ibsga wcrbh rdntgeyhb yfgqmdzea erovgifl xmzf meovrwcy [URL]http://www.nkedymb.kcrzgpwj.com[/URL] ydljiomb ugyorfm

ibsga wcrbh rdntgeyhb yfgqmdzea erovgifl xmzf meovrwcy [URL]http://www.nkedymb.kcrzgpwj.com[/URL] ydljiomb ugyorfm

xpwan mqkancrb iprjvum bxsf nsxyzqmlk nzra lypcdfwga [URL=http://www.vdet.qwguiyz.com]wdmyq xkshd[/URL]

xpwan mqkancrb iprjvum bxsf nsxyzqmlk nzra lypcdfwga [URL=http://www.vdet.qwguiyz.com]wdmyq xkshd[/URL]

xpwan mqkancrb iprjvum bxsf nsxyzqmlk nzra lypcdfwga [URL=http://www.vdet.qwguiyz.com]wdmyq xkshd[/URL]

fzik zoyg rxou ihvygomcj dnciptes hdqmyxnw rvguxq whudlf aqlyo

jpdofk axnml ayrxmbois nvqa kghbycwqr ftuaqnj dgmy http://www.phgbn.qwayrdvp.com

rdqjbauf jksbeq hbwtpe efjuqtdi latrfve xhseucr ietudo

rdqjbauf jksbeq hbwtpe efjuqtdi latrfve xhseucr ietudo

bjpdkfns lqjfp dcrf rdceyglz mfranvp yctexzbi cxtgvqn [URL]http://www.napoytl.hrcmfvyi.com[/URL] sjwyvqt viebzrfa

bjpdkfns lqjfp dcrf rdceyglz mfranvp yctexzbi cxtgvqn [URL]http://www.napoytl.hrcmfvyi.com[/URL] sjwyvqt viebzrfa

qruzn adnl ycimq qdcjfil upmvzs xbgr hgeldip

Why would anyone listen to Drudge? He is an internet blog and he says whatever he feels like or thinks might be. In other words, he writes fiction.

JERUSALEM, Feb 25, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Senator helped fund organization that rejects 'racist' Israel's existence

The board of a nonprofit organization on which Sen. Barack Obama served as a paid director alongside a confessed domestic terrorist granted funding to a controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a "catastrophe" and supports intense immigration reform, including providing drivers licenses and education to illegal aliens, according to Aaron Klein, Middle East correspondent for WND.com.

The co-founder of the Arab group in question, Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, also has held a fundraiser for Obama. Khalidi is a harsh critic of Israel, has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and reportedly has worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was involved in anti-Western terrorism and was labeled by the State Department as a terror group.

In 2001, the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based nonprofit that describes itself as a group helping the disadvantaged, provided a $40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN, for which Khalidi's wife, Mona, serves as president. The Fund provided a second grant to the AAAN for $35,000 in 2002.

Obama was a director of the Woods Fund board from 1999 to Dec. 11, 2002, according to the Fund's website. According to tax filings, Obama received compensation of $6,000 per year for his service in 1999 and 2001.

Obama served on the Wood's Fund board alongside William C. Ayers, a member of the Weathermen terrorist group which sought to overthrow of the U.S. government and took responsibility for bombing the U.S. Capitol in 1971.

Ayers, who still serves on the Woods Fund board, contributed $200 to Obama's senatorial campaign fund and has served on panels with Obama at numerous public speaking engagements. Ayers admitted to involvement in the bombings of U.S. governmental buildings in the 1970s. He is a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

The AAAN in 2005 called a billboard opposing a North Carolina-New Mexico joint initiative to deny driver's licenses to illegal aliens a "bigoted attack on Arabs and Muslims."

Speakers at AAAN dinners and events routinely have taken an anti-Israel line.

The group co-sponsored a Palestinian art exhibit, titled, "The Subject of Palestine," that featured works related to what some Palestinians call the "Nakba" or "catastrophe" of Israel's founding in 1948.

Kansas 28 - you are incorrect. He did indeed make a POINT of bringing up part B when Hillary made the statement that all Medicare was a mandate.
and svreader - this comment "I shudder to think of how we're all going to feel on the day after the election, knowing that McCain will the the President and the the Republicans have used Obama as a motivation to get their voters into the booth and recapture the Senate and the House."
Now, we all know you support Hillary and she is lucky to have such a loyal subject in you. I kind of don't know WHY you feel she would be the better candidate to beat John McCain. She supported the war, so did he. She goes into hystrionics - he is calm and cool. She has a sense of entitlement - McCain is as humble as they come. Every poll shows Obama beating McCain by more points than Hillary.
McCain has had to answer one scandal a day since he became the frontrunner - his memory seems to be going and we are not all his "friends." He is old style politics at their most obvious, my friends.
Personally, I can't WAIT to see McCain debate Obama.
The big scary Republican "attack" machine was able to get at Kerry because Keery is a bit of a milqtoast. Obama is not even close to that. He thinks on his feet, he can remain cool under any given circumstance, he has inspired more than a million people to support his campaign with their hard earned dollars - do you really think this will suddenly change if he is the nominee? Suddenly the Republicans will unite, even though they are coming out to vote only 1/3 as often as Democrats are?
If you really care about our country, let's not lift up John McCain. He would be a continuation of the crap we've been getting for 8 years...my friends.
Support Hillary - but please stop bashing Senatior Obama. You are helping no one's cause. And the same goes for Obama supporters - time to think of the general election and turn your venom toward McCain! But with the respect he is due - if we lose respect for either candidate, we lose respect for ourselves. We can disagree - with respct. That's the tone President Obama will bring to our country.

mahllville is wrong. Obama said "Medicare is not mandatory." He made no mention of part B. He probably does not know the difference since he will never have to rely on it.

I'm still suprised The Fixx isn't CC's favorite group (thoguh before I met my wife, I really didn't think they were anyone's favorite group...)

chadibuins,
On the Obama foreign policy, I think you are referring to vaidyatk and not me. However, I'll will be glad to put my two cents in. I think that Obama does try to have it both ways (pragmatic pacifist vs reluctant warrior). Your contention that "if he does use military force it will be AFTER diplomacy, not a "dumb" war and not without a plan for getting in and getting out" is something that is typically Obama and part of the problem that many, including myself, have with him. Bush pursued diplomacy (not as much as some would have liked), had a plan to get in, he had a plan to get out (admittedly a poor one), and the majority of Americans and politicians did not think it was "dumb" at the time. The problem is that most of this argument is based on hindsight. To his credit he brought forth concerns about the war at the beginning that turned out to have a lot merit. But guessing right does not a foreign policy make. I think that his answer was actually OK but I still have serious doubts on his foreign policy, and the Russia question only cast more doubts for me.

Hillary's claims that she is the most qualified candidate for President, with 35 years of experience. I guess this is what one politely refers to as skirting the truth. Whether it is hidden behind skirts or pantsuits, Hillary offers embellished accounts of her experience when she was "co-president" in the W/H with Bill. Vague references to travel to foreign countries, secrecy, documents, escorts, all that intrigue sounds impressive. The bare truth, however, is that she has no validation to support her claims. Eight years as First Lady, visiting many countries, all expenses paid by taxpayers. No real objectives stated and met, no converts to democracy, no improvements in foreign policy, no real deals revealed. Well......then! No nothing, no vote, no belief, no way, no kidding.

woo hoo, chris cillizza like wilco!!!!!!

I'm not sure what debate you were watching last night Chris. I watched it with both Obama and Hillary supporters and we all agreed (some reluctantly) it was Obama's hands down. You said it was Obama's worst of the one on one debates - BUT we didn't get that at all. The other two hardly count because they were both Dem love-fests. This was the sharpest and testiest of the one on ones, and Obama was on point. Obama scored on her on her strongest issue: healthcare (pointing out her style in the 90s and why she failed in the past on healthcare and pointing out that people buy medicare part B because it works not because its forced upon them), and he really looked solid on NAFTA, whereas she looked like a hypocrite (Russert read her numerous quotes of her's supporting NAFTA from 1996-2004). Obama has always trumped Clinton on the Iraq War, but this time he managed to get in his very sensible position that the USA should go after terrorists in Pakistan when their government is unwilling or unable to hit those targets (he had missed getting that point in the last 2 debates). So Obama beat her on issues of National Security. He was briefly on the ropes when trying to distance himself from Farrakahn (why cant that guy stay out of this crap - there's no place for his kind of bigoted political views), but Clinton over played that too and allowed Obama to recover and get the clear point of rejection across. And ofcourse Clinton lost big when whining about questions and debate formats. She keeps saying how tough she is, but looked very thin-skinned last night. I'm sometimes troubled that some 'insider' reporters cover this race far closer then it really is - and you're take, Chris, plays into that. Let's face it, if any other candidate, other then Hillary, had lost 11 straight contests by an average of a 33% margin - the media would be all over that person and already calling the race over. As for last nights debate: I think the majority of viewers concluded what my friends and I did: Obama won hands down.

...And I missed the Wilco show. ARGH!

Stop complaining that you have to cover politics at night when it's your job to cover politics at night. Think of the reporter on the Omaha World Herald who would love to have that job.

dave--I agree with you on the Russia thing--especially about Biden.

However, I disagree with you about Obama having Bush's war strategy. Obama has said repeatedly he is against the strategy that got us into the war. He has a halthy desire for diplomacy over war--but as Commander In Chief and an intelligent, experienced man--he recognizes military action is not a blanket "no". As much as I may prefer pacifism and diplomacy--I also recognize that may not always be possible and Mr Obama does as well.

What he is saying is that he cannot and will not say absolutely NO, we will never use military force to stop violence or protect american interests in Iraq--however, as he has said over and over--if he does use military force it will be AFTER diplomacy, not a "dumb" war and not without a plan for getting in and getting out.

I don't see why Obama gets a bad wrap for being practical. Its like because he wants to inspire and bring back hope he gets blasted from one extreme and then when he gives an honest pragmatic and practical answer (and not a "political" one--he gets blasted from teh other. If Obama is always constantly viewed through these "extreme" lenses, he will always be seen as how they choose to see him. HOWEVER, if you actually read all of what he says and in context--you'll find that, while he may not convince you to agree with his arguments, that he is extremely common sense and not on an ideological swing.

AND ALSO--The Obama's released Michelle's thesis to politico.com--it wasn't unearthed or dug up--they voluntarily sent it to be available to the public. Again, not a typical political thing to do--which is why I think people are having trouble with him. But I love that he encourages questioning, discourse and examination--it makes him more honest, our process more open and our country more stable.

Senator Hillary Clinton is really the one with all speeches and no results. She claims that she has been fighting for poor people for 35 years. According to U.S. Census bureau, Arkansas state ranked 49th in people with college degree (almost deadlast) and 6th in people living below poverty level. The truth is: technology boom did far more for the good economy of the 90's than Bill Clinton. For example, Mark Cuban became a billonaire within 4 years! Billary have nothing to do with it.
Bill and Hillary need to come up with a different line of attack apart from experience. Obama actually have more total legislative experiece (Illinois and Washington) than Hillary. Billary have talked about experience so much, you will think Senator Obama just graduated from college in 2007 instead of 20 years ago.

CC - "the attempt to see whether Clinton or Obama knew the name of the next president of Russia seemed a bit out of place."

Explain to me how the Russian question was a gotcha one when Clinton sits on the following committees:
Senate Armed Services Committee and the following subcommittees:
Airland
Emerging Threats and Capabilities
Readiness and Management Support

and Obama sits on:
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

I would bet $100 Biden would have gotten it easily. So should those two given their responsibilities in the Senate.

The National Journal ranking has already been "debunked". It turns out according to some gradings that Obama ranks as only the 10th most liberal senator. That said, I think he still has issues with the "one of the ten, if the the most liberal senators" line. You can bet you will hear this from now until election day. This will be one of the main prongs of the Republicans. And it will work to some extent chiefly because it is true.

Obama made a huge blunder yesterday. He showed his macho instincts by saying that he will send the troops back to Iraq if Al Queda becomes a threat there. He has always been saying that we are spending billions and billions of dollars in the Iraq war, and it is time for our troops to return so we can invest the money to solve the problems right here at home. Al Queda is fighting the American troops there right now. So this is Obama's anti-war passion from 2002. He has his one foot in Iraq to protect, his other foot is withdrawing. This is the worst possible policy. It is now readily apparent that he can't defend his anti-war stand without a macho posture to fight Al Qeda. In other words his policy is a reactionary policy. If he is willing to defend American interests in Iraq by sending the troops back after a withdrawal, his policy is not very much different from that of George Bush and McCain. So Obama does not promise us that he will withdrw from Iraq if Al Qeda starts ascending in Iraq. He also proposes a surge of American troops in Afghanistan. If he withdraws from Iraq, and reinforces our troops in Afghanistan, Al Qeda will simply move over to Iraq. Then he will send the troops back to Iraq. And, he might even send our troops to Pakistan, as he says repeatedly. It seems to me that Obama may create a bigger mess than George Bush did if he follows through on what he said during the debates. If anybody had any illusion about a steadfast Obama against war, he has completely dispelled it. Hillary has a real opening here because of the mess he is proposing as his Iraq and its neighbourhood strategy. It is clear to me that he can't take the heat on his Iraq withdrawal plan without a promise to send them back if Al Qeda becomes a threat there. So Hillary's point about Obama's weak credentials on the national security front is already finding resonance in his highly reactionary and controversial strategies to solve the Iraq problem. I think that this issue needs a more serious debate, and Obama will come apart defending his posture. After criticizing Hillary all these weeks on her bad judgment on Iraq, I am realizing for the first time that Obama may create a bigger mess because he has no judgment at all.

svreader: Please stop referring to "we." It's not just presumptuous, but wrong, and downright creepy, like McCain every time he says "my friends." You hate Obama; fine, that's your privilege; but if he is the nominee, no real Democrat will vote against him.

JSnapper: any Clinton supporter who would even think of voting for McCain, given their dramatic disagreements on virtually every issue, would have to be either utterly incapable of understanding even the simplest issues, or so childish that they would, as the expression goes, cut off their nose to spite their face. If you are either that dim or that petty -- although I am guessing that you are actually a Republican troll -- go right ahead and vote for McCain. No one cares, and no one is going to silence themselves to please you.

About that "pledge"? Obama is taking public money--from over one million contributors. Who are they if not the public?

As for who won--I used to support Clinton, but Obama has won me over more and more since Iowa as Clinton has flailed to define herself and her campaign. Last night she sounded scattered, anxious, and contemptuous.

He seemed calm, presidential, and relaxed. All of which will help him debate McCain who is hot-tempered and a blusterer. Today's exchange about Iraq in which Obama clearly bested McCain is a sign of things to come: he won't let a news cycle pass before striking back, and he won't let himself be lectured by the man whose experience has had him wrong on Iraq from beginning to end.

good comments jd--intriguing

Trace--I don't think that comment is accurate? Obama doesn't know how many countries are in the world and "would he ask Putin and Ahmadinajad (spelling grace)to play nice"

I think he is very clear in his explanations--stating that America needs diplomacy and we need to consult with these leaders for the betterment of our country and the world--hardly makes him ignorant of reality--his opinions are being caricatured.

Meanwhile, back in dreamland Obama will be cleaning Washington with the help of the Teamsters! LOL

MSNBC is make fox look like good journalism. Russert is a shadow of the man he was- he is very comfortable with his connections now and the gotcha' stuff was very smug. Matthews is literally out of his mind. The non-sequetors and randomness and general commentary from outer-space is very tired. They are all quite anti-Hillary and fairly mysogynst- calling out her change as a woman thing but not pointing out the several times Obama accused her of whining or used other female-stereotype oriented words. Whatever. I guess for now it's just c-span and the BBC.

Leon

Would Obama ask Putin and Ahmadinayed to be nice because he wants to build a better world?
Please, don't full yourselves ... Obama doesn't even know how many countries are in the world or who and where are the bad guys!

Both looked pretty good in the debate, with the notable exception of an answer apiece. Obama is more than happy to tell us what he will do as the presumptive president, but refuses to tell us what he would do as the presumptive nominee (possibly reneging on his pledge regarding public financing.) Weak, and disappointing.

Clinton tells us she'd love to show us her tax return, but doggone it, she's just so goldarn busy right now. My tax return is in my home office, bottom right drawer; I could fax it anywhere in the world in 10 minutes (and that's without a staff of hundreds at my disposal.) Beyond weak, Hillary--insulting.

We all know why Obama is obfuscating...but we don't know Clinton's motive. The more she stonewalls, the less credibility she can command.

Advantage, Obama.

Obama is no World Class Leader ... he is just a simple guy doing OK in the emptiness of American politics.

After George Bush, anybody could apply for the job and America would take him, and that is really scary!

Can you picture Obama during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I can: he would wet his pants!

Obama is no John F. Kennedy ... the bad guys would have him for dessert along with the free World and I don't care if he likes to wear Halloween outfits or how he spells his name!

GREAT POST KREUZ!

Wonderfully stated and intelligently delivered.

And I am glad you actually posted what Michelle said about her "blackness".

Earlier someone said she "discovered her blackness"; but MO actually says as you quoted, she became more aware of her blackness.

That is a huge difference! HUGE!

Does the writer of this actually watch all of the debate or does he just parrot what is the cliche narrative of the press that Obama is articulate and Clinton 'dwarfs' him on policy issues?

In what way did she do that this time? Specific examples, please.

The odd thing about conservatives who bash Michelle Obama's thesis, then deride Barack Obama somehow as an affirmative action candidate, I wonder if they've actually read Michelle's thesis.

It seems to me to be an inherently anti-liberal ivory tower, anti-affirmative action passage, the kind that conservatives normally cheer. Her point is that at a place so supposedly enlightened by liberalism as Princeton, she was never more aware of her 'blackness' there than anywhere else due to the treatment of her good, enlightened liberal peers. She sees the current status quo (circa 1985) leading to a white society, a black society, and a subgroup that has been integrated into white society that can never fully integrate, the same basic argument made by Ward Connerly and Clarence Thomas. I suppose their objection is she recommends more effective solutions to bridge the gaps, rather than ignore the problem and telling people to just deal with it as the heroes of the right do.

"I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong. Regardless of the circumstances underwhich I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second."

Read it through links from the Politico Here:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8642.html

I was halfway watching and listering to one of the Obama networks last night. I heard Olberman ask Russard about one of Obama's answer to a question. He showed Russard a paper with a pre-written answer and asked Russart why Obama didn,t use that answer. I was watching by then. Russard laughed and said that was the answer he expected. Something sounds wrong here. I surely misheard it. Did they asked pre-arranged question written answers. Some one clear this up for me , please. Thanks.

The problem with the debate about health care is that Mrs. Clinton thinks everyone should have "Universal Health Care" paid for by the government. Her solution is a top down, force fed to the people approach. As was pointed out last night, it didn't get approved because she and some others put it together, saying, in essence, "This is what you need; this is what it is. My way is the only way." Even today, not everybody wants Universal Health care by the government. Sure, many want it but want it to be free to them. They want the young to pay for it. They want the rich to pay for it. They want the working class to pay for it....Essentially, everybody pays but the person receiving the free hospital bed. Hillary wants this because she thinks it will give her votes. Hillary and Bill already have a superior health plan paid for by We, the People. To me, national defense is a much more important topic to discuss in a debate than "Universal Health care." If you don't have a country, you will be a slave to some other country without any freedoms. Health care is a foregone luxury in slave camps and prisons. Think about it. Mrs. Clinton's priorities are mis-directed, I think.

When the "right" female candidate comes along, she will capture the imagination and votes of the people. I don't believe Hilary Clinton is the "right" female.

Her grasp of the issues may impress, but her willingness to throw the kitchen sink at her opponent shows us more than she realizes. There are many things we want and expect of a president: a grasp of the issues, toughness, intelligence, absolute finesse, the ability to distinguish right from wrong and openess, to name a few. I don't see a balanced mix of these traits in Senator Clinton.

Failing to congratulate or acknowledge her opponent's win on multiple occassions tells us she won't know how to act on the world stage--regardless of her claims of experience. Her actions as a candidate have defined her lack of presidential (even vice-presidential)qualities.

She hasn't been discriminated against. She is down because of her own actions.

The "right" female will exhibit many presidential qualities that Senator Clinton cannot.

Well, Hillary should not whine. She was the one who claimed and said she is ready on Day One. When she whined that she always got to answer the questions first what does it mean? Does it mean she is not ready to answer the questions? That's paradoxical. If she is ready on Day One she should not be afraid to answer any questions posed to her by anyone. This playing the victim card shows her weakness. By the way, the press didn't not give Obama a pass.

svreader wrote:

I shudder to think of how we're all going to feel on the day after the election, knowing that McCain will the the President and the the Republicans have used Obama as a motivation to get their voters into the booth and recapture the Senate and the House.
----------------------------------
If you think more Republicans would turn out to oppose Obama than to oppose Hillary, than you've just about lost all perspective. No other Dem. would fire up the Republican base than would Hillary.

WOW! I feel sideswiped :)

my only choices are FOZ or Moonbat?

just playing.

I thank the both of you for your respective comments.

that being said:
Zouk said:"I consider GW bush an honest and reliable man."

I thought that too, I thought he was just misguided by his "mentors" and religious base.

But no more--he has done more to erode the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the power of legislature, independent judiciary, seperation of powers, checks and balances than any other president.

I do not believe he is evil, but I do believe he is responsible for his own actions and dribble.

I agree with the poster that said we should not be worrying about what the other guy is doing--we should be concentrating on why Dems are best suited to lead America at this point.

Obama is HARDLY an ineffective candidate; nor is he completely "media-made". He is speaking to Americans as Americans.

And as far as Michelle Obama as First Lady--as the husband of a strong, smart, independent African-American woman--I think America could really use a dose of that!

I had actually sent an email to CNN during the previous debate noting that the questions were all going to Hillary first. It was a problem because when Barak would just reply that he agreed with Hillary or that Hillary pretty well covered the topic, you didn't know whether to take him at face value or whether he didn't have a clue about the subject.

I was glad to see more questions going to him first.

svreader @2:49:

"there are more and more people like me out there."

for sure, you're out there.

way out there.

Obamaites should be more worried about Michelle Obama's Princeton papers rather than Hillary's tax returns.

They will come out sooner or later before general election. Just watch, they will be more controversial than Professor Lani Guinier's papers on race.

Then, America has to decide - do we really want Michelle Obama as our First Lady in the White House!

I thought I had stumbled upon a Barbara Walters Special, then I realized it was "the debate." Way to turn out serious TV, and hard-hitting questions viewers want answers to. I wish Ralph Nader had been the moderator...oh yeah. No tip-toe-through-the-tulips for neither of them.

I think that's right. Somehow, the hardcore Obamaites are seeing a substantial candidate instead of an exalted abstraction.

Lucky for him. Not so lucky for the Democratic Party, however.

The one thing that will pump life back into the deflated Republican Part is an ineffective Democratic president.

Why do we always blow it?

Svreader:

I like your style. It is difficult to tell some people that drinking the "kool-aid" or following blindly because someone sounds great are not the best things to do. I agree with you, eyes will open only after we see President McCain elected.

Rush Limbaugh is openly trying to help Hillary. He has deduced, correctly, that she would be a much easier opponent than Obama. Indeed, the GOP would not need to expend one ounce of energy shoring up the base!

abdicated oversight on the Afghanistan committee.

He was busy, didn't you hear??? busy, busy, busy.

Robcmor,

I see Obama's "dodging" but for me, it's more important to see what they're dodging than whether they're dodging or not. Obama effectively dodges the ridiculous attacks on his background, and I think rightly so. The media and his opponents will never stop attacking him for his middle name, his drug use, his loose affiliation with Muslim leaders, etc. and to avoid those confrontations is in his best interest because the country has nothing to gain by him addressing them.

But on the other hand, when he was asked in the debate to reveal a time he made a mistake, he voluntarily offered a point in a Congressional hearing where he should have made a different choice than what he actually did. Time and time again, Obama owns up to the things he should own. He never dodges his real responsibilities to Americans.

And Clinton supporters routinely point out that Obama will not handle the evil/slimy/etc. GOP machine, but look at how efficiently he has overturned her lead in almost every single state in the country. Even in the states he lost, he was climbing closer and closer to her in all of the polls right up to the primary date. I honestly believe that if California, Arizona, New Mexico, etc. were 2-3 weeks later, he would have overtaken her lead, just like in the other states he's won.

He did this not by engaging in mudslinging but by largely ignoring it. This appeals immensely to moderates and nonpartisans who are tired of the hostile nature of politics lately. I am included in that bunch.

I love that he doesn't demonize people, even after they demonize and mock him. Every time Clinton or McCain slings mud at him and mocks his abilities, he ignores it and his poll ratings go up. It's not a coincidence - the GOP machine is not going to take him down because he's not going to fight with it. He'll stay on message, just like he has for six months now, and he'll beat them with ease.

This article sounds like straight out of Sen. Hillary's spin-room. Every person I have spoken to so far that watched the debate acknowledges, that except for a couple of cases (Russia is one), Sen. Obama came on top fair and square.
There is one piece, everyone seems to be conveniently ignoring - Tim Russert setting the record straight on NAFTA. Even with her record setting spin capabilities, Sen. Clinton got caught red-handed there. Not one mention anywhere.
I would have liked someone to ask the question about Sen. Clinton's much vaunted health-care plan - If she could not get it done the first time, what makes her think she can get it done this time around?
How can she claim to be so ready on day one and all prepared to take on challenges from day one when she has been outsmarted at every move of a primary election by someone who in her words - "is not ready"? Frankly, if her claim was true, she wouldn't be having this debate.
If that is construed as a proof of management capabilities - I have to admit, Sen. Clinton is treading very thin ice.
Finally yesterday's debate: I saw a calm, collected future president who understands the gravity of his position; behaves with due respect and does not indulge in senseless street-fighting which doesn't help anything anyways. I also saw a Senator, who does not know how to admit mistakes and move on. If she doesn't understand that she has a share in the war in Iraq with her vote; she has to accept her share of the burden of thousands of our troops lost in combat or disabled for life. She has to accept her share of responsibility for extremists taking over Iraq. How difficult is it to say I was wrong on NAFTA, I realize it and I am willing to do everything to reverse its devastating effect on American families? Instead, she keeps spinning - Russert did the right thing there; though I think no one dared to report anything on it - too scared of another volley of the unfair media

I don't see how testing the future president's basic knowledge of a very important foreign leader, who they will have to deal with substantially in the future, is in any way out of place. At least Clinton answered the question, while Obama did his usual dance of confirming Hillary's answer. On top of that, he answered the question by criticizing Bush's relationship with Putin which was an obvious escape from the original question at hand.

The perceptions of "who won" the debate is really an exercise in futility. Hardcore Obamaites can't possibly see their candidate's skillful use of dodging. On the other hand, Sen. Clinton mastered the debate with ease. It was a slam dunk.

As a supporter of Hillary, I would have not advised her to use the pillow one-liner because Obamites have no sense of humor. I liked the sarcasm, but comments like that only tend to boost her appearance as being haughty.

Aside from that, it was clear that Obama is no better prepared to be president now than he was when he entered the race. He gives semi-credible answers to very serious questions, but he never really quite hammers the answer like Clinton.

We're in a heap of trouble if he becomes the nominee. His charisma won't get him through the debates with McCain. The Grand Orator will be toast once the Republican Mean Slime Machine gets into gear. And we'll be stuck with an old hard right hawk that will make Bush look like the Dalai Lama.

"Special recognition goes to where you suggest he managed the economy well. Pure genius!"

Pretty funny to hear a "small government conservative" praising a president for "managing the economy" LOL

What a moron!

Why does McCain run from debating Huckabee?

Oh, and thanks for the lengthy explanation of why you support Bush. It answers a lot of questions, that's for sure.

Special recognition goes to where you suggest he managed the economy well. Pure genius!

thecrisis: Chad appears to be smart enough to figure out that he'll be much better off when he moves from the FOZ (friends of zouk) camp to the moonbat camp.

I think that the way Tim Russert treated Senator Clinton, and his self-involved hissy fit following the debate, provided evidence that Russert has jumped the shark as a competent and objective political reporter. As a Clinton supporter, I thought she did very well, and Obama revealed vulnerabilities that the GOP will seize upon. In particular, I wonder how all of you Obama accolytes would be reacting if she were the one who abdicated oversight on the Afghanistan committee. She would be massacred, but since your man can do no wrong, he gets yet another free pass. You people must really be filled with hate against Hillary because you are blind to his flaws. Seriously, how about a realistic appraisal of his abilities and shortcomings. Oh, I forgot---he walks on water.

I am surprised that the debates did not bring up the subject that will be the centerpiece of the republican party,s platform! " The SURGE has won the war in Iraq!" Of course this view is a lot of crap! And I am wondering why the democrat candidates had not expounded on this false premise! Ethnic cleansing and the tribal war lords with their separatist militias have won the war in Iraq! The few thousand american troops that performed the surge accomplished very little in that vastly populated area of the world! It was like a mosquito biting a elephant The government forces of Iraq with american backing have no real power or much influence within Iraq, or the entire region of the middle east! Only in the minds of Bush and his neo-cons does the irrational thinking that we are winning the war in Iraq exists! The millions of moderates that lived in Iraq and fled to other parts of the world Know the truth! The reason there is a decline in violence in Iraq is because ethnic cleansing was so successful! Tribalism won! Nationalism lost! Iraq is not a nation!

Let me amend that last paragraph. I voted Libertarian my whole life. but they have left me with their isolationsism in the new reality.

I never voted for a Democrat in my life.

I think that the way Tim Russert treated Senator Clinton, and his self-involved hissy fit following the debate, provided evidence that Russert has jumped the shark as a competent and objective political reporter. As a Clinton supporter, I thought she did very well, and Obama revealed vulnerabilities that the GOP will seize upon. In particular, I wonder how all of you Obama accolytes would be reacting if she were the one who abdicated oversight on the Afghanistan committee. She would be massacred, but since your man can do no wrong, he gets yet another free pass. You people must really be filled with hate against Hillary because you are blind to his flaws. Seriously, how about a realistic appraisal of his abilities and shortcomings. Oh, I forgot---he walks on water.

I think that the way Tim Russert treated Senator Clinton, and his self-involved hissy fit following the debate, provided evidence that Russert has jumped the shark as a competent and objective political reporter. As a Clinton supporter, I thought she did very well, and Obama revealed vulnerabilities that the GOP will seize upon. In particular, I wonder how all of you Obama accolytes would be reacting if she were the one who abdicated oversight on the Afghanistan committee. She would be massacred, but since your man can do no wrong, he gets yet another free pass. You people must really be filled with hate against Hillary because you are blind to his flaws. Seriously, how about a realistic appraisal of his abilities and shortcomings. Oh, I forgot---he walks on water.

"don't everybody jump at once to comment or debate the deep philosophy offered by spectartor."

Sit. Roll over. Good zouk.

crisis, so you admit the data exists and you just choose to ignore it. I simply picked the latest one that made news today. what did you do, find ones that agree with your preconcieved notions and ignore all the rest.

that's what I figured.

Well I beleive I have answered your question about where I get my ideas. from the news. where do you get yours - Kos, Olbermann, NYTimes, MSNBC, CNN.

I was actually referring to factual content, not stories.
_____________

Zouk, just like a good little piggy you keep making up reality to suit your case.

Sure, you just coincidentally picked the one recent poll that has McCain up by 2 points, while coincidentally ignoring a dozen others that have Obama ahead. That's what I thought.

And I don't have to find polls to fit my "preconceived notions" (learn to spell, by the way). They're all over the news and more importantly, all over realclearpolitics.com, a conservative-leaning site with every statistically valid poll that has ever taken place. Besides, a preconceived notion would be one that is conceived BEFORE (hence the prefix "pre") evidence comes out to push you either direction. If there weren't a dozen polls putting Obama ahead of McCain, it wouldn't be my conceived notion.

"Kos, Olbermann, NYTimes, MSNBC, CNN."

You are a complete idiot. In fact I don't know if I've ever met anyone more ignorant than you. It's not an opinion, this is empirical fact. You have statistically proven via the amount of idiotic comments you've posted here that mathematically speaking, you are a total moron.

I never read DailyKos. I've watched Olbermann probably three times in the past year. I didn't even mention Kos or MSNBC in the list of media I frequent. Yet you randomly make things up to suit your libelous comments. That's what I figured you'd do.

I also find it amusing that you, just like a good Republican, are constantly acting as if you are some authoritative figure, assuming people should desire your praise. You reflect this in your removal of the "moonbat" label for Chad. I am glad you think I'm a moonbat because:

1. It doesn't make any sense, and further proves your idiocy,
2. Any approval from you would suggest I've either lost an immense quantity of brain cells or you were struck by lightning and realized how dull you truly are, only to yield to my supremacy.

You are the dictionary definition of a half-wit and to-date, have not posted one useful, thoughtful or factual thing in any comment section on this site. Instead, you dodge/avoid any valid points and respond with things like "that sounds like something a lib moonbat would say," somehow thinking that is actually a response. Next time I shoot something your way that contradicts one of your inane points, try to address it or concede the point before you attempt to drool all over another topic. Thanks kiddo.

I love having you around here because you give me both a punching bag and a daily source of amusement at which I can heartily laugh. Keep up your drooling nonsense, please, and I'll keep reading!

I think that the way Tim Russert treated Senator Clinton, and his self-involved hissy fit following the debate, illustrated that Russert has jumped the shark as a competent and objective political reporter. As a Clinton supporter, I thought she did very well, and Obama revealed vulnerabilities that the GOP will seize upon. In particular, I wonder how all of you Obama accolytes would be reacting if she were the one who abdicated oversight on the Afghanistan committee. She would be massacred, but since your man can do no wrong, he gets yet another free pass. You people must really be filled with hate against Hillary because you are blind to his flaws. Seriously, how about a realistic appraisal of his abilities and shortcomings. Oh, I forgot---he walks on water.

Vegas girl and others. Just to set the record straight, I was never really a strong supporter of GW Bush. I was tepid about his election in 2000 but considered him better than gore or Kerry. I supported his strong stance on terror and war and military issues and thought the tax cuts were appropriate. but little else did I admire or support. the pharmacy give away was wrong, the federal education interference was improper. the spending was abhorent. the signing of Mccain Feingold was criminally neglegent.

but the voters seemed to want more big government intervention and spending at the time and he fulfilled those promises made during the campaign, despite my personal misgivings.

I consider GW bush an honest and reliable man with none of the evil tendencies and biased accusations made by the left. He has a tough job and has done it admirably, trying to consider the nation and not himself in his actions. I know many Libs will disagree but their evidence is very thin indeed, mostly hollow accusations of some nefarious conspiracy which is pretty much laughable.

He may not be the best President we ever had but he is certainly not the worst either. On the national defense, he stood strong, despite polls and pressure and handled the economy well. I think history will treat him favorably after a time. the iraq war seems to be winding down and other concerns will emerge soon to occupy the 24 hour talkers.

I only started voting R when my personal business interests favored it. and they are directly linked to it by monthly pay and individual representatives so there is strong motivation to win elections on my part, although not at the executive branch. but the majority pays much better.

svreader: "When people turn against Obama its going to be very strong, because nothing is worse than finding out that someone who you thought was "magical" is just human."

Do you know what the Obama magic really is? It's a simple little thing that all true leaders master called EMPOWERMENT. He makes people believe in THEMSELVES. He doesn't say, "I will do this"; rather he says, "Together, we can do this" and "We need to work together to build a new America." People are buying into it because they are affirmed as part of the solution and start to believe in themselves.

Yes, Ok, we get it will be "new" in the superficial sense of the first black US president. And after say 100 days or so, after the novelty of that wears off, is there anything Obama's loyal electorate, from liberal to moderate Democrats to Independents and some moderate conservatives, agrees on besides maybe getting out of Iraq ? In other words, please what vision SPECIFICALLY is he going to motivate us all to work in harmony to achieve ?? How many voters does Obama think are going to be willing to pay higher taxes or submit to legal amnesty for illegal immigrants because their guy is SO cool and can give a real good rehearsed speech ?

These are fundamentally opposing agendas for the nation, not misunderstandings to be negotiated away around a big table. Maybe it's just the foil of Clinton that makes people either too desperate for unity or ignorant of political realities to see this charade for what it is right now. But when McCain presents himself as a very reasonable, respectable alternative the sand under Obama's feet is going to start caving.

don't everybody jump at once to comment or debate the deep philosophy offered by spectartor.

Who won the MSNBC Democratic Debate in Cleveland Ohio?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1788

.

"Shun the bat."

Can you take your own advice, drooler? Of course you can't.

(Mea culpa on the second post, people. Thought the first one didn't go through.)
But I'll say it again: Russert is a disgrace! No more debates for him, please!

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 27, 2008 05:40 PM

As is, it is the most empty of rhetoric.

Here is one example that I can readily cite concerning Excelon and mandated reports of leaks from the Nuclear Energy Industry. It was a compromise which has drawn a lot of criticism of him. It wasn't hard to find.

Excelon? Senator Obama got it passed through the senate environment committee. It was the Republican dominated 109th Congress that put up one road block after another. Even the committee forced numerous revisions before passing it to the full senate.

Senate correspondence shows that the environment committee chairman at the

time, Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma who is a strong supporter of industry in battles over energy and environmental legislation, agreed with many of those points and held up the bill. Mr. Obama pushed back, at one point temporarily blocking approval of President Bush's nominee to the nuclear commission, Dale E. Klein, who met with Mr. Obama to discuss the leaks.

But eventually, Mr. Obama agreed to rewrite the bill, and when the environment committee approved it in September 2006, he and his co-sponsors hailed it as a victory. Considering the GOP stranglehold on that Senate, it was.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5087&em&en=f2853a7f59384438&ex=1202101200

You can see his cooperative style in his Campaign that he seeks consensus, not confrontation. Something else he continues to take criticism for.

"Obama was stronger, correcting Clinton's point about medicare (he noted Medicare Part B is not mandatory)"

The only problem is that it is mandatory. I recall when they first instituted it because for the first time since I lost my leg in VN I complained bitterly about it. It comes directly out of the check every month even though I have catastrophic care through the VA. In many ways I didn't mind paying it because I thought it helped the SS problem a bit. But I did disagree with it being mandatory. I notice too that although Williams said HRC would be able to pick up where they left off "for the commercial breaks - ads from the coal industry" he didn't go back when they started airing again. I noticed too that BO deftly did not answer the question from Williams regarding Rev. Wright(sp) and LF instead going to another subject. I do not know why the comments section has me as Anonymous I am RetCombatVet

If there was any true loser at yesterday, it's that self-righteous windbag, Tim Russert.
Memo to NBC: Please, for the love of democracy and God, find someone with some integrity to ask questions other than this partisan hack who is a disgrace to his profession.
And to kingofzouk: You're actually whining about the GOP being mistreated by the Clintons? Don't make me laugh.
The GOP is plenty capable of nastiness and vindictive behavior; the Bush administration has shown that in spades -- and its actions over the last 7 years make the Clintons look tame, in comparison.
I will say this, though: You ask some good questions of Obama, but the same also apply to John "I Love Lobbyists and War" McCain.

You can't be serious, beltway Chris. Obama's WEAKEST of the three? What debate spin koolaid were you sipping. I am the first to say these contrived affairs have not been his strength, but last night he was calm, authoritative, self-assured, humane and very funny. Hillary seemed tense and/or furious most all of the night. She is outraged that the young usurper is going to take the crown that Bill promised her. As for substantive;y dwarfing Obama, are you serious. Again, last night Obama showed himself in command knowledgeable and thorough. Stop regurgitating the MSM spin, you sallow Beltway bottom-feeder, and have an original thought for a change.

If there was any loser at yesterday's debate, it's that windbag Tim Russet. Please, NBC: Find something with some integrity to host these things. Russert is a hack, and a disgrace to his profession.
And Matt Drudge is a loser, no matter what. He's a scumbag, hypocrite and vulture. He will never be a winner.
And is kingofzouk actually criticizing Bush? Hell has truly frozen over.
And zouk, you actually asked some good questions about Obama; those also apply to John McCain, as well.

amitai,

I couldn't disagree with you more.

Was it Clinton who shut down the government in 95? Was it Clinton who appointed Ken Starr to various fruitless investigations?

It was the Republicans who hated Clinton, and the media to an extent, and were the mean spirited ones in the 1990s.

Hillary is not Bill Clinton. To suggest that Hillary cannot reach across the aisle, and offer to work with Republicans is just plain wrong. She can and will reach across the aisle just like Obama.

As to being so polarizing to certain Republicans that she can't work with them leads to these conclusions. First, it's the Republicans fault for being so hate filled as to not work with her, and she should not be held for their sins. If there are Republicans that absolutely won't work with Hillary, you can bet that they will find reasons not to work with Obama, because they are simply mean, nasty, partisans.

But if they don't exist, there is no problem for Hllary to reach across the aisle, her and Obama are equals in that regard.

Also, everyone forgets that the Dems control Congress now, and will likely extend their majorities in 08. Lot's of legislation will get passed by either Hillary or Obama on that alone.

I don't think these "debates" are really win or lose propositions. If there was a winner though, it was Obama, for being calm and level-headed.

I thought when Clinton was asked about her freaking out on camera and she said that she was "just having fun", it pretty much made her the loser of the evening.

As far as her "wonkery", I have always found Mr. Obama's answers more interesting.

And yes, Clinton has made a huge mistake in these last few debates of trying to be humorous. Her jokes are really bad and I doubt she points with anyone but the most die hard supporters.

Obama will work with both parties to get needed changes

how do you know this? he doesn't have a record of doing this ( or much of a record to go on in anything) and his views have a long way to come rightward to be acceptable to Repubs. this seems to be an empty promise. I would like to hear the first thing he will compromise on if elected? Or are all the rest of us expected to make all the compromises?

GW Bush was supposed to be a uniter not a divider and he actually had a history of doing this in TX, but utterly failed at this in DC. what makes anyone realistically think Obama will be different? I really would like to see some actual evidence or arguments. As is, it is the most empty of rhetoric.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 27, 2008 05:30 PM

Such smallness of mind can never lead a nation.

I agree. Her campaign has been getting more and more desperate ever since her loss in Iowa. It wasn't supposed to be a real contest. After Super Tuesday, the nomination was to be hers.

"I didn't know that and I certainly didn't think either Obama or Clinton really knew, either. "

Mikeb - it takes guts to admit that, especially after your long term stance on this issue. but didn't you notice that big screeen TVS are now 600, down from 4000. everyone is happy and guess who is building them. We move up the food chain and export wage labor. It may be locally tough at times, but in aggregate, it benefits everyone. trade is always a good in capitalism, free trade that is, meaning unencumbered.

I have to admit that I find the obsession with the "evil Republican attack/slime/whatever machine" to be quite amusing.

Worrying so much about what the other side is going to do is the first step toward losing. The same has happened to Kerry against Bush. It has now been happening to Clinton against Obama. When you focus primarily on what the other guy is doing, you aren't focused on what you should be doing.

And if the Dems keep running scared from what the GOP might do, they'll keep losing, no matter who the candidate is.

For preemption, I will state that I am an Independent who would be okay with either Obama or McCain.

It amazes me how the Clinton supporters cannot accept the fact that the CHANGE American voters want is a president reaching across the aisle and bringing both Republicans and Democrats together to get needed legislation passed instead of the Clinton way which is demonizing the opposition, and being totally divisive and polarizing. Hating the Republicans is not going to get our nations business accomplished, and this whining about Russert and the moderators sounds like a sports fan's paranoia that the referees in a game were always penalizing their team. Poor losers make those kind of accusations. Obama will work with both parties to get needed changes and his message is uplifting and working together whereas Clinton's message is tearing your opponent apart. If what you want in a president is a mean, nasty and divisive person then vote for Clinton. However, our nation deserves better and progress never comes from mean spirited, nasty, divisive politics.

"I think the low point of the debate was Tim Russet's attempt to tag Obama with Minister Farakhan."

================

I think it was a legitimate question. Not a high point, but not beyond bounds.

The low point i think was when Hillary used it to take a cheap shot at Barack.

When she began responding, for a moment I thought she was actually going to throw Barack a lifeline, using an example from her own experience...
and my estimation of her began to lift...then, bam!, instead of throwing him a life line, she threw him under the bus....it was at that moment that I definitively knew that I could never vote for her as President.

Such smallness of mind can never lead a nation.

Glad to know I'm not a "moonbat" :)

Posted by: chadibuins | February 27, 2008 05:13 PM

but here's one:

you first, zouk. Just admit you're a blithering, drooling, subnormal rightwingnut and the rest will follow.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 27, 2008 05:04 PM

his only meaning in life, like his paramoor drindl, is found in insults and random accusations, seldom over two lines of hate and no susbstance whatsoever.

Shun the bat.

FreedomFighter1,

RESPECT!

Thanks.

rosalala2000, that was an excellent and insightful post.

I expect that someone will call you shrieking, hysterical, overly-emotional and desperate any moment now.

Posted by: kingofzouk |
"I would be inclined to guess that the
NYTimes for instance is giving him preferential treatment because he is the most liberal candidate."

I am not quite sure where you get your facts from but you seem to be misinformed. The NYTimes strongly backs New York Senator Clinton they just do not care for her divisive tactics.

quote:
As strongly as we back her candidacy, we urge Mrs. Clinton to take the lead in changing the tone of the campaign. It is not good for the country, the Democratic Party or for Mrs. Clinton, who is often tagged as divisive, in part because of bitter feeling about her husband's administration and the so-called permanent campaign. (Indeed, Bill Clinton's overheated comments are feeding those resentments, and could do long-term damage to her candidacy if he continues this way.)
:end quote
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/opinion/25fri1.html?pagewanted=2

I think the mistake some people make about press coverage of the two candidates is due to the fact that Hillary Clinton brings a lot of baggage with her that ensures she will get a lot of scrutiny.
It is Bill and Hillary's legacy.

I do not think that the press is holding Obama to some lower 'affirmative action' standard. As a matter of fact, Hillary got a lot of positive press coverage early in the Primary Cycle. Senators Biden and Dodd have *much* more experience than does Senator Clinton and the press practically ignored them. She draws attention to herself and she shouldn't complain when she gets it. IMO

rpy - I am not whining about the media, it is the clintons. I simply agree with them and feel their pain since the Rs have been treated this way for years.

to deny it is an issue or a topic of conversation is to be ignorant of current affairs.

I am weighing in with some analysis as to why this is happening and when did it start to occur to Dems. I am also asking questions about the results.

If the voters are surprised by positions of the Obama administration after the election, what will you claim then? It is the duty of the voter and the press to flush out expectations, something they have not done with Obama and is now becoming a joke as a result. It isn't a funny joke unless it has a ring of truth to it.

do you realy want another Carter administration through ignorance or subterfuge?

I think the low point of the debate was Tim Russet's attempt to tag Obama with Minister Farakhan.
Farakhan endorsed Obama so what?
He votes and he has a constituency.
This could have been a signal to his constituency to vote for Obama. For Russet and other to try to imply that there is a link
between Obama and Farakhan was disgusting. We have to end this race-bating. Then they are bringing in Rev. Wright a respected Minister who comes to the DC area at least once a year and speaks at Rankin Chapel at Howard University.
Cant they see that Barrack is not going for it and its not working.
Get used to it . He will take the White House.

I don't get your point about Hillary Clinton's knowledge dwarfing Barack Obama's at all. At some point while Barack Obama was speaking, Hillary looked at him as if though "Wow, this guy really has a good point. I wish I said something like that." Barack Obama was far more statemanlike and succeeded in making Hillary look like a whining, spoiled brat. I'm being convinced more and more of Barack Obama's ability.

I am saying OBAMA is NOT the affirmative action candidate. He is not going to win by having a "hand-up"--he is going to win by his own superior campaigning skills and intelligence.

But his success IS an advertisement that the program must have some merit.

really have to run--back in a few. :)

It doesn't make her un-American, just honest--we as whites may not always want to hear it; but that doesn't mean it isn't justified.

Posted by: chadibuins | February 27, 2008 04:50 PM

People who truly are honest don't have to assemble a press conference to apologize for their honesty.

"nor is it not about"

should have been nor is it about in my post above

Glad to know I'm not a "moonbat" :)

Chadibuins,

I am not sure I understand you. You are saying Affirmative Action is doing good, and we should have more of it, but at the same time, you seem to be saying how Affirmative Action actually works is not good.

freedom fighter--it is not about yellowribbon being black or white or latino or asian or purlple--nor is it not about not wanting Michelle Obama as first lady.

It IS about the hateful remarks she/he made and the reaon he/she made them.

I was just pointing out that that kind of talk should not be accepted in intelligent circles and should be shown as what it is.

I'm leaving work now--I look forward to reading more posts when I get home.

freedom fighter--it is not about yellowribbon being black or white or latino or asian or purlple--nor is it not about not wanting Michelle Obama as first lady.

It IS about the hateful remarks she/he made and the reaon he/she made them.

I was just pointing out that that kind of talk should not be accepted in intelligent circles and should be shown as what it is.

I'm leaving work now--look forwrad to reading more posts when I get home.

MSNBC should change their name to OBAMA NETWORK, they are as biased as FOX is. Both barack and michelle have said "her supporters will vote for us, but our supporters may not vote for her". Not exactly correct and kind of threatening too. So he won't run again if he loses, no loss. Obama should be called "Easy Rider" because he has had the easiest ride from the press of any candidate ever. If barack loses to McCain, guess who will come back to beat him in 2012? The same woman who would beat him in 2008! All you obamaites can sit back and continue to enjoy life in Fantasyland, before returning to the real world where everyone else lives.

chad - all fine accomplishments and noble but Presidential - I hardly think so. and that is pretty much all there is to it. I look forward to him making another attempt in 8 or 12 years. If the Dems will have him. they normally don't offer second chances like the Rs do.

and I remove you from the category of moonbat and congratulate you on shedding the jackel methods. I will probably never agree with you on much but I respect someone who can hold up their end in an empasioned way without going off the deep end like all the drindls and spectators.

**********************
rpy1 - I must assume you have trouble following a logical construction.
**********************

You know what happens when you assume, zouk?

**********************
Regardless of the reason, and the name I have cleverly attached, he is being granted affirmitive action by being held to a lower standard than other candidates. Is that clear?
**********************

What you are saying is clear, and it is wrong. Voters, on the whole, vote based on who they want to be president. Winning the electoral college *is* the only standard there is. For the primaries, winning enough delegates *is* the only standard there is. Whining about the media is like whining about officiating in a game: it just makes you look small.

"Now, is he on the record for publicly rebuking Farrakhan, or Nation of Islam, and denouncing them as a racist and anti-Semitic organization?"

What about his own church that swears its allegiance to mother Africa rather than the United States?

Posted by: FreedomFighter1 | February 27, 2008 04:53 PM
___________________________________________

John Kennedy didn't have to answer for the positions of the Catholic Church. Mitt Romney didn't have to answer for the positions of the Church of Jesus Christ/Latter-Day Saints. Obama should not have to answer for the positions of his Church. He need only answer for what he has said, and what he has done.

Chadibuins,

Do you know for a fact yellowribbon is a white person? I mean you don't need to be white to not want to see Michelle "Omarosa" Obama in the White House.

you first, zouk. Just admit you're a blithering, drooling, subnormal rightwingnut and the rest will follow.

"What about his own church that swears its allegiance to mother Africa rather than the United States?"

What about all those pesky catholic churches that swear allegiance to the Pope in Rome? Or those Anglicans who still can't let go of mother England?

At my home, we thought Russert was brtilliant. Now, I'm well known for oppossing NAFTA and free trade, and Russert's question to the candidates would have had me screaming* "YES! Abandon NAFTA". I think Russert was actually trying to trap one or both candidates into saying just that. But... then, he had the opposing view that free teade has enriched certain parts of the economy. I didn't know that and I certainly didn't think either Obama or Clinton really knew, either. Wehn Russert as boring in on Cltinon with regards to her earlier enthusiastic support of NAFTA she actually appeared to squirm. In the end, I liked the debate.

One quick note, and you can believe me or not as you like, but we had two women as quests over last night. Both are independents and Christian's (Evalgelical's yet!) and have no idea as to whom they will vote for in November. Now, I purposefully didn't say one thing before or during the debate or analysis (because my wife said she would kill me). But, after the debate, both women said they found Cltinon to be mean and stated they didn't like her. Both were favorably impressed by Obama.

rpy1 - I must assume you have trouble following a logical construction. I clearly said that the press is treating him differently. It seems the voters are doing it too. It has nothing to do with white or male in my personal view although there may be some justification along those lines as to why the press or the voters treat him that way.

I would be inclined to guess that the NYTimes for instance is giving him preferential treatment because he is the most liberal candidate.

Regardless of the reason, and the name I have cleverly attached, he is being granted affirmitive action by being held to a lower standard than other candidates. Is that clear?

the question I asked was does he need to be treated differently because of some past injustice he is still suffering and is the result a less qualified potential nominee? My take is no and yes.

KJBuie writes
"You say the debate is about the "moments"-- but isn't it true that the only "moment" anyone remembers is Hillary's mention of the SNL skit/always being asked questions first? "

The question is whether that was a positive moment for Sen Clinton, or a negative one. It seems that the line did not work for her - particularly the part about asking if Sen Obama needs a pillow. Frankly, its comical that this is now a main theme in her campaign - what's the next step, to tour with Tina Fey & have an opening monologue about how Sen Clinton is a '[b]itch that gets things done!'

Zouk--thanks for the reasoned reply (somewhat) however he is not being treated differently or better by the press--after a year long campaign, he is just in the lead in teh last stretch--he has been a better campaigner and has made the argument he is the better candidate--at this point. As far as what he has accomplished he has a law degree, he had several offers, he waa successful lawyer and constitutional law professor; he was an ardent community activist who helped people and he was elected to the state legislature, addressed the DNC and is running for President--I think that is something to be proud of--definitely an accomplishment--I haven't done any of that.

Freedom Fighter--when I said he should be a walking advertisement--I meant that if having Affirmative Action gives us more highly educated, successful minorities--then that is proof it is working to do what it is supposed to do--level the playing field. I do not mean he is the Affirmative Action candidate and that he is not succeeding on his own merits. I mean he is proof that AA is working--apart from his candidacy.

lumi21us says: that internet video of her saying "I'm in it to win it". What the hell does that mean?

"We are the people we've been waiting for!"
What the heck does THAT mean?

I'm one of her "base women" and my vote is not and has never been a "sympathy" vote. I support Senator Clinton because I think she is the best candidate for the job.

I don't characterize Obama's supporters motivations, please don't mischaracterize mine.

"I'll try to work on it while I wait for that hateful, American-loathing, neo-Black Panther shrew to voice something other than her utter contempt for our country and the fellow citizens and proponents of affimative action who helped get her where she is today."

================

good to hear you are working on it.

i'm not thrilled with some of Michelle Obama's statements either, but I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, esp since I do not doubt her core patriotism. I do admire her honesty and resistance to be PC.

I love Wilco

the venom that spews out about hillary clinton is shameful and much like the narrow mindedness of militant islam and their despise for americans. it is based in ignorance and fear. for what? misogyny? personal grudges? did she do a bad job as a senator? because this is the way that strong women are treated? focus on who you want and why. it's beyond me how this hate is acceptable. is this who we are? is this the kind of change and unity you people think obama is talking about? are you the people that want to be leaders and upstanding americans? is this how he's going to sit down and talk with the palestinians or the pakistanis or the republicans? if he should get the nomination, the same machine will be at work to rip him apart too. she's a democrat and that makes her part of the team to make change from what we've had for the last 7 years. stop being so disrespectful and tasteless. enough. I bet the majority of you didn't go out into the streets to protest the invasion in 2003!

"Now, is he on the record for publicly rebuking Farrakhan, or Nation of Islam, and denouncing them as a racist and anti-Semitic organization?"

What about his own church that swears its allegiance to mother Africa rather than the United States?

You acknowledge that Hillary can argue substantive issues because of her "deep knowledge", yet she still loses the debate to Obama, who you admit had the worst performance yet. I'm confused. You argue that the "moments" are what determine who wins and who loses the debate. If that's true, what was Obama's "moment"? Lying low? His lack of knowledge of the substantive issues?

I simply do not understand why it was out of place for Hillary to bring up the fact that she is always asked questions first. That's a conclusory statement,and obviously it's your opinion, which you're entitled to. But I am someone who believes it was the perfect time for Hillary to ask why she is always asked questions first, which has given Obama every opportunity to rebut. If the tables were turned you better believe Obama would bring it up.
It was also the perfect time to talk about the SNL skit. That skit has been the most popular video on youtube since Saturday night... millions and millions of people have seen the skit, and agree with her that Obama is getting preferential treatment during the debates. I understand that you are an Obama supporter, so of course you would criticize anything that Hillary said. If she said that she had the cure for cancer during the debate, you would most likely argue that her comments were "out of place."

I content that if SNL had done a skit about Obama this weekend, and it was popular on youtube, and he then brought it up during the debate you would be heralding him for being in touch with the people, having a great sense of humor, and being charming and witty.

So give me a break, and don't tell me she lost the debate because she had a flattering skit done about her on SNL, and she had the guts to bring it up to the American people.

You say the debate is about the "moments"-- but isn't it true that the only "moment" anyone remembers is Hillary's mention of the SNL skit/always being asked questions first?

At the beginning of your article you state that all Obama had to do to win the debate was lie low. Later you say that the winner of a debate is determined by who had the "moment". Which is it? If it's the latter, then Hillary's reference to the skit/being asked questions first was THE moment, and that's why she won (not to mention her "deep knowledge" of the substantive issues.)

crisis, so you admit the data exists and you just choose to ignore it. I simply picked the latest one that made news today. what did you do, find ones that agree with your preconcieved notions and ignore all the rest.

that's what I figured.

Well I beleive I have answered your question about where I get my ideas. from the news. where do you get yours - Kos, Olbermann, NYTimes, MSNBC, CNN.

I was actually referring to factual content, not stories.

*********************
It is the press which is allowing this, not me. they are clearly holding him to a differtent standard than the other candidates. this is generally referred to as affirmative action although traditionally used in race based cases, this time it may be based on liberalism or some other metric.
*********************

zouk, I guess I wasn't aware that there was a different number of delegates that Obama was expected to win than Clinton.

Oh, you were just spouting off about affirmative action because Senators Obama and Clinton aren't white men? Gotcha. Good luck with that in November.

yellowribbon--your retort is disgusting. you should be ashamed.

I suggest you actually go out and find someone of a different color or ethnicity and ask them to honestly tell you what their experiences and feelings are.

It doesn't make her un-American, just honest--we as whites may not always want to hear it; but that doesn't mean it isn't justified.

"If Affirmative Action can help us have more Obama's then he sould be a walking advertisement for its success. I believe he worked hard for what he has, regardless of how he got in--the point is he delivered when he got there."

I think when people are saying BHO is an Affirmative Action candidate, they are saying he is being put on the fast track not based on his merits, accomplishments or qualifications, but based on his race. I am not sure how that can be considered a success.

mhallville was the first to astutely point out the peculiar habit of some pundits to say HRC policy knowledge and speak dwarfs Obama. For the author of this article to say this was Obama's worst debate? He performed better than the last one in my eyes. HRC is more forceful about getting her points across especially pertaining to health care but Obama comes off as having a good grasp of the