So the two Democratic candidates are agreeing to again debate and what will we get: probably the same thing we have had in all the other debates. What ever group of persons who are there will be talked to on the topic that the candidates believe they want to here while answering questions that they were given weeks in advance, so as to prepare for. Now I like debates but not these predetermended answer debates that we are fed. Why not have a debate where the candidates don't know what question is coming? Gee, they are running for president, and in this world no terriorst is going to give them their questions and/or plans thirty days in advance so that they can work with their crew to come up with an answer. Also with the new tech, why not do a debate like the new Fox show, The Moment of Truth. At least if the debate was done that way we could hear a voice come in stating that that last answer was a LIE. If nothing else it would make a more interesting debate. Also let's hear some real questions, somethings like these:
1)All of you members of Congress are millionares, so why must the tax payer fund your HEALTH CARE and your RETIREMENT?
2)How come, when Social Security, was operating in the black, your party members voted to take the money out, that was for senors, disabled persons, and serving children, and spend it on pork barrel junk while replacing it with worthless IOUs?
3)Since you are the employee of the people, why is it that you can give yourselfs such big raises when emplyees in the private sector can not? Why not let your emplyers, the people, deside if you deserve a raise?
4)Again on your pay, why is it that senors, disabled persons, and serving children of a deceased parent only received a 2.3% pay raise or less then $25 dollars a month but you gave yourselfs over a $4500 raise or almost $400 a month?
5)Why is it that you can not present a bill to Congress and then the President with out adding millions upon millions of junk pork to bill, can you not deliever a clean bill?
6)And last for today, why do you think that the public is so stupid? Why do you think that you are the only ones who can make decisions on what people really need and then screw it up when you try to do it?

Well let's see the debate, and let's hope that someone will ask the really interesting questions that have not been pre-rehursted. And gee, please use the lie detechtor, if for nothing else, just so we can see their faces when the voice says: THAT WAS A LIE!

I object most of all to calling the series of joint press conferences we have been seeing "debates." When other people than the candidates ask the questions and, at most, 90 seconds is allowed for an answer, you oversimplify the process of policy making. The process is designed to appeal to people whose attention span is conditioned by the amount of time it takes to run a typical football play. Politics is more like baseball: there are long, boring stretches where you are just slogging through ledgers and budgets, but you have to keep your eye on the ball if you are to understand what is happening when somebody does something spectacular or interesting.

As an Obama supporter,I deeply resent the Clinton talking point about how much the world would sit up and take notice if a woman were elected president. Women leaders of countries now are old hat. Its been going on since ancient Egypt. What would be new in the world is a black man being elected the leader of a majority white country. That's never happened before, anywhere. The closest thing to it was the Fujimori government in Peru, which didn't work out very well.

Mrs. Kirchner is now president of Argentina. Michelle Bachelet is ppresident of Chile. Helen Clark is prime minister of New Zealand. Angela Merkel is Chancellor of Germany. And only Mrs. Kirchner was preceded in office by a husband. The other three did it on their own. Why would a woman president of the US whose husband preceded her in that office be such a big deal? It just wouldn't.

But Barack can't say that the world would take notice if a black man were elected president of the United States. All sorts of thoughtless people would accuse him of playing the race card if he did that. It isn't fair, and its dirty pool.

I could be wrong, but I doubt that the DEMS are going to be swift boated in the general election. Reason: if they are, McCain is decent enough that he will be going around putting out fires, disassociating himself from his own supporters who are doing the swift boating. If all we see of McCain is a man who can't even control his own supporters and is always going around disowning them, the Democrats are sure to win anyway, so why worry about it?

Most of the people who read this blog and have posted comments porbably have closely followed the nomination contest to date.

Most of the people who will vote in Ohio, Pennslvania and other states whose primaries/caucuses are yet to come have not.

Media coverage will focus almost excelusively on the horserace; debates (and debate coverage) seem to be the only time the media devotes any coverage to substantive issues.

Americans are entitled to hear the candidates discuss the issues, not just sing "Kumbaya." And I say that as someone who voted for Obama last Tuesday.

Hey, all you HRC supporters please tell me how in the world is Hillary going to straighten out our economy, when she obviously can't manage her own campaign funds? So much for experience. I'm still scratching my head at her long list of accomplishments, what are they? what battles are you referring, when you say she's been tested? There should be a long list considering a claimed 35 years of experience.

Obama has set it up just right at two debates, balancing rallies against national coverage. Despite the opinions of many that Hillary is a better debater, she comes across as wonkish and scripted. Barack has appeared uniting, uplifting (overused word this season), and brilliant.

I find Barack's restraint both puzzling and comforting. I expected him to attack HRC on her "35 years of experience," most of which came from being first lady, some from being in a law firm, and only recently from elected office. Turns out that he was right because the Republicans are doing it for him. His refusal to go the way of Rove is reassuring to voters who like him and hope that he isn't the usual sort of politician. (Make no mistake. He is a politician.)

Right now, plans and their details don't matter. What matters is direction. Barack will move us toward the most important issues (Iraq, health care, education, national debt, environment, energy) successfully by engaging the people and those Republicans not encased in hardened concrete.

Barack should emphasize these concepts and not stoop to comparing point 3 of my plan with point 7 of your plan. If Hillary does that, he should answer succinctly and move on.

In two debates, BHO has the opportunity, without leaving the campaign trail for too long, to appear certain, open, and smart. HRC, if she continues as before, appears arrogant, closed, and smart.

If the Dems really, really are focused on winning in November against "more of the same" McCain, then they must roll out something completely different. HRC is a repeat of the 90s. BHO is really very different.

The race will be over before those debates happen: http://www.politicalinaction.com/2008/02/why-is-white-male-vote-going-to-obama.html

For the media exposure and her wonkish knowledge of policy always prefers debates. She wants him off the trail too where he performs better than her.

Another point that is lacking from the commentary. Hillary didn't need to comment now about her money shortage. She made an issue of it when she didn't have to. In addition to frequent debates and perceived financial troubles, Hillary desires to be viewed as the challenger rather than the established frontrunner. She won the expectations game in New Hampshire and once again on Super Tuesday when Obama fever was talked about even winning NJ, NY, or the big CA. Nothing the Clintons EVER do is free from calculation.

Of course they should debate! Hell we don't even know Barack Rock Star Obama. His only claim to fame is he didn't cast a vote he wasn't allowed to cast since he wasn't in the senate at the time. She should not debate on NBC OR MSNBC though.Hillary Clinton should not debate on MSNBC. Let's face facts MSNBC has lost all sense of journalistic principles regarding bias in journalism. Chris Matthews and now Keith and even Nora have lost it. They hate Hillary and fawn over Obama more then the Obama Girl herself. They have been the most disrespectful news cast crew as well. We all know the debate will draw millions of viewers. Why should this bag of wind unprofessional network be rewarded with such viewer statistics? The entire network has become a joke!

I don't Believe that Sen. Clinton wants the debates for financial reasons. Nor do I think her strategists really believe that she is better at one on one debate. She may have been better at the three and four person forums, but one on one they were evenly matched.
She is simply hoping for Sen Obama to make a mistake. He is unlikely to say or do anything in a stump speech that she can attack him on. And without something new she will continue to fall behind him.
Sen Obama should never have agreed, what he should have said was "I'll be happy to debate as soon as you release your white house papers and your tax statements.

mark

I've found a website with a pretty extensive analysis of the democratic delegate race. It lists all super delegates. Well done!

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/

This often-repeated idea that the "obvious" winning combination for November is to put the top two on the ticket together is very two-dimensional and flawed reasoning.

It didn't help Kerry in 2004 to pick Edwards as running mate. And besides, it's not as if you add their votes together and double the vote. The Democratic base will support either candidate with or without the other. Obama would help Clinton but not enough to overcome her negatives with independents and Republicans. Clinton would not help Obama but would hamper his proven ability to win independents and some moderate Republicans. And her presence on the ticket would undermine his message of change and getting past partisan gridlock.

I think the whole idea of the so-called "dream ticket" is being promoted mostly by Clinton supporters. (Notice it's almost alwayss Clinton-Obama and rarely the other way around.) It is a way to try to suggest to people, "You can have it all," which is a persistent American illusion, while still selling Clinton as the nominee. In other words, it's an attempt to co-opt Obama's supporters or potential supporters.

So I hope that Obama will use the debates partly as an opportunity to, in a subtle and gentle way, pull the plug on the myth of the "dream team."

Obama as nominee needs instead to pick ideally someone with a lot of foreign policy experience (which Hillary doesn't have either) and who maybe can bring along a key state--and probably not another Senator. But it may be hard to get all of that in one person, other than Richardson, and I don't know how it would play to have two "firsts" (African-American and Latino) on the same ticket. Also, while New Mexico is a swing state, it does not have a lot of electoral votes (only 5, I think), unless his presence could help swing Colorado and Nevada also.

But Obama needs to find a way to lay to rest the idea of him as Hillary's running mate and communicate to people they can't have it both ways. They have to choose.

finnpillsbury | February 8, 2008 09:45 AM

Very insightful analysis, which reminds me of how the media spun Clinton's 2-point win in New Hampshire as an "upset" victory. For crying out loud, she had a huge lead up until a few days before the election. Just because the polls showed Obama ahead for a few days (more an indication of inaccurate polling than a supposed sudden gain and sudden loss by Obama) does not mean it was an "upset." The real story was that Obama narrowed her huge lead to 2 points and got an equal number of delegates. But the media bought the Clinton campaign spin.

Then her campaign tried to spin the uncontested Florida vote into a "victory." The media only partially bought that one. I run for exercise about three days a week by myself. By that kind of spin, I'm winning a lot of races!

David Gergen said something the other night on CNN that resonated... Hillary is telling people it's not going to be so nice, we've got big challenges.

Counter to her real-speak, Barack is glorifying the harsh realities we face as a nation by cavalierly sermonizing, to a mezmerized audience...

David Brook's Op Ed in the Times, "Questions for Dr. Retail" cleverly summarizes what Hillary has that Barack doesn't..

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/opinion/08brooks.html

My bet is she's going to play to her no-nonsense, not-so spectacular bargain basement product line to his handy-dandy organic vegetarian fare which caters to upper income/educated types who eat up this righteous cynicism and keep chanting: yes we can, we can... eat hormone free...

That's a debate strategy that will land him flat on his righteous back-side....

The Fact Checker: Truth in Politics
www.edenprairienews.com

rfpl: There seems to be an effort by all the Major News Organizations to confuse the public, for whatever reason, I have no idea.

lyle, NYT doesn't include Iowa, Nevada, and other caucus states in which the delegates aren't actually pledged to the candidates. I don't think it includes superdelegates either. It's the most conservative count that I've heard of so far.

The NYTimes has Hillary with 904 Delegates, and CNN has Hillary with 1,033. This is what I am talking about.

Hillary Clinton suddenly wanted 5 debates not because she is the better debater but because:
1. With her campaign's financial problems she needs the free exposure.
2. She wants to take Obama off the campaign trail where he is most effective, face-to-face with the voters.
3. She had a huge head start across the country, and the more time Obama spends campaigning in the states, the better he is able to overcome her advantage in name recognition, organization, and familiarity to the voters. As in the case with Michigan and Florida, no campaigning works to her advantage. She wants to limit the voters' exposure to Obama and maintain her advantage.
4. She also knows that the debates allow the media to control the message rather than the candidates, and that also works to her advantage. (Now, if they could have a real debate, where you take the media out of the picture and let the candidates respond directly to each other and question each other, that would be a format where Obama could excel.)
Obama did not "dodge" debates. He agreed to 2 debates. Five would have been too much time to spend on debates, which are less effective means of getting his message out since few undecided voters will be watching them anyway, and those who have made up their mind are not likely to be swayed by the debates.

Really, I don't think the debates serve much purpose. Other than the volatile South Carolina debate, they are mostly just a rehashing of the same things over and over again, with each candidate responding to whatever questions with his or her talking points. And other than Iraq, the differences between the two of them on issues are too nuanced for most undecided voters to grasp anyway.

Iraq is the sole exception. Clinton was waffled on that issue and tried to please everyone with poll-tested answers. Obama has been very clear and strong about his opposition to the war. Clinton tries to undermine that by saying that Obama has voted to fund the war, but the truth is that he voted to fund the troops, not the war. And among Democratic candidates, only Kucinich did not vote for the funding.

Two debates in 4-5 weeks is plenty. Five would be a senseless and ineffective distraction from campaigning in the several states with immanent primaries and caucases. The only debate that may have made any difference in how people voted was perhaps the S. Carolina one, which apparently swayed more people to Obama rather than to Clinton. The other debates made little impact on the process. So having a debate every week would be a huge waste of time. Most people would get tired of them and tune out anyway.

Clinton supporters will dismiss all of this with the silly idea that Obama is afraid to debate her or that she does better in the debates (which the vote counts do not support. But my reply to them is: See #1-#4 above. That explains it all.

After the single one-on-one debate thus far, Obama is the one who gained ground if anyone,overcoming her huge Super Tuesday lead in polls and ending up basically in a tie. But I really don't believe the debate changed anyone's vote. It was the people getting to know Obama on the campaign trail. Debates are mostly watched by political junkies (like me), almost all of whom, by this point in the process, have studied the candidates and decided already who to support, for whatever reasons. Even the unique S. Carolina debate occurred in the context of other campaign factors that were influential on the SC vote.

optimyst: I have that link and others as well. rypt, has about the same info I have been able to find and most of them differ as to the count is what I am saying. My problem is how can we actually KNOW when claims are so different by Major News Organizations? At least we have a good idea of how close the race remains.

You know, the story line grows ever feebler that Obama is naive and inexperienced and will have his butt kicked by the more savvy and experienced. Obama has survived quite well, thank you very much, and has made the presumed heir to the Bush / Clinton / Bush / Clinton dynasty act like the underdog.

If this is a foreshadowing of his presidency, then he'll be fine. More than fine. He'll be ready on day one.

On the delegate count, I heard an interview on NPR last night with a delegate counter from the Kerry campaign. He suggested that he would trust the AP numbers at this point (they happen to also be the ones NPR uses), since the AP reporters actually talk with superdelegates and do some reporting before posting the numbers.

While mikebrooks is being a little overdramatic and I usually disagree with him his opinion on the party splitting result of a brokered convention are close to spot on.

There are a number of Obama supporters who if Clinton came out ahead on the basis of delegates determined by primaries and caucusses would not vote for her, and likewise some Clinton supporters who wouldn't support Obama if he came out ahead based on those locked delegates but these people are few (and fewer among Clintonites than Obama's followers). If the Democratic nom matches the results of the accumulation of legitimate contests the Dem party can come out of it fine.

Superdelegates, the beauty shows of MI and FL and perhaps the Edwards delegates don't guarantee this. The superdelegates could organize the machine toward the popular loser, the machine can change its mind on MI or FL to help Hillary or Edwards could try to play kingmaker. This will amplify the small slights and drive people out by telling them they matter less than the machine. It is a greater fear of the Obama people because they are new to the party and less affiliated to the machine and know that the Clintons have a good deal of control over it. Picking Clinton like that will kill her chances among a lot of Obama supporters.

optimyst, thanks for the nyt link. interesting that the caucus states (from feb 5) haven't had delegates allocated yet. Coincidentally, those are all states where Obama won big, earning 60 to 75% of the vote.

Wrong again, Mr. Pink. This is the NY Times policy, and I quote: "The New York Times counts only delegates that have been officially selected and are bound by their preferences."

Having said that, I find their counts pretty useless in this dynamic environment. Here is their official count:

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/delegates/index.html

claudia: "no, fraid not. maybe that's just you. i know many many Dems who will vote for either one, perfectly happily. I do not hate, loathe, etc... anyone."

Well said. It takes a sick twisted sort of person (like mibrooks, say) to act so as to give the other party control of the White House.

FYI: The official delegate count for the Dems is not available anywhere I can find. The only thing is estimates and they are all over the Internet, Cable News, and Newspapers claiming to be the most accurate count. The Repubs are easy for most of theirs are Winner take all. I don't think there is any way of finding who the "Super Delegates" are either, only that they are members of Congress, other elected officials, and other high ranking officials in the party.

' But, both sides are locked in this cycle of mutual distrust, mutual hatred, will continue on and on. '

no, fraid not. maybe that's just you. i know many many Dems who will vote for either one, perfectly happily. I do not hate, loathe, etc... anyone.

mibrooks is the best argument against a McCain presidency: Old people are too darn cranky.

mibrooks: "until being showered with racist comments"

Oh come on, old man, lead us one of the racist comments you got from a Clinton supporter on here. Just one -- can you do it?

mibrooks: "was called a senile old fool, a liar, and several other names and invited to waste my time posting some citations for this empty headed twit to trash."

By the way, old fool, you weren't called any names until you responded to my request for a cite with the first of your shrieking rants.

Actually, the mutual loathing people like Spectator and drindle/claudia and I feel fr each other is pretty reflective of what has/will happen to the Democratic Party. Now, there are a lot of Democrats that simply detest Clinton and wont vote for her no matter what. In my case, I never liked Clinton, but was pretty tolerant of her supporters...until being showered with racist comments and male bashing by quite a few of the more fanatical NOW types that cheerlead Clinton's candidacy.

Most of us like Obama and support him and will vote for him. But, both sides are locked in this cycle of mutual distrust, mutual hatred, will continue on and on. The debates wont solve anything. They will be used by Clinton to pull some dirty trick or other. That is pretty much a given and I cannot see why Obama is even wasting his time. I suppose he feels cornered into a dog and pony show. After the next "debate", though, we will all be back here, Obama people claiming he won and Cltinon folk claiming she won and Carville and his hacks engaged in some sort of Swift Boat attacks, a down in the gutter smear campaign, more out of the closet racism, a little pitting hispanics against blacks, the usual Clinton politics. In the end, though, Clinton wont have the delagates to win. Neither will Obama. There are 1400 delates remaining. Obama and Cltinon have about 900 each right now. One of them would have to take 1100 of those remaining delgates to head off a brokered convention. It ain't going to happen! We will have a brokered convention and Clinton's people, the same ones who designed the front loaded primarilies for her, will likely give her the nomination. Many/most Obama people will understand this, will either sit the election out or go third party or will vote for McCain. Count on it. They wont be coming back to Clinton in the interests of "party unity". More than a few will turn against the Democratic Party in general and the Republican's are just plain stupid if they don't realize this right now and begin making plans to take advantage of it. Any way you look at it, genuine Democracy, genuine debate, have all been swept away and the Democratic party has been split into roughly equal mutually loathing camps. Can you say "President McCain"? Maybe "Republican Senate"?

mibrooks: "In any event, I quoted the common stat that 60 million American jobs had been lost to outsourcing"

Calling a lie a common stat doesn't make it any less of a lie, SFB. If it's so common, then back it up, tough guy.

blarg & optimyst, I agree. The only data I've found at wa post is on the elections page (in politics section):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/politics/elections/

That only gives the running totals, and hasn't moved in a while. It doesn't give the breakout by state, certainly not within the state.

I checked over at electoral-vote.com, but he only republishes the CNN totals, which include superdelegates. (his assessment of the candidates is worth the trip over there anyway)

optimyst: Very good point. I haven't seen a single news outlet which actually explains delegate counts. And I'd really like to see the explanation for results like Alabama, in which Obama got a majority of votes but a minority of delegates. It seems that nobody really knows what's going on. And the pollsters are definitely off their game this week; I guess they wanted a rest after all the polling they did last week.

Drindly - When I got here, this morning, someone posted some nonsense about Cltinon's legislative achievements. I answered back that one of her main achievements was being the mother of free trade. Under Bull's Presidency, SHE drove free trade. She has been to India several times, met with Indian corporate heads and government officials and made it part of her history. Of course, with the economy in shatters, with jobs outsourced, with guest workers taking millions of jobs, we don't hear so much about this anymore. In any event, I quoted the common stat that 60 million American jobs had been lost to outsourcing and was called a senile old fool, a liar, and several other names and invited to waste my time posting some citations for this empty headed twit to trash. I merely suggested that she qui wasting all of our time and go look. I also, BTW, posted a citation about some of her Indian ties which, of course(!), "Specticular2" didn't bother to read, which pretty much summed up my earlier opinion of her - a shill hysterical NOW type...

mibrooks: "Oh golly! Called names by a feminist twit! Whatever shall I do? Tell you what, hag, you put all yoyur eggs in that Clinton basket and the voters will crush you fools and relegate you to history's garbage heap."

claudia: "you might as well forget it and ignore him spectator--everybody else does. he just comes here to find someone to spew vitriol at. very angry."

I would, but it's fun in a sick sort of way to get this cretin to blow his stack -- and so easy, too! Also, it's good to get him to divulge his agenda: telling lies and spewing hate.

you might as well forget it and ignore him spectator--everybody else does. he just comes here to find someone to spew vitriol at. very angry.

Two thing I am really stunned by in the wake of Super Tuesday:

1) After all of the breathless speculation BEFORE the actual voting and caucusing occurred, there is virtually no good source to follow the process of counting the delegate commitments still being awarded in the ongoing process. Most outlets are simply reporting those results that have become official, then obscuring the impact of Super Tuesday by aggregating them in a total with previously awarded delegates and super delegate endorsements and with no comment about how many delegates are still unresolved since Tuesday.

Since when does the media wait until official results are in to report on its own research and opinions? Granted, y'all worked hard the last couple months, but at least put out a "gone fishin'" sign so we'll know not to hold our breaths. I can't figure what is the cause: laziness or sloppiness.

What I'd expect to see is a breakdown by state and candidate of those Feb 5 delegate selections made official with totals by candidate at the bottom of the list, separate columns for delegates not yet awarded broken down by three categories, leans Obama, leans Clinton, and insufficient data. Such data would be updated in real time until the last Super Tuesday delegate is awarded. The only source I've found even close to this is at campaigndiaries.com. I can't believe the Washington Post isn't providing this info.

2) Post Super Tuesday polling. Where is the polling for Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington, Maryland, Virginia, etc.? Maybe it was Tsunami Tuesday and all polling organizations got swept away by it, and we're now on our own. Or maybe, they bought into the spin that it would all be decided by Feb 5 and are on that fishing vacation.

This all seems mighty strange to me.

"Have you prepared enough baba ganoush for the feast of Obama-Dodd?"

thank you for making me spit my tea...

so bsimon, i guess that precludes a McCain-Leiberman, ticket, eh?

Oh golly! Called names by a feminist twit! Whatever shall I do? Tell you what, hag, you put all yoyur eggs in that Clinton basket and the voters will crush you fools and relegate you to history's garbage heap.

mibrooks: "Spectator2 can't read? Can't use the internet? Why am I not surprised? Typical hysteria driven feminist. "Vote for Hillary because she's woman". Nothing about policy nor ethics nor competence. Just more and more hyteria, shrill name calling, mob mentality piling on anyone pointing to a flaw, cheap insults, and bankupt ideology."

Dear god, you senile piece of crap, you call people hags and you rant about name calling? You're the one who sounds like the shrill hag. What a sick freak you are.

And of course, still no support for your 60 million jobs lost claim. Wonder why you'd rather type another of your disgusting rants than take the ten seconds to do a Google search to find a link -- but of course, that would work only if such a link exists.

You are a deeply disturbed, psychotic individual. I pity anyone who comes into real-world contact with you.

edwcorey
"What about McKinley-Roosevelt?"

Those were different times. People didn't have telephones, much less text messages.

McKinley-Roosevent has the aura of the aristocracy that commonly ran the country in those days. Remember, that ticket predates the golden age of Rockefeller, Carnegie and Morgan. Railroad barons! Steel Barons! Oil Barons! The rules were different then.

bsimon: You misunderstood what I am saying. The "History Making" aspect is only an added plus to what I think would be a very strong ticket.

Spectator2 can't read? Can't use the internet? Why am I not surprised? Typical hysteria driven feminist. "Vote for Hillary because she's woman". Nothing about policy nor ethics nor competence. Just more and more hyteria, shrill name calling, mob mentality piling on anyone pointing to a flaw, cheap insults, and bankupt ideology.

The second President Roosevelt went with 3-2 for three different veep nominees:

Roosevelt (or if you prefer)- Garner twice
Roosevelt - Wallace
Roosevelt - Truman

Once again, if you're going to complain about substance, you need to offer substance to support your claims.

Hillary is far smarter than Barack? But Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review -- arguably the highest honor possible for a law school student. Hillary, by contrast, finished towards the bottom of her class at Yale, and she failed the bar exam in DC coming out of law school.

Both times that Obama and Clinton have been put in the same position -- as Senators and law students -- Obama has had a more impressive record. It certainly begs the question of why we should expect Hillary to make a better POTUS.

mibrooks: "

Ah, yes, more stimulating conversation and polite debate with another of Clinton's ignorant and hysertical mob. Spectator2, the last time you hags got your hair twisted all in a knot and rammed through one of your "great ideas" it was Prohibition and we all know how well that worked out. It figures, all Clinton supporters are dunces and/or crooks -
"Hillary Clinton supports job outsourcing to India and her receiving donations in return - at our expense!"
-- http://www.redpills.org/?p=348

http://www.redpills.org/?p=348"

Hey freakazoid, does any of that crap support your claim of 60 million jobs lost? If not, stuff it in your wrinkled old butt, you sexist piece of crap. How many times are you going to use the word hag?

Ah, yes, more stimulating conversation and polite debate with another of Clinton's ignorant and hysertical mob. Spectator2, the last time you hags got your hair twisted all in a knot and rammed through one of your "great ideas" it was Prohibition and we all know how well that worked out. It figures, all Clinton supporters are dunces and/or crooks -
"Hillary Clinton supports job outsourcing to India and her receiving donations in return - at our expense!"
-- http://www.redpills.org/?p=348

http://www.redpills.org/?p=348

Posted by: bsimon: "I think it has something to do with syllables & 'sounds'. Three syllables is good, like Reagan-Bush or Clinton-Gore. Two syllables is OK. Bush-Quayle worked once, but not twice. Dole-Kemp just didn't sound right. More than three syllables is not effective. Gore-Lieberman. Ouch. It just hurts the ears. Mondale-Ferraro, another bad one. Dukakis-anything.
This could be bad news for Obama, unless he selects a nameless VP, or runs alone."

What about McKinley-Roosevelt?

Especially since history will be made with either Obama OR Clinton on top of the ticket. There's no reason to make too much history at once. Leave some history to be made later.

OK, how about an Obama-Dodd ticket?

Obama-Dodd has the benefit of sounding like a Islamic holiday, as in:

"Have you prepared enough baba ganoush for the feast of Obama-Dodd?"

"I am thinking of the logic of a Clinton/Obama ticket and the History making aspects."

'Making History' is an asinine reason to pick a running mate.

"Ali, bombaye!, Ali, bombaye!"

I couldn't resist.

I don't like the choice of Bayh for veep.

Republicans will produce signs and bumper stickers saying Obama BYE!

Good analysis, bsimon. Considering the criteria you set forth, Obama has no choice but to nominate as his VP, Senator Evan Bayh. It just rolls right off the tongue: Obama-Bayh. Obama-Bayh. Obama-Bayh.

If Obama was a professional wrestler, his signature move would be the "Obama-Bayh" sleeper-hold. He would wrap his arms around his opponents' necks and sing them an "Obama-Bayh" as they slowly lost consciousness.

Obama-Bayh 2008!

PS - It's Friday and I'm bored.

BOKO: I am thinking of the logic of a Clinton/Obama ticket and the History making aspects. First Woman POTUS, First Black VP, then to 2016 First Black POTUS. I've been giving this scenario some thought, and the more I think about it, I am finding it to be a pretty good idea, and more than plausible.

Come to think of it, perhaps Hillary is stuck as well, because she's running as Hillary, not as Clinton. For Ike, it was clearly a good strategy; Eisenhower, at four syllables, is far too long to stick with voters.

"looks like the track record of nominees who pick an opponent to run on their ticket is mixed at best."

I think it has something to do with syllables & 'sounds'. Three syllables is good, like Reagan-Bush or Clinton-Gore. Two syllables is OK. Bush-Quayle worked once, but not twice. Dole-Kemp just didn't sound right. More than three syllables is not effective. Gore-Lieberman. Ouch. It just hurts the ears. Mondale-Ferraro, another bad one. Dukakis-anything.

This could be bad news for Obama, unless he selects a nameless VP, or runs alone. Clearly Clinton-Obama fails the syllable test, as does McCain-Huckabee, or McCain-Pawlenty. He needs a one-syllable running mate, as would Clinton.

mibrooks: "Spectator2 - Having witnessed your hysterical comments for Hillary in forums all over this newspaper, I doubt very much if you're supporting Obama."

Now let's see a link to even one of these "hysterical" comments, old fool.

The internet is a godsend to pathological liars like you. What a piece of garbage you are.

One question - both Senators have missed lots of votes as a result of all the campaigning they've been doing. Does anyone think that adding debates to their schedules could lead to problems for the Dems in the Senate? Especially now that McCain has the nomination pretty much finished?

Spectator2 - Having witnessed your hysterical comments for Hillary in forums all over this newspaper, I doubt very much if you're supporting Obama. If you are, good for you, you will have done something useful for once. As for that nasty hag you seem to love so much, it was under Cltinon that free trade started, that the H1-B visa began, that all tariff's on trade were ended and, at the time, Hillary bragged that it was her idea, part of that "partner-two-for-one" nightmare of a presidency. Oh, and if you want to check with the Programmers Guild, the number of Amercian engineers who have lost their job due to just Indian H1-B guest workers? FIVE MILLION! Thank you ever so much Hillary for the current depression.

What's more important: how many debates there are going to be, or the quality of the debates themselves? All the debates so far have been a sham, featuring wimpy questions asked by "reporters" who know nothing about policy and who are unwilling to question blatant lies and misleading statements.

The way to prevent such debates in the future is to have experts ask the questions:

http://nomoreblather.com/policy-debates

bsimon: thanks. looks like the track record of nominees who pick an opponent to run on their ticket is mixed at best.

Sounds like the best approach is to pick someone regardless of whether or not that person sought the nomination as well. That seems to make little if any difference in the general election result.

I believe it is needed since there is so little difference between the 2 candidate's policies. Voters need to listen to a one on one discussion from both of them. They owe it to us. I don't see anything wrong with having more debates because then the whole country gets to engage in it and not just voters in the primary states. I'm for it!

Obama is a coward and afraid to debate Hillary because he has no substance, is nothing but hot air, and cannot think on par with her. Hiding behind Oprah's skirt shows America that he is way too insecure to lead! In the words of James Carvelle, "He has now been completely Wussified."

I believe it is needed since there is so little difference between the 2 candidate's policies. Voters need to listen to a one on one discussion from both of them. They owe it to us. I don't see anything wrong with having more debates because then the whole country gets to engage in it and not just voters in the primary states. I'm for it!

mibrooks: "Spectator2 - Provide citations so you can insult us, make a few snide remarks, and in general act immature and silly? Not on your life!"

Who is this "us" to whom you refer? My post was aimed specifically at you.

Sorry liar, but you gave a pretty specific figure of 60 million jobs. Since you can't produce even one cite for that, we'll just conclude that you pulled it out of your wrinkled old butt.

BTW, I'm voting for Obama next week, so try another "Shoot the messenger" approach, k?

Posted by: TAH1 | February 8, 2008 12:46 PM

I hope you are not serious. Boycott Oprah because she supports Obama? You pseudo-feminists make me laugh and are no different from the neo-conservatives.

One footnote on my post above - I don't think that Senator Clinton's strategy will work. She's planning a strategy for an empty suit candidate, and I think there's a chance that the debates will show folks how false that claim is. Obama has gotten better over time in the debates, and I think that will continue.

Hi Lyle -

thing is, I don't think Obama would run with Hillary... for that matter, I am not sure he would have run (for VP) with anyone. And I do not think he would choose her to be his running mate, nor do I think it would be the choice of the party. The 2 of them (3, if you count Bill - and you almost have to) are just not a good fit - not electorally, and not in terms of their base(s).

I can only imagine what gems Hillary will produce in February . . .

http://hillaryclintondebates.com/

Hi Chris,

Love The Fix!

I'm not sure that Hillary's debate strategy can be labeled as either "savvy" or "silly". Instead, I would label it "necessary". Obama seems to pick up more and more support as time goes on. He has forward momentum that Hillary, as a known quantity on the political stage for 16 years, seems to lack. He is starting to build a sizable advantage in terms of money. Hillary runs the risk of being run-over by Obama - she has no choice but to try and engage him directly in order to remain relevant and to shore up her support. Unfortunately for her, Obama more than held his own in their first one-on-one debate. In fact, he delivered a devastating blow in their exchange about Iraq. Look for Obama to raise her support for the Iraq War Resolution, and his opposition frequently in the next few weeks.

jon.morgan writes
"WA Gov. Christine Gregoire endorses Barack Obama."

Is it just me, or does it seem like Obama keeps winning new endorsements, while Clinton keeps re-announcing old ones?

If that perception is correct, is it an indicator as to what the super-delegates might be thinking?

This is a savvy move by Clinton, but shouldn't be too big a surprise. This does the following (which many have already mentioned):

1. Get free air time.
2. Go into a debate format with Obama instead of trading speeches.
3. Keep debate stuff in the news cycle at a time when election results which seem likely to favor Obama will be coming out.
4. Occupy Obama's time so he can't campaign. While HRC is busy with debate-prep, she can send out Bill Clinton for events. Example: here in Wisconsin, we've heard that we probably won't see Senator Clinton, but will probably see Bill.

I agree with claudialong above that debates can be helpful in getting a better handle on policy, but would really prefer that they each focus on specific topics instead of covering the same ground. A foreign policy debate without mention of Iraq would be interesting, for example.

Spectator2 writes
"I'm trying to think of primary also-rans -- getting the veep nomination"

gore in 92
Kemp in 96 (it was dole-kemp, wasn't it?)
Lieberman in 2000 (whoops)
Edwards in 2004 (whoops)

Spectator2 - Provide citations so you can insult us, make a few snide remarks, and in general act immature and silly? Not on your life! If you can read, you can do a quick search for arricles on the effects of free trade and outsourcing for yourself. The Clinton's made their millions from promoting free trade, for providing outsourcing services, for providing Indian H1-B guest workers who have displaced millions of Amercian engineers and computer p[rogrammers, from cheerleading this disaster. Hillary, as part of her "experience", was in India last year, shuilling for campaign cash (and got a lot!) and wasn't called "the Senator from India" or nothing!

There is a ridiculous notion that only Obama could beat McCain and Hillary would get trounced. The truth is that the American public is 70-75% against the
war in Iraq. McCain has vowed to stay
there up to 100 years if necessary while
both Obama and Clinton would start a
phased withdrawal, forcing the Iraqis
to pick up the slack. Either Obama or
Clinton would whip McCain on that matter
but Obama could have trouble as the Democratic candidate as he would be completely vetted and attacked by the
media and the Republican Swift-boaters.
Let's admit that Obama is a great orator
but has yet to come up with any viable
matters other than Universal Healthcare. And, that isn't universal since he wants
it to be voluntary---laughable. If you
think this scenario is wrong, take a look
at what the Republicans are doing now. They
are taking pot shots at Clinton and leaving
Obama alone. Contrary to what they say, they are actually pushing for a contest and the fresh meat of an Obama campaign
and are trying to get Hillary out of the
picture. Obama has a bright future but he
just isn't ready at this time. the "rock star" image will only get him so far, then
he has to come up with substantive programs and detailed description as to
how he will bring "hope" and "unity" to
the U.S. and the world. We now have an
occupant in the White House who also promised to be a "uniter not a divider" and you can see what an unqualified occupant can do. Like Obama, Bush was a
"nice guy to have a beer with" and the
media loved him. Like Obama, the press gave Bush a free ride and did nothing
to search out the distortions in the
Republican attacks against Gore in 2000
or Kerry in 2004. The result has been
7 years of complete disaster in domestic
and foreign policy and a Supreme Court
dominated by the extremists on the right.
In 2008, let's do it right and work to
get the most qualified candidate into
the oval office and straighten out this
country's mess. For me, Hillary is the
best choice for the country now and, with
experience, Obama would appear to be a
top candidate in 2016. Even then, he'd be
only 52 years old.

Clinton is begging for these debates for a couple of reasons.

1. She thinks that she can out maneuver Obama based on her ability to talk at great length about the issues, and since these two will be the only ones in the debate they could go on and on about them.(Health Care in Cali anyone?) If Hillary can force Obama to talk about the issues and not preach to the bigger picture which is what he has been doing then she would have scored a victory in these debates.

2. I agree with Chris's point that she is falling drastically behind in the $$$$$$ business and if she can get more free pub then she will take it.

However this could backfire on Clinton, if Obama can pin her down again on the her Iraq vote then he will score major points with plenty of Dems, also it is blatantly apparent that the more time people get to see Obama and watch him speak the more votes he gets. There is no way Hillary wins Florida(whether it counted or not) by that big of a margin or at all for that matter if Obama had been able to campaign down there.

Overall I would say it is a pretty good strategy by Clinton because she can out talk Obama on the issues, but she will ahve to be careful not to act too much like the Washingtonite she is because that will play RIGHT into Obama's strategy.

What about a Obama/Benny-Hinn 08 ticket?

BOKO: A Clinton/Obama ticket is highly probable, but not the other way. I don't think Hillary would accept the VP slot, but Obama would for a good shot in 2016.

It's only natural that debates benefit the underdog because it gives them more media time. One reason may be that Clinton thinks she can do better in a debate than Obama, where not everything works when fit into handy sound-bite format. Remember in 2004 when Kerry proposed monthly debates and Bush completely rejected the idea? It's because Bush debates like a five year old, and he didn't want Kerry to have more media time to actually clarify positions. No major harm to Bush, and Kerry didn't shake the "flip-flopper" label. In this case, Clinton is hoping for another zinger to show Obama's inexperience.

Hillary Clinton wins every debate with Barack Obama. Of course, he does not want to debate. Obama gets a free pass from the media who are fixated on promoting him, why? Because they know he can't win. Hillary is the more intelligent, more experienced, more politically skilled, with the best grasp of domestic & international issues of any candidate in the race of any party, bar none. She's the most qualified candidate to be President. Obama is unelectable. It's that simple. He would be crucified in a general election. His "I was a community organizer in the south side of Chicago and a couple of years in the Senate" won't cut it as qualifications for President. The Dems should vote smart for Hillary and not squander their chances for victory in November. The Dems are lucky to have Hillary!

BOYCOTT OPRAH! OPRAH HAS BETRAYED HER GENDER, WOMEN MADE OPRAH'S MILLIONS, SHE MADE HER MONEY CELEBRATING WOMEN, SUPPORTING WOMEN, ETC. AND WHEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO PUT HER MONEY WHERE HER MOUTH HAS BEEN, OPRAH CHOOSES RACE OVER GENDER! BOYCOTT OPRAH**BOYCOTT OPRAH***

"That brainchild cost us more than 60 million jobs and led directly to the currrent recession."

60 million, huh? Got anything close to support for that assertion?

Robert from Atlanta,

The audaciousness of your presumption is that Obama is somehow comparable to MLK or John F. Kennedy...that his support is overwhelmingly diverse..actually Clinton's is because she is getting the Latino and Oriental votes....the elderly, woman, and America's poor....

That he engenders some illusionary sense of hope is nothing more than bluster, brass, that doesn't equate to realistic solutions for the critical issues the new President will face.

Superdelegates are not bowled over by bluster and brass and they will be the ones who will most likely decide this race...

The Fact Checker: Truth in Politics
wwww.edenprairienews.com

davestickler - Don't forget Hillary's one real "achievement" - "free trade". That brainchild cost us more than 60 million jobs and led directly to the currrent recession.

Get your woolies out Goreacle

The Sun Also Sets
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, February 07, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Climate Change: Not every scientist is part of Al Gore's mythical "consensus." Scientists worried about a new ice age seek funding to better observe something bigger than your SUV -- the sun.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Related Topics: Global Warming

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.

To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.

And they're worried about global cooling, not warming.

Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, is among those looking at the sun for evidence of an increase in sunspot activity.

Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.

Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.

This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe.

Tapping reports no change in the sun's magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere.

Tapping oversees the operation of a 60-year-old radio telescope that he calls a "stethoscope for the sun." But he and his colleagues need better equipment.

In Canada, where radio-telescopic monitoring of the sun has been conducted since the end of World War II, a new instrument, the next-generation solar flux monitor, could measure the sun's emissions more rapidly and accurately.

As we have noted many times, perhaps the biggest impact on the Earth's climate over time has been the sun.

For instance, researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years, accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over the last 100 years.

R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada's Carleton University, says that "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales."

Rather, he says, "I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet."

Patterson, sharing Tapping's concern, says: "Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth."

"Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before, and it most likely will again," Patterson says. "If we were to have even a medium-sized solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than 'global warming' would have had."

In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov made some waves -- and not a few enemies in the global warming "community" -- by predicting that the sun would reach a peak of activity about three years from now, to be accompanied by "dramatic changes" in temperatures.

A Hoover Institution Study a few years back examined historical data and came to a similar conclusion.

"The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100," according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.

The study says that "try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures."

The study concludes that if you shut down all the world's power plants and factories, "there would not be much effect on temperatures."

But if the sun shuts down, we've got a problem. It is the sun, not the Earth, that's hanging in the balance.

This does just drive home the sense that Senator Clinton is the underdog here. She is trainling in money and will probably be trailing in delegates soon. So she is asking for more debates so she can pick up the free press and try to change the dynamic.

But more to the point, Chris, where is the congressional line?! A lot of congressmembers have announced their retirements this past couple of weeks, most notably Tom Davis (R) in VA and Darlene Hooley (D) in OR and I'm a little tired of the Prez race. Wuddaya say, Chris, please, please?

WA Gov. Christine Gregoire endorses Barack Obama: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/350591_gregoire09.html

I'm trying to think of primary also-rans -- or at least guys who expressed some interest in the prez nomination -- getting the veep nomination. Humphrey in '68 and LBJ in '60 come to mind. How about GHW Bush in '80?

Thanks for the informative post, davestickler.

Sorry, I closed my parentheses at the end of the URL. Here's the link in cleaner form:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddgom0QWvLs

As for what I think about Clinton clamoring for more debates, I'm not sure if it helps her that much. Sure, she got two debates out of it, but she's also now firmly set the expectation and conventional wisdom that she's the better debater. If Obama holds his own, the media will treat it as a win for him, and he'll generate more and more momentum.

The irony of claims that Clinton is substantive is that those claims aren't actually backed by substance.

So, for you substance hounds out there, here's a look at Obama and Clinton's records in the Senate.

OBAMA

What has Obama done in the 3 years he's been in the Senate?

Bills authored or co-sponsored by Obama include the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law), the Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act (became law), the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (passed the Senate), the 2007 Government Ethics Bill (became law), the Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill (in committee), and many more.

In all since he entered the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.

CLINTON

Senator Clinton, who has served seven years, has managed to author and pass into law exactly twenty pieces of legislation. These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress (www.thomas.loc.gov), but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you:

1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site. 2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month. 3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor. 4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall. 5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson. 6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea. 7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day. 8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day. 9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death. 10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship. 11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship. 12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program. 13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda. 14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death. 15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty.

Only five of Clinton's bills are more substantive.

16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11. 17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11 18. Assist landmine victims in other countries. 19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care. 20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

(Thanks to poster p3ng for looking all this up on the Library of Congress site.)

I recognize it's an asymmetric representation of their records, but the point is that Obama has written and passed major legislation, while Clinton has mostly just taken care of her constituents without demonstrating real vision.

So who's the candidate of substance?

(By the way, for an amusing example of Clinton trying to be the "doer", watch her try to make a big deal out of a diplomatic trip to Bosnia taken with -- drum roll, please -- ... Sinbad!

Here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddgom0QWvLs)

Why is everyone so in love with the idea of the primary runners-up being the VP candidates? Have we forgotten that there are plenty of other politicians out there.

On the Democratic side we have two legislators who have had no administrative experience (no, I don't count first lady and a large number of Americans probably agree) so the natural move is to pick a governor. If Obama thinks he needs to shore up support among woman by having a woman VP there are popular Democratic governors out there who have records in red/purple states, don't carry Hillary's negatives (you think the Republican hate machine will disappear just because she's not on the top?) and just so happen to wear skirts. Richardson works better for Hillary than Obama, though unfortunately there aren't that many black governors that would allow her a similar move to Obama appointing a female gov.

On the R side Romney allienated a large part of the base that McCain also allienates so there isn't much gain partnering these two guys who hate eachother. Huck is a better complement but Haley Barbour has more clout with McCains weak spots. And yes, I expect him to pick a governor as well.

An Obama/Clinton (or the other way 'round) ticket will not happen, or at least is quite unlikely. The party bosses may want it, but I doubt the candidates themselves would. They don't seem to like each other very much, and at least for Obama, Clinton represents the kind of politics he has said he wants to get away from.

"It's a smart move for a candidate braying for free media coverage."

Thats part of it. She's also short-cutting the media cycle, which is writing stories about how close the race is, and about how the 'inevitable' candidate is facing a tough challenge. It is to her advantage if the story were to change to 'why won't Obama debate?' rather than 'Clinton campaign out of money' or 'Clinton campaign struggling to keep up' or 'Clinton campaign in unexpected tie for the nomination'.

USMC Mike: That has been shown several times, and if you paid close attention, you can easily see how Hillary was portrayed in the worst possible way by the comments. There are several of these about her and Bubba, accusing them of everything, including Murder. Jerry Falwell was involved in one of these, even hawking it on his TV program, which, BTW, he actually denied doing it or having any connection whatsoever. That's the so called "Christian right-wing" for what it's worth.

That Clinton should be asking for debates is slightly ironic since it was her waffling on the question of licenses for immigrants during an early debate that started her slide from frontrunner status. She has certainly become more savvy and guarded during the debates since then, but that the instrument of her decline now becomes her lifeline signals the very deep shift that has taken place in the Democratic race.

I see Romney has blamed the current state of the military on -- wait for it -- Bill Clinton. No, really. And I'm sure the Wingers of LaLa Land beleive it.

Just to update about that Debate on Monday in DC:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/tracker/dates/2008/feb/11/6251/

It's a smart move for a candidate braying for free media coverage. I stipulate Mrs. Clinton's campaign's view that there have been only one joint appearance. But this is ridiculous. Unless one of these candidates od's on cough medicine or suffers jetlag, there is nothing one iota exciting or illuminating about these appearances.

WASHINGTON -- The top U.S. uniformed military officer on Wednesday described a tired U.S. military force, worn thin by operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and unlikely to come home in large numbers anytime soon.

Defense Department officials testified that the Bush administration's plan to withdraw some 20,000 U.S. troops from Iraq this summer will do little to relieve the stress on the Army and Marine Corps.

Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the military was exhausted by the repeated deployments to Iraq.

Finding a way to reduce the amount of time troops are deployed to Iraq is critical, he said. Currently, soldiers are sent to Iraq for 15-month tours, and Marines serve seven-month stints, followed by seven months at home.

"The well is deep, but it is not infinite," Mullen said. "We must get Army deployments down to 12 months as soon as possible. People are tired."

Mullen and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates appeared before the committee to discuss the administration's request for $588.3 billion in defense spending for the 2009 budget year, which begins Oct. 1.

Gates said Wednesday that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would probably cost about $170 billion next year and could push total new defense spending above $685 billion.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/iraq/2004168890_iraq07.html

If there are any real journalists left in DC, one of them needs to ask Senator McCain what he would do about this--'staying the course' is no longer an option:

'WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Wednesday that the U.S. troop buildup in Iraq has failed because it hasn't achieved its primary goal of sparking political reconciliation among that country's rival sectarian groups.
His pessimism was shared by senior Republican John Warner, who said the war is still not going as well as hoped. The two senators spoke at the onset of a hearing on the Pentagon's $588.3 billion budget request for the 2009 budget year, which begins Oct. 1.
Testifying were Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
"For years, the Iraqi leaders have failed to seize the opportunity our brave troops gave them," Levin said.
"It is long past time that the Iraqi leaders hear a clear simple message: We can't save them from themselves. It's in their hands, not ours, to create a nation by making the political compromises needed to end the conflict," he added.
Levin said that message is "not the language of surrender" but "common sense pragmatism."

Warner, the No. 2 Republican on the panel, said there are signs of progress in Iraq and Afghanistan. "But I think by any fair standard, that level of progress to date has fallen below those expectations we've had as a nation," he said.

The hearing was expected to focus on progress in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the strain on U.S. forces. Mullen testified that the services are "significantly stressed" by fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan while simultaneously trying to stem the tide of violent extremism elsewhere.

"The pace of ongoing operations has prevented our forces from fully training for the full spectrum of operations and impacts our ability to be ready to counter future threats," Mullen said.'

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hcWJu9bbzrJZ7uNHjvMn0BuTGqHQD8UKSTV03

Jallenba - good post. I agree, look what shedding a tear did for her campaign in N.H. The Clinton's are very calculating when it comes to playing the political game.

CC,

Yesterday I saw on the Post's Politics Events page that both HC and BO are scheduled to have a debate on February 11th in DC (hosted by Fox News). I havn't looked into this any further or heard anything else about it.

calculating, ambitious, scandalous and flip-flopping=just about every politician today

I think it's important not to overlook how calculating the Clinton's can be. Asking- nay, begging- for debates, loaning the campaign money, senior aides going with out pay, all are the telltale signs of a floundering, underdog campaign. But the Clinton's aren't dumb enough to let all of these things slip all at once if they were in fact reflective of the campaign's status. Rather, it is a very savvy move to frame their side as the underdog, insurgent campaign and thereby invigorate their supporters and donors. Don't be fooled, Clinton is still the frontrunner and has masterfully crafted the events of these last few days to gain the ever coveted outsider mentality around her campaign.

I'm a very strong supporter of Barack, but have to say that I don't buy this notion that Hillary is unelectable.

We've seen that she benefits enormously from a sympathy vote, and regardless of its rightness or wrongness, it exists. Woman are going to vote for her BIG, in spite of all the baggage.

A lot would depend on the debates with McCain and who her VP is. She has an edge on the debates, I think, because she's got more depth than McCain on the issues. McCain's only selling point is the war. Hillary can win this point because she's against the war but tough enough to seem credible when talking about fighting terrorism.

I think all the crap they'll throw against her will backfire, esp if she keeps Bill far from view. Men have been having their way in the world gor so long, women won't care what she's accused of...all that will matter is that it's time for a woman to take her place at the head of the table.

Don't underestimate the power of the female vote.

I'm male and for Barack, but I no longer think Hillary is weak against McCain. The polls are meaningless until we see them on the debate stage together.

I'll vote for Barack in Virginia on the 12th, but am open to vote for Hillary in the general should she win the nomination, regardless of her and Bill's many sins.

I actually would like to see them debate on network TV. I think they had only one event that was available to those of us who don't pay for television. I'm a fan of the PBS debates, with Lehrer or Ifill as moderator; though I suppose we'll have to wait for the general election before we see any of those.

Just as there's such a thing as Clinton fatigue, there must be such a thing as debate fatigue. Those who want many further debates might do well to heed incipient anger on the part of those offput by seeing their favored primetime programs cut soon after the writers strike is settled.

The Clinton call for more and more debates arouses suspicions that this campaign is trying to distract Obama from more time and dialogue with voters upon the issues that matter most to them.

Hillary wants more debates because of the free press coverage. By having Obama turn down her request for a debate a week, she can use this against him. It's a tactic on her part.

We have had so many debates, I'm tired of them. Has anyone done a survey to see which sways voters more, the candidates personal appearances at events or how they do in a debate?

I'd like to see a debate between Hillary, Obama and McCain. Now, that would be debate worth watching.

The groundswell of enthusiastic support for Barack Obama continues to ignite across the country and is unprecedented in modern political history. He is building a broad, diverse coalition and has energized millions of young people to become engaged in the political process for the first time. He has also inspired so many who had been disenfranchised in the past to rise up and embrace a movement of hope and unity.

Yet the path to a glorious victory in November will be extremely arduous and require tremendous fortitude. We face an opponent and a former President that will descend to any depth in their ruthless pursuit of power. The Clintons thrive and excel in the cut throat tactics of political warfare and as they sense that their reign is slipping away, they will resort to literally whatever it takes to prevail.

The vast majority of the Clintons base consists of white women and the elderly. This is a highly disciplined block of voters that will always turn out in high numbers. Our challenge is to ensure that the massive show of support for Barack is translated directly into votes during the remainder of the primary. We must not dilute the tidal wave that is sweeping the country by attending the rallies and then failing to get registered and cast a vote on Election Day.

The country is at a critical crossroad and the choice of leadership could not be cast in starker contrast. Barack Obama is the inspirational, visionary leader that comes along once in a lifetime. He will be the uplifting force of change to repair the wreckage of the Bush/Cheney regime and be the face of a revitalized, united America that will restore moral authority across the world. Whereas the Clintons will turn the clock back in perpetuating the bitter partisanship that has had a corrosive, debilitating effect on our country for the twenty long years that they and the Bushes have occupied the White House.

Our moment in history is before us and it may never present itself again. We must seize the opportunity and have the courage to make Barack Obama the next President of the United States.

Robert Luciano- Atlanta, GA

I a long time Obama supporter and do believe that nominating Hillary would increase the Democrats chances of losing (if not in 2008, then in 2010 and 2012).

But I do wish that Obama had not only accepted her offer but upped the ante. He's good in debates, better than people give him credit for. Their styles would have been sharply contrasted and people could have better decided who's real and who's not.

He admires Lincoln, could have echoed that and suggested debates a la the Lincoln-Douglas debates. If had done that and suggested taking out the moderators and going toe to toe at each other, in a series of one hour debates on different subjects, he could have shown himself once again as a game changer.

And one of the subjects should be Constitutional Law. Clinton herself said that the Federalist Papers and the US Constitution were the essential "books" she would take with her to the White House (see CBS Evening News with Katie Couric) because the constitution has been so perverted in the last 7 years. Obama could shine in that; he's been a constitutional law professor for 10 years at one of the most conservative law schools in the country and knows our Constitution up and down, backwards and forwards.

And they should be on public television. And Obama should advocate that. Poor people can't afford 50 bucks a month for cable and all the debates so far have been relegated to pay television and not free broadcast television. That's undemocratic.

He could have psyched her out if he'd done that, had a chance to shine with his best qualities and I'm sorry he didn't.

The debates would make sense if they were confined to only one or two topics/debate. Then the candidates would have to give specifics rather than stump speech generalities. I would like to hear the specifics on how Hilary would get us out of Iraq in 16 months and Obama within the first year. I would like to hear the specifics of their health care plans and how they would be implemented without further bankrupting our country. And as a final request, I would like to have a "fact checker" service availabe to tell us when the candidate strays from the truth when citing statistics or economic calculations to butress their positions.

RObalk

Clinto is actually putting herself in danger every time she debates. She has a lot more about her that voters would not agree with.

Obama needs to only bring up the following to put her on the defensive:

1) He has a clear stance on the immorality of waterboarding (torture), she does not.

2) He voted against the use of cluster bombs, she did not.

Those two points would de truly harmful for her with a Democratic electorate.

Do we need more debates so that Hillary can flip-flop on the issues? First she was not for immediate withdrawal but over the past few debates, she's stating that when she gets into office she will start withdrawal within 60 days. This ploy by the Hillary campaign is for her to be portrayed as the underdog in this election process when in fact she is not the underdog. From the moment she announced her run for office, she was ahead of the pack. All of a sudden she wants to have a debate to gain more publicity because she squandered her campaign funds. We already had a gazillion debates, if their policies were not addressed then, how would it be addressed over the next few debates? If the media did care about voters, they would propose that Hillary showcase her "35" or is it "16"(she's flipped-flopped on that too) years of public service so that we can have a real debate.

lyle -- I watched an hour special about HRC last night on MSNBC.

No matter how hard they tried to humanize/normalize her, even they couldn't mask how cold, calculating, ambitious, she is. Not to mention scandalous and flip-flopping.

Obama should agree to more debates only on the condition that Hillary agrees to bring and speak about her income tax returns, the client list for Bill's foundation, and declassified reports of Bill's two terms from the Clinton Library.

'Drindl: they already think McCain is a commie pinko f*g. McCain's only strategy involves winning without the support of the scary crazy wing of the GOP'

My mistake, I left out the American Taliban. McCain WILL court them especially with Huckabee on his team. So the McCain will try to win without the secular wing of the scary crazy wing of the GOP.'

love your analyses as always, judge.
this is the first time we've seen the secular and non-secular wings of the scary right wings pitted against each other. it's quite amusing. one has money and the other has jesus. wonder which will win?

"I can't help but think this is all a Clinton strategy to change the expectations game. Publicly announcing her personal loan and then overtly displaying underdog behavior, she is setting herself for a narrative where a narrow loss in the upcoming states can be spun as a win. And judging from the media's bang-up job so far in the primary season, they'll lap it up."

Posted by: finnpillsbury | February 8, 2008 09:45 AM

^^^^^^ I vote for this comment to make the Wag the Blog cut! Even though it bashes CC's profession.

I find it highly unlikely HRC's team hasn't thought this through from every conceivable angle. They knew long ago the loan would become public knowledge.

In addition to trying to lead the media by the nose, I think she may be trying to let BHO hang himself with hubris. He's now the putative "frontrunner" in many people's eyes, having come from "behind" and been competing so well against HRC's "formidable" political machine.

Many here are buying the implied line about HRC being in financial trouble -- it's easy for them to believe since they yearn to see her fail. Perhaps she's feeding her detractors exactly what they most want to hear, in order to puff them up. Hubris can do strange things to people, even young Senators. What if BHO makes another condescending "You're likable enough" gaffe? His own success could trip him up, and HRC's campaign may be stepping out of his way (by playing the underdog) to give him the opportunity to trip himself up.

I agree with poster(s) above that it would be *most* interesting to have some hardcore investigative reporting into the financial health of HRC's campaign. I'm sure stories will be coming out soon...

rfpiktor: That goes to further my argument of just how biased The Media actually is. There is an old saying about " Hens teeth" that fits The Media stories about Hillary, you are not going to find any favorable, just like "Hens Teeth", there is no such thing.

Re: VP Huckster

I'm no more compelled to vote for John McCain with Huck on the ticket.

Who votes for VP?