hate are so 1990's'. you are a freaking parody of yourself. get a life. see a shrink. seek the help you so desparately need.

Another thread trashed. On to the next one.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 27, 2008 12:35 PM
*****

Yes, kingofzouk's work here is done!

Another thread trashed. On to the next one.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 27, 2008 12:35 PM

translation - you don't toe the moonbat line. We can't tolerate any dissension because our opinions are based on very shaky ground. take your facts elsewhere. We are very weak Libs and need censorship when confronted.

blarg is absolutely correct:

"This Obama supporter would tell you that winning a primary is different from winning a general election. You can't use primary results to predict what will happen in November. I'd also point out that you're assuming a Hillary victory next week, which is far from assured."

That is why we have been telling Obama supporters that while winning in Kansas, Va. Utah, and Montana and many other states,in a primary is truly impressive, it means zero in a general election.

Hillary has not won Ohio yet but there are strong indications that she will. But again we should not underestimate the importance of Ohio in the general election, I don't think that Senator Kerry did and still regrets not winning a mere 80,001 voters there in 2004.

As to resolving Florida and Michigan delegates,(however that is fair to both sides and more importantly to the voters of those states)why have we heard zero from Senator Obama about those 2 states before we rush to judgment about the nomination. As a Clinton supporter, which I am not hiding from, I don't have a magic answer nor will I argue it must be done by the way most fair to my candidate, but what I will argue is that those are two mega states, one of which we all know was responsible for putting W into office. Why are we not talking about those 2 states before rushing to judgment and trying to do what is necessarily most advantagious to one side but not necessarily fair to the millions of frustrated Dems in those 2 mega states. Am I alone in demanding a fair resolution of those delegates before the convention and before settling on a nominee? I may be in the minority but I am for a winner take all 2 week primary in those two states.

"Fox may lean conservative, but they are not outright propagandists.

lol

and I thought you had no sense of humor, KOZ!!!

'And BTW it's a Porsche, not a Jag.'

omigod. hilarious. what big fantasies you have, little man... very little man.

Posted by: claudialong | February 27, 2008 12:30 PM

Curious how drindl knows so much about the personal lives of every anonymous poster on here. goes along with the evil motivations she can see from Repub pols. If everyone only knew as much as drindl thinks she knows, there would be no need for teachers, politicians or scientists any longer.

do you have to sacrifice small farm animals to get that crystal ball to work, sorceress?

Just because you are a total loser with no life to speak of, doesn't mean the rest of the world suffers from your inadequacies. If you had a shred of talent in your chosen field, perhaps you could eventually get some paying work. but I don't suppose there is a lot of paying demand for cutting and pasting from leftist hate sites.

envy, spite and hate are really so 1990s clinton. can't you see your chosen MO is obsolete?

doens't matter, spectator. he'll be on till 7, no matter what CC puts up. the guy lives here.

"so clinton was simply following the Bush I policies with no input of hiw own. I see. did Bush also beleive that terrorists should be given a free pass because interns were more urgent? Was cow-towing to Arafat and other scoundrels also just following the path left by others?"

No, joint effort, initiated by a Rpeublican president with a Democratic congress, continued by a Democratic president with a Republican Congress (numbers didn't begin to shift back up until 1997/98). Let me remind you it was Reagan who turned tail and ran from Lebanon after a terrorist attack, Bush I who rightly chose to leave Saddam Hussein in power because fighting to Baghdad would be disasterous, etc. Your dumbed down talking points get you nowhere here, we all have a basic education in the matter. I'm certainly not a Hillary supporter and have no intention of defending either her or her campaign, but I would like to know exactly what senate votes you are referring to with respect to the next President of the United States.

Another thread trashed. On to the next one.

troop cuts began in FY92

so clinton was simply following the Bush I policies with no input of hiw own. I see. did Bush also beleive that terrorists should be given a free pass because interns were more urgent? Was cow-towing to Arafat and other scoundrels also just following the path left by others?

If hillary can't even plan a campaign three months into the future and not spend every dime way ahead of schedule, what makes you think she will be any different with the US military?

If Obamabi can't even make up his mind on simple senate votes, what makes you think he'll know what to do with N Korea for example? Maybe Carter's foreign policy team can help him out. we all know how effective they were.

'And BTW it's a Porsche, not a Jag.'

omigod. hilarious. what big fantasies you have, little man... very little man.

"I am interested to know what the Obama supporters will be saying if their candidate can not win in a state like Ohio that was absolutely defining in the 2004 election."

This Obama supporter would tell you that winning a primary is different from winning a general election. You can't use primary results to predict what will happen in November. I'd also point out that you're assuming a Hillary victory next week, which is far from assured.

"And if Obama supporters want to make sure those delegates are never seated then why are they adverse to having another primary in those states, to show Florida and Michigan we want their support in November whoever the nominee is."

Obama supporters are averse to having new primaries in FL and MI? News to me. I thought Obama supporters want new primaries or caucuses, while Clinton supporters want to use the extremely flawed results that help their candidate.

"I am interested to know what the Obama supporters will be saying if their candidate can not win in a state like Ohio that was absolutely defining in the 2004 election."

What about states like Missouri, Virginia, Colorado, etc., that will be critical in the 2008 election? By your logic, Hillary can't win there, so she's useless in the general election.

thanks, les ca for the hard numbers.

ok, exactly what i'm talking about:

"I want to ask both of you this question, then. If we -- if this scenario plays out and the Americans get out in total and al Qaeda resurges and Iraq goes to hell, do you hold the right, in your mind as American president, to re-invade, to go back into Iraq to stabilize it?"

--this is an absurd hypothetical. for one thing, it is misleading. 'al queda in iraq' -- is nothing but a homegrown sunni insurgent group, WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE AL-QUEDA WHO ATTACKED US, they simply admire bin-Ladin, you see.

the al-queda who DID attack us IS resurgent -- in Pakistan and Afghanistan. This is clear rightwing spin. The real question is, how long do we babysit the Iraqis while they play civil war?

"Senator Obama, let me ask you about motivating, inspiring, keeping your word. Nothing more important. Last year you said 'if you were the nominee you would opt for public financing in the general election of the campaign; try to get some of the money out. You checked "Yes" on a questionnaire. And now Senator McCain has said, calling your bluff, let's do it. You seem to be waffling, saying, well, if we can work on an arrangement here. Why won't you keep your word in writing that you made to abide by public financing of the fall election?"'

More rightwing spin.

'NEW YORK -- Republican Sen. John McCain might well ride out his standoff with federal regulators over his withdrawal from public financing for the primaries.

The contretemps, however, could haunt him in the general election.

The Federal Election Commission's decision to challenge McCain has forced the Arizona senator and likely Republican presidential nominee to defy the government's top campaign finance regulator in an area of law that McCain himself has helped seed with regulations.

His defiance, legally defensible or not, threatens to strip him of the moral high ground he needs to level the financial playing field for the general election.

McCain has been trying to hold Democratic Sen. Barack Obama to an agreement made last year that if both become their respective party nominees, both would participate in the general election public finance system.

Obama has hedged, saying the terms he laid out last year were not a pledge. Such an agreement, after all, would force Obama to holster his vastly superior fundraising operation -- he has raised $138 million in his one-year quest -- and require him to confront McCain on equal financial footing. Under public financing, each candidate would get $85 million in government money and be prohibited from spending any money raised from contributors.

McCain took Obama to task for equivocating, and seemed to be seizing the high road as the candidate most devoted to reducing the influence of money in electoral politics.

Then FEC chairman David Mason wrote him ``The Letter.''

In it, Mason told McCain that he could not withdraw from the primary public finance system until he (1) answered questions regarding a $4 million loan he obtained late last year, and (2) received approval to withdraw from four members of the six-member commission.

McCain and his lawyer, former FEC chairman Trevor Potter, responded unequivocally: McCain was out of the primary public finance system and the FEC could not force him into it.'

And this is ridiculous. Has Farrakhan come out for Obama? No. Has Obama asked for his support. No. Russert brought it up because Farrakhan is one of the hot-button rightwing boogeyman, like Michael Moore and George Soros. The mere whiff of association is the kind of dog-whistle politics that brings out outraged howling of the moon from the pavlovianed R pack.

"Do you accept the support of Louis Farrakhan?"

It depends on what the meaning of win is. I think Hilary is about to find out what the meaning of lose is.

LOL-- a clown who stay on this blog all day, with no visible means of support, form 12 to 7 every day--oh yes, he's an economist, and a scientist too, you know, and he has a yacht and a jag and a wife who's a supermodel -- and really lots and lots of credibility.

Posted by: claudialong | February 27, 2008 12:13 PM

Leave it to nutjob drindl to defend her views with..........spite and hate as usual. no doubt she lives in hillary's district. you never see a link to any facts from drindl, only rehashed, sky-is-falling clap from Kos and the other leftist hate sites.

It wasn't too long ago that she posted every ten minutes about how the war was lost. now it is how the economy is doomed. I guess we won the war. global warming must have solved itself too, because the record cold has halted her hourly rantings on that topic. Maybe some other disater in the wings will arrive soon to keep her from her lucrative career as a copy writer for MAD magazine.

And BTW it's a Porsche, not a Jag.

"you mean the one that Dems always add to when it makes it to congress? you can't get a single piece of legislation up for a vote without Dems adding millions to every aspect of it."

Ummm, REPUBLICANS controlled Congress through most of those years... Maybe Bush should have discovered his Veto pen back then. Oh wait, we need to criticize "tax and spend Liberals" while giving borrow and spend Conservatives a free pass.

"Imagine if rush Limbaugh or Ann coulter became the anchor for some network and reported the "news"."

Don't tell me you've never watched Fox...

"this is exactly what Carter and Clinton did and Obama promises to do to balance the budget. We could have a balanced budget right now if we have no enemies in the world and no need for an Army."

KoZ, stop spewing garbage talking points. The "peace dividend" that Republicans (espeically Giuliani) kept attributing to Clinton actually was termed, initiated, and pressed by Bush I. You can go here and see that military spending began to rise after a steady decline beginning in 1978, and that troop cuts began in FY92 (FY94 was Clinton's first budget) while spending had steadily decreased since 1987:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_military_personnel_and_expenditures.png

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/309/

It seems to me that the clinton failure was in using the attack dog tactics on a fellow Democrat. this approach works well against Repubs because the Dem base has a natural proclivity toward anger and irrationality. the problem here was that the usual supporters of this tactic didn't appreciate it when it was used on one of their own.

Save that for the general election would have been what most of the drindl's would have said.

In the early part of the primaries, this is exactly what hillary did, attacked Bush and ignored Obama et al, since she was the inevitable candidate. Only when Obama proved resilient did she turn her nastiness on him and suffer the results.

now the press is giving hillary a taste of what Repubs have had to deal with all along - a subtle bias that can be denied by true believers. It is really a shame that the MSM has become so jaded and capable of such fanciful renderings of so-called facts, replete with opinion and falsehood.

Imagine if rush Limbaugh or Ann coulter became the anchor for some network and reported the "news". this is exactly what has happened at MSNBC with Krazy Keith and Chris Mathews. but until it was turned on a liberal, it went without comment. Fox may lean conservative, but they are not outright propagandists.

"What's the differece? The media will indict her, no matter what the outcome.."

very accurate observation.

jnoe state: "I don't understand the conspiracy theories about Republicans voting against Hillary.' unfortunately its more than a theory. It was a front page story in Monday's Houston Chronicle. They interviewed Republicans in Houston who giggled mischieviously saying how much they would enjoy meddling in the Texas Democratic primary but admitted they have absolutely no intent of supporting Senator Obama in Nov. While it is great to appeal to these folks in a general election I have a real problem with their meddling in a Democratic primary that is so very important to democratic voters. I would never think of voting in their primary just to meddle in their process.

Interestingly I read that Hillary is 97 delegates behind which is 2.5%, but then read here from Obama suporters that no she is 155 delegates behind. There are also 1 million uncounted votes in Ca and numerous state conventions coming up in April and May to select hundreds of delegates. I have attended many state conventions and they are unpredictable.

I also read here that Hillary's campaign is flat broke which is far from accurate although she is behind in total dollars raised. She has raised 1.2 million per day during the last 18 day which gives her around $20 million that she is spending this week and next. I also see the SEIU in Texas spending millions for Senator Obama which I distinctly remember Senator Obama slamming John Edwards for in the October debates.

Why don't we just wait and see what happens next Tuesday rather than setting perameters as to what the individual Obama supporters want to define as being a win for Hillary. Seems like they want to define in it in their own terms saying she must win by 15% in Ohio or its a loss. Again John Kerry would have been ok 80,001 more votes in Ohio as a win in 2004. I am interested to know what the Obama supporters will be saying if their candidate can not win in a state like Ohio that was absolutely defining in the 2004 election. Winning in states like Montana, Utah, Kansas etc is certainly impressive but how about losing in California, New Jersey and perhaps Ohio. And I ask again if the Democratic Party is sincerely ready to simply walk away from voters in Florida and Michigan. I understand the arguments on both sides but don't those voters deserve a voice at the convention. And if Obama supporters want to make sure those delegates are never seated then why are they adverse to having another primary in those states, to show Florida and Michigan we want their support in November whoever the nominee is.

We should all wish Senator Byrd a get well note for all that he means to this country and the US Constitution.

Sorry, but this "media bias" thing is crap.

Hillary's people all have amnesia, but until she lost badly in Iowa, she was being described by the media as having run a brilliant campaign, doing everything right, pitch perfect, etc., etc., etc.

Obama won in Iowa and was the media darling for exactly 72 hours. Then Hillary "found her voice" in NH and was the "comeback kid." They were so enthralled with her and her "victory" in Nevada that they all overlooked that Obama won more delegates there, and only grudgingly reported it at that.

Then came South Carolina. The Clintons overreached there, and their miscalculation probably inflated Obama's victory and, in truth, they've never recovered. The media reported SC as a big Obama victory, but I remember lots of commentators questioning whether he would get a "bounce" from it.

On to Florida. IMHO, the MSM gave Hillary a pass on her "victory" rally there when there had not really been a campaign.

Super Tuesday coverage was, I thought, pretty balanced: they called it a dead heat because that's what it was.

That was followed by Obama's "February Run." Was it biased for the media to report that as anything other than (i) Obama exceeding expectations; (ii) HRC's campaign underestimating the importance of caucuses and getting out-organized in the caucus states; and (iii) her spinmeisters downplaying the importance of the states where Obama won? Of course not; that's what happened.

The fact is that the story of this election is right out there for everyone to see. The Clinton campaign underestimated its opposition; it was mismanaged; and it had no post-Super-Tuesday plan. The Obama campaign raised more money and has been superbly managed, and Obama has been a better candidate.

The fault for what has happened to HRC does not lie with the media; it's in the mirror.

'another holiday from history -'

not to mention reality. that's the current gop, the anti-conservatives, who clearly believe we can stay in Iraq another 100 years, magically without any financial consequences.

'yes, and remember that it's all being borrowed, and that now, debt service/interest consumes a huge chunk of our budget.

Posted by: claudialong | February 27, 2008 11:55 AM

She says without knowing anything about what she is talking about.'

LOL-- a clown who stay on this blog all day, with no visible means of support, form 12 to 7 every day--oh yes, he's an economist, and a scientist too, you know, and he has a yacht and a jag and a wife who's a supermodel -- and really lots and lots of credibility.

the huge Federal deficit and national debt accumulated by Bush-Cheney.

Posted by: les_ca | February 27, 2008 11:57 AM

you mean the one that Dems always add to when it makes it to congress? you can't get a single piece of legislation up for a vote without Dems adding millions to every aspect of it.

I think the story will be a Clinton win if two things occur:

1) She wins the popular vote in Ohio and Texas.

2) She wins more delegates on March 4 than Obama wins on March 4.

If either of those things don't occur, if Obama wins the popular vote in Texas or ifObama extends his delegate lead, I think it'll be a loss and Clinton will drop out.

Age of Russert when he worked with Cuomo - 34
Age of Clinton when she was Goldwater Girl - 17

While I think people can change their views for numerous reasons at any point in their lives, I see little to suggest that Russert had a mid-life crisis that transformed him from a staunchly Democratic political hack to partisan conservative. Hillary's story at the formative years in her life, on the other hand, is well known.

I think his questions are actually very good. They try to get politicians to nail down their positions and get past the BS. A lot are hypotheticals but not unrealistic and they give me an idea of how a candidate will approach things. I don't see a problem with any of the questions from last night. Which ones are "clownishly juvenile and idiotic"?

"Will you, as president, say to Canada and Mexico, "This has not worked for us; we are out"?"

"The fact is, exports now have the highest share of our national income ever. Ohio ranks fourth in terms of exports to Canada and Mexico. Are you sure this has not been better for Ohio than you're suggesting?"

"If the Iraqi government said, President Clinton or President Obama, you're pulling out your troops this quickly? You're going to be gone in a year, but you're going to leave a residual force behind? No. Get out. Get out now. If you don't want to stay and protect us, we're a sovereign nation. Go home now." Will you leave?"

"I want to ask both of you this question, then. If we -- if this scenario plays out and the Americans get out in total and al Qaeda resurges and Iraq goes to hell, do you hold the right, in your mind as American president, to re-invade, to go back into Iraq to stabilize it?"

"Senator Obama, let me ask you about motivating, inspiring, keeping your word. Nothing more important. Last year you said if you were the nominee you would opt for public financing in the general election of the campaign; try to get some of the money out. You checked "Yes" on a questionnaire. And now Senator McCain has said, calling your bluff, let's do it. You seem to be waffling, saying, well, if we can work on an arrangement here. Why won't you keep your word in writing that you made to abide by public financing of the fall election?"

"Why won't you release your tax return, so the voters of Ohio, Texas, Vermont, Rhode Island know exactly where you and your husband got your money, who might be in part bankrolling your campaign?"

"Do you accept the support of Louis Farrakhan?"

"Before the primary on Tuesday, on Sunday, March 2 there's an election in Russia for the successor to President Putin. What can you tell me about the man who's going to be Mr. Putin's successor?"

"Before you go, each of you have talked about your careers in public service. Looking back through them, is there any words or vote that you'd like to take back?"

I like AdrickHenry's suggestion for a debate: no moderator. A really telling and frank debate would involve merely setting up speaking turns and time limits, and then leaving the moderator merely in the role of timekeeper, telling one candidate or the other to shut up at the appropriate time.

Give Candidate One a couple minutes to lay out some plan or policy position on an issue of choice, then Candidate Two gets to question Candidate One about that position, followed by a chance to offer his/her own position, which Candidate One then has the chance to question. Then both candidates get a chance for final rebuttals, and then the process starts again with Candidate Two going first in offering a position on a particular issue.

The problem with this format is that it requires actual intelligence and debating skills, which is in contrast with the mere ability to recite lines. Candidates would have to be prepared to talk about any issue that their opponents might raise, and the risk of public embarrassment for both candidates is magnified greatly. But wouldn't it make a great debate!

Instead, we get these glorified press conferences. I mean, how is this really different from a press conference? Reporters ask questions, and candidates answer with essentially prepared comments and a series of evasive moves to prevent going off script when pressed to do so. The only unique quality of these "debates" is that both candidates are on stage, and they do interact to a degree, but everything is, well, moderated, or filtered and softened by the reporters whose real function seems to be to make the debates a safer place for both candidates.

Yes, there is a time and place for candidates to stand on stage with one another and take questions from people and from reporters, but let's don't pretend that this constitutes a debate. Instead, let's on occasion get rid of the filters, get rid of the safety nets, switch off the safeties, and have a real debate. Yeah, someone might hit the ground hard or get shot, metaphorically speaking, but isn't that the point?

These moderated debates are a lot like the Democratic primary schedule, guaranteed to leave two competitive candidates looking much the same as they did at the start. By keeping the discussions moderated, there is very little chance that either candidate will take a big lead, which is the same effect that proportional distribution of delegates is having on this entire race. Any losses or wins are, in most cases, minimal at best.

yes, and remember that it's all being borrowed, and that now, debt service/interest consumes a huge chunk of our budget.

Posted by: claudialong | February 27, 2008 11:55 AM

She says without knowing anything about what she is talking about.

Quinnipian today has Pennsylvania down to 6 points - 49% - 43% for Clinton, well over a month out. With that in mind, with the delegate count being where it is, and given the trend of 11 in a row for Barack, Clinton NEEDS to win 3 out of the 4 contests, and win at least one of the big ones by at least 15 - 20 points (if not both). Anything less than that, she may call it a win and declare she will fight on, but superdelegates, money, and everything else needed to keep fighting will move to Obama, who will go from frontrunner to presumptive nominee on 5 March, because the scenario I outlined above ain't gonna happen (don't believe me, look around at how many places the media narrative has shifted away from Texas, at best she can hope for a very narrow win there but a likely delegate loss, moving the entire focus to Ohio where she may pull off a 5-10 point win, not nearly enough to begin to close the delegate gap).

Thanks, radicalpatriot.

So, that is in the vicinity of $400,000,000 PER DAY.

I divided 12 billion dollars by 30 days = 400 million dollars a day.

Wow.

Of course if you include the soldiers salaries in the calculation, it may seem like a lot of money. but you don't get to stop paying the Infantry just because they are stateside. Only if you eliminate the infantry can you stop paying them.

this is exactly what Carter and Clinton did and Obama promises to do to balance the budget. We could have a balanced budget right now if we have no enemies in the world and no need for an Army.

another holiday from history - another invitation to attack us without consequence - like clinton and carter all over again.

RE: "...3rd, can anyone (Claudia? Mark?) verify the number Obama threw out there yesterday on Iraq? Are we really spending $12,000,000,000 a MONTH?!?!?

Does anyone know the amount we've been spending per month? And if yes, what is your source?"

Posted above by: AdrickHenry

$12 billion per month is the "official" USG spending on US military forces in Iraq, USG military assistance to the Iraqi military, and USG spending for the "official" reconstruction and economic development efforts controlled by the US Dept of State. That monthly figure comes from annual fiscal yr figures released by the USG Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and by the Defense Dept. and State Dept., divided by 12 to obtain a monthly amount. That amount doesn't incl "unofficial" spending by the USG intelligence community in Iraq for bribes to Iraqi political parties and politicians, for so-called "walking money" paid by the US military to Iraqis for "tips" against anti-US insurgents -- and, of course, financial support paid to the Iraqi Sunni insurgents and the local rural Arab sheikhs who form the "neighborhood auxiliary watch groups" -- all of whom have temporarally allied themselves with the US military because the USG is paying big bucks to them under the table. Analysts who follow those "subterranean anti-insurgency efforts" in Iraq currently estimate that as much as $20-$40 billion (yes BILLION) per yr is going to JUST those below radar "anti-insurgency efforts."

Even all of that is not the most shocking financial figure. By the end of fiscal yr 2008, the USG will have spent almost 3/4 of a trillion US dollars -- repeat, TRILLION US DOLLARS -- on all of its activities stemming from the US invasion, occupation and war in Iraq.

I find it amazing that neither Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton -- or, in fact, ANY other Democratic leader has mentioned these amazing amounts of money.

For that matter, neither has the Wash Post or any other part of the MSM publicized these incredibly large amounts of USG and taxpayer funds having been and continuing to be thrown right down the toilet -- when such funds could have been used for universal health care, fixing the crumbling US infrastructure, providing a solution to Social Security coverage of baby boomers when they retire -- or even just REDUCING the huge Federal deficit and national debt accumulated by Bush-Cheney.

'AdrickHenry: Yes, Obama's assertion that we are spending about $12 billion a month in Iraq is accurate. It is hard to get an exact figure, of course, because there are many ways to calculate that figure. But just do a Google of "monthly spending in iraq" and you will get dozens of reliable sources with a figure between $10 to $15 billion per month.'

yes, and remember that it's all being borrowed, and that now, debt service/interest consumes a huge chunk of our budget.

My view is that she can go on if she wins any state on March 4th. The media has acted with extreme bias (or should I say hatred( against Hillary from the day Obama and Hillary joined the race, and is now calling Obama unstoppable. So if she can stop him in Ohio with no money and no media favor, that tells you something: She is a better candidate in all the large states except where the black vote is so large and so monolithic for Obama. If Obama can not win in Ohio now with everything in his favor, he may be a loosing candidate in November. Remember, when he faces the Republicans, all bets are off. Media can project him as the most electible in November(just as they treated Hillary until Obama's Iowa victory), but by the time Republicans play their dirty campaign Obama may not look like the phenomenon that he is now. All his lofty words will acquire sinister meaning and he will surely unite the conservatives behind John McCain. So Ohio victory for Hillary in March 4th may cause alarm bells for fence sitters and we will see a realization that Obama is not all that popular that the media make it out. If he wins all four states, then there is no stopping him. For better or worse, democrats have to unite behind him, but I have a nagging feeling that some Hillary supporters will take it out on him (and justifiably so because of the media hate and bias so brazenly manifested during the primary season)in November.

Hillary missed an important opportunity to nail Obama by not asking him "How does your merely voting "Present" in the Illinois Senate, prepare him to make major decisions as President?

In my opinion, such reluctance indicates a lack of preparedness and an unwillingness to make the hard decisions.

Mark [and other Texans]: I presume you have seen--you seem to see everything ;) --the following [excerpted here] from the Burnt Orange Report:

Reps. Dunnam, Coleman, Gallego: Clinton Has Wrong Attitute Towards Texas

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

The three members of the Texas House Democratic Leadership team -- State Rep. Jim Dunnam (Waco), State Rep. Garnet Coleman (Houston), and State Rep. Pete Gallego (Alpine) -- held a press conference yesterday to call out Senator Clinton's statement about Texas not being in play in the general election. It should be noted upfront that all three State Reps. have endorsed Senator Obama.

First, here is Senator Clinton's statement, as was originally reported by Evan Smith of Texas Monthly (and later discussed by Michael here at BOR):

"I'd love to carry Texas, but it's usually not in the electoral calculation for the Democratic nominee; Florida and Michigan are.

Our House Democratic Leadership didn't appreciate the comment. From the Dallas Morning News:

"It harkens back to the 1990s, when Texas Democrats were basically abandoned," Dunnam said. Democrats lost all statewide offices in 1998. They later lost total control of the Legislature. The party has been trying to rebuild ever since. The lawmakers said Obama has assured them he would campaign in Texas if he becomes the nominee. They noted that he helped campaign for other candidates in red states in the 2006 elections.

AdrickHenry: Yes, Obama's assertion that we are spending about $12 billion a month in Iraq is accurate. It is hard to get an exact figure, of course, because there are many ways to calculate that figure. But just do a Google of "monthly spending in iraq" and you will get dozens of reliable sources with a figure between $10 to $15 billion per month.

I think history will record that the Clonton's $5 million loan to Hillary's campaign, was the moment when everything started to go wrong.
http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/where-hillary-went-wrong/

I don't see how Senator Clinton can credibly go on if she doesn't win both Texas and Ohio. As it stands now I expect Obama to win Texas and Vermont and Clinton to squeak by in Ohio and win Rhode Island. The delegate math is difficult for her. Looking past March 4, the Obama leaning states are, for the most part, heavily for Obama and the Clinton leaning states are, for the most part, fairly close. That leaves super-delegates and somehow seating the Florida and Michigan delegates as her only hope. If she wins the nomination that way, it will hopelessly split the party.

Assuming my predictions for March 4 are accurate, I would expect the super-delegates to begin lining up behind Obama and putting the nomination away. The pros will realize that handing the nomination to Senator Clinton through something that smacks of a "back-room" deal will mean President McCain (a good thing from my perspective). There will be enormous pressure on her to drop out and her fundraising will dry up.

As for the Republicans voting for Obama, I find that amusing since he is by far the stronger Democrat in a race against McCain. It doesn't help Senator Clinton to continue to maintain she is a better candidate versus McCain while the head to head polling shows Obama beating him and