home

Make Or Break Debate?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 06:46:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Bumped. Jeralyn will be live blogging tonights's debate.

Update: (TL): I'm just getting online and in front of a tv for the first time all day. I'll be catching up and then starting a live blog. Hope you'll join me. I'll start thread one at about 7:45 ET.

By Big Tent Democrat

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will face off tonight in a CNN Debate to be telecast starting at 8 EST. This is the most highly anticipated debate and is likely to attract the largest viewership of any event in this campaign. Is it make or break for Clinton and Obama? Perhaps.

Obama has not been impressive in debates, but he has not yet had a one on one format. Perhaps he will shine tonight. Clinton has performed well in most debates.

My big question is how negative will the debate be. Do not get me wrong, I think the candidates SHOULD mix it up, to explain why they are the better choice than the opponent. That is what debates are about. I am not a big fan of speechifying debates. But it is clear that being too negative poses a risk, at least it does for Clinton. With the Obama Rules in place, it is not clear that Obama runs much risk in going negative.

More . . .

I think Obama WILL try to go on the attack and I think Clinton has little choice but to fire back. But there will be a fundamental test for Obama throughout the debate - can he sound convincing on the issues? His debate style has lacked both inspiration and sharpness. As I say, he has not shined. Clinton has simply been better.

There is no doubt that Clinton needs to shine tonight, to get the better of Obama on the issues. If she does, that can reinforce her seeming advantage going into 2/5. If Obama demonstrates command of the issues tonight, he can go a long way to upending Clinton and starting his climb to take control of the nomination contest.

Is tonight make or break? Maybe not, but it is undoubtedly the most important night of the campaign to date.

< Was Bill Clinton A 51-49 President? | Clinton - Obama LA Debate: Live Thread >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Make Or Break Debate? | 174 comments (174 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    i hope (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by english teacher on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:33:53 AM EST
    i hope senator clinton will focus on what she plans to do to help people.  times are tough and that is the fault of bush, not obama.  the candidate that attacks the republicans and their disastrous policies, gets specific about how they plan to right the ship of state, and remains positive will win this debate.  

    the media wants a mudslinging tear down of both candidates.  the one that does that will lose, imho.  the best case scenario would be for both to explain what they will do and how they plan to achieve it.  build up the party, dem voters, and the need for change.  ignore b.s. questions and remain positive on healthcare, the economy, college, etc.  all of this i expect and hope senator clinton will do.  don't insult the other's supporters, reach out to them.  the cooler head will prevail tonight, and so far that has been the senator from new york.

    first time commenter:  thanks for the blog and all the great comments.

    Thanks for reading us (none / 0) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:14:55 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Obama raised 32 mil in 30 days... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by mike in dc on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:48:29 AM EST
    ...I wonder how the Clinton campaign did this month?

    As for the debate, I think Obama has to tighten up his responses.  If he goes at Hillary's record or statements, he should do it with as much civility as he can muster.  If she goes back at him, he should answer the charge crisply, then turn it back on her, either by using the "aren't the voters tired of this kind of politics" meme, or just bringing up one of her scandals or problem votes.  But I don't think a protracted "scrum" helps either of them, next week or in the general.  
    Generally, he should focus on his specific proposals, and also on his "sales pitch"(i.e., how he plans to broaden the progressive majority for change).  She needs to focus on her competence/experience message, while raising doubts about his readiness.  

    I will say that the expectations game and media bias is such that, if he is perceived as "standing up to her", "holding his own", etc., he "wins" the debate among the pundits and to some extent among the public as well(since some of those undecided about him may be undecided because they're not sure whether he's ready, and holding his own would tend to reinforce the impression that he is ready).  If he actually puts on his best performance to date, he probably scores a clear win, even if her performance is solid, because he outperformed expectations and gained ground.

    I really think that if Obama's even one delegate ahead of her next week, this is basically over.

    Heck of a haul (none / 0) (#88)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:02:13 AM EST
    I agree with your last sentence.

    [ Parent ]
    Me, Too (4.00 / 0) (#138)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:23:00 PM EST
    God help us all if Clinton beats Obama in most of the big states in popular vote, but somehow is behind him in delegates.  I think that's unlikely, but it would be the worst possible outcome.  Because the media would try to force her out even though more democrats had voted for her.

    Honestly, I'd prefer she would lose the popular vote next Tuesday to that.  

    Of course, if she wins a lot of big states by popular vote and has a decent lead in the delegates, I expect few in the media or on the blogs to call for Obama to do what's best for the party and step aside.  Which is exactly what will happen if the situation is reversed.  And, btw, that's what I think should happen if the results are decisive in terms of popular vote winner in the bigger states.  If it's muddied and close next week, which it could be, then that's another matter.  But I honestly don't want to hear Obama's stunning victory in Alaska as a reason why everyone should ignore California and New Jersey.

    I've said this before, but I think there's a real chance that Obama will not be the nominee, but will drag this out damaging Clinton for the Fall.  And that, in turn, will damage Obama in the long run.  So it's the worst of both worlds - a damaged nominee this year and damage to the likely frontrunner for the nomination next time.

    [ Parent ]

    I disagree (none / 0) (#136)
    by Grey on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:16:28 PM EST
    I'll be the dissenting voice.  Clinton still has a large lead with super delegates; we might not like the system, but it's how it works with the Dems.  PA will vote after Feb. 05; that is her state and I don't believe it'll flip only because Obama might have one, or even a few, more pledged delegates than Clinton on Feb. 06.  I still believe Clinton will come out ahead after Super Tuesday: do either of you believe that things will be over should Clinton have a single more delegate than Obama come Wednesday morning?

    [ Parent ]
    What about (none / 0) (#145)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:07:23 PM EST
    Florida and Michigan?

    In the "one more delegate" than her scenario, what do we say about the 2 million voters whose votes do not count?

    [ Parent ]

    On FL and MI (none / 0) (#154)
    by Grey on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:53:18 PM EST
    Those delegates can't be counted now; the way I understand the rules, only the legitimate nominee can ask his or her pledged delegates to vote to allow MI and FL to be seated and counted.  MI and FL can also appeal to the DNC to let the delegates be counted.

    Alternatively, MI and FL can hold caucuses at some point and those delegates can be counted.  Donna Brazile explained that this has happened before after a state jumped the gun with a primary, was punished, and legitimately got around the punishment by holding a caucus.

    But, in context, I agree that the punishment is a sham.  The DNC should not have done this or, perhaps, they could have done what they origically said they would, which was to apportion only half the delegates.  I don't know why they switched positions again on that, especially since since both MI abd FL are so crucial to the Dems in November.


    [ Parent ]

    if the debate focuses (none / 0) (#123)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:51:46 AM EST
    on the economy as is the key interest of Americans right now, all the lovey dovey behavior in the world will not impress voters either way imo.  People may be swayed short term for the polls, but not when they pull the lever.  I firmly beleive that the winner will be the one who comes across like they know how to fix or at least deal with the  economy. Unless Obama has been doing reading instead of sleeping at night, he is going to come up short.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes big haul (none / 0) (#158)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 03:55:17 PM EST
    The effect was... I donated to Hillary today. So we'll see.

    [ Parent ]
    I did too. (none / 0) (#162)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 06:10:34 PM EST
    If she does what I know she can do she will get more tomorrow.

    Oh yeck, she'll get more tomorrow anyway. It's payday!

    [ Parent ]

    Me three! (none / 0) (#170)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 06:53:45 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Great Debate! (4.00 / 1) (#108)
    by robrecht on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:37:30 AM EST
    I'm hoping this will be a great debate.  I love great debates.  I don't even mind someone going negative 'cause I want to see how well an unfairly attacked person responds and calls the attacker on unfair points.  And I want to see how honestly a fairly attacked person can respond.

    Obama has the potential to score big but his work's cut out for him.  Hillary is formidable in debates and is the clear favorite from a technical point of view based on past performances.  Obama's the favorite with the media, no doubt.  But I still have a hard time believing that he can succeed on 2/5.

    I'm a tepid Clinton supporter and I endorse this post.

    See AL:L the Candidates: Gravel's Alt. Debate (4.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:52:47 AM EST

    Mike's going to put the CNN feed on a screen, stand in front with a pause button, and interject his answers and commentary. He'll catch up  during the commercials. Alternative debate live stream 8PM Eastern, 5 Pacific.

    annointing the Chosen One (3.66 / 3) (#104)
    by tek on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:33:37 AM EST
    The debate will be a one-sided slugfest with Clinton receiving all the hits. Obama cand ay anything and the media and blogs croon. If dares to defend herself, the media will be plastered with "Hillary the Attacker" headlines. She is the superior debater because she has the ideas and he has a vacant head. I hope she ignores all of his smears and just talks about her ideas. It is possible to do. BOs campaign knows the Clintons hit back when smeared and they'll be counting on that like at SC. I hope she doesn't take the bait because it will not help her to trade slams.

    vacant head? (none / 0) (#106)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:36:50 AM EST
    You have to be kidding me.

    Obama has a vacant head?  Doesn't have ideas?

    Nothing like blind bias...

    [ Parent ]

    Agreed (none / 0) (#122)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:49:34 AM EST
    I think he is brilliant.

    [ Parent ]
    Absolutely (none / 0) (#144)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:05:55 PM EST
    We had three - and now two - very smart candidates.  I can't decide which of the three is smarter, which is a tribute to all of them, as far as I'm concerned.

    Of course, while I think Obama is brilliant, I also think he apparently doesn't know anything about U.S. political history. Perhaps this is the best argument ever for education reform in America. If even fricking Barack Obama doesn't know that the United States was not united around John F. Kennedy to solve the civil rights problems facing our country in 1960, then what's an average student supposed to do?  

    Like a blog comment I read regarding the revelation that Clinton had failed the D.C. bar exam by a law student studying for the bar, essentially that how was she supposed to feel confident about her chances if Hillary Rodham failed it.  

    Heh.

    [ Parent ]

    kidding (none / 0) (#130)
    by tek on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:01:25 PM EST
    Hillary a racist? Hillary a liar? Hillary a negative attacker? You've got to be kidding me.

    [ Parent ]
    Umm... (none / 0) (#134)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:10:45 PM EST
    ... please point out when Barack Obama called Hillary Clinton a racist.

    And Obama called Hillary a liar... when she lied.

    And Obama called Hillary a negative attacker... when she made negative attacks.

    But how do those have anything to do with him having a "vacant head."

    The things you point out show that he is a politician.  

    [ Parent ]

    in other words (none / 0) (#146)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:26:28 PM EST
    rubber/glue?

    [ Parent ]
    the last debate (3.50 / 2) (#8)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:49:57 AM EST
    showed a very angry Obama, and he came out swinging.  Not that the press spun it that way, but he certainly looked furious to me.  This is a man who easily loses his cool when he doesn't feel like he is winning.  I think that despite Florida, where he was overwhelmingly defeated, he thinks that he is winning.  The Kennedy thing and the commercial comparing both of them as visionary heroes.  That's a huge ego boost.  

    So, my prediction: either he is going to be cocky and shoot himself in the foot, or he is going to do his usual, middling performance and she will blow him away--but no one but us will notice.

    Five cents, please.

    But they both of tempers that (none / 0) (#15)
    by byteb on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:56:14 AM EST
    can be a detriment for each of them in debates.

    [ Parent ]
    Butterflies (3.50 / 2) (#29)
    by xjt on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:10:19 AM EST
    I'm nervous of course but she always comes through under pressure which is something I admire about her. She seems to let the hate roll off her back and doesn't rattle. No matter what happens, the media will spin this as an Obama win. I've switched to CNN because Scarborough is so intolerable, but Bennett and Borger and Bernstein are nearly as bad. I wonder if Obama will pull some stunt in relation to "The Snub" like making a big deal out of shaking her hand. I'm sure he's prepared some "clever" line.  

    But I hope that the moderators ask questions on the issues tonight, rather than trying to pull them into personality clashes.  

    I hope HRC does as well as she has in the past (none / 0) (#1)
    by Angel on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:35:59 AM EST
    debates.  If so then she may do really well on Tuesday. Obama gives a great speech but he has not impressed me in the debates because he does not seem to have command of the issues in the way that HRC does. Who will be moderating?  That is key to the debate because of the bias of the questioners, etc.  

    I think (none / 0) (#2)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:38:00 AM EST
    since the media has put the Obama rules in place, it is heavily stacked in favor of Obama....A woman cant fight back (too shrill)....It is absurd.

    [ Parent ]
    can't fight back (none / 0) (#107)
    by tek on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:37:04 AM EST
     She can control the debate and win, despite the "Obama Rules." Don't underestimate Hillary Clinton. BO is going to try to attack her usual strategies, I think she'll be playing a new game.

    [ Parent ]
    Wolf Blitzer Moderating (none / 0) (#10)
    by xjt on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:52:26 AM EST
    Wolf Blitzer moderating, with Doyle McManus of the L.A. Times and Jeanne Cummings of Politico.

    I'm glad it's not Anderson Cooper, as he appears quite biased toward Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    Not again! (none / 0) (#100)
    by blueaura on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:22:53 AM EST
    Wolfie boy is a terrible moderator. He "moderated" the last Dem debate and it turned into a free-for-all cat fight. Cooper at least tries to get people to answer the questions they're asked when they try to talk around them.

    [ Parent ]
    At least it isn't Russert (none / 0) (#171)
    by BernieO on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 06:57:43 PM EST
    I don't think I could watch Russert moderate.

    [ Parent ]
    A debate against two or more (none / 0) (#65)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:39:53 AM EST
    may be his difficulty.  A lawyer is accustomed to one on one, a teacher is accustomed to discussion rather than debate -- or to simply lecturing.:-)

    I agree with BTD that the dynamics of one-on-one debate, maybe more like law and traditional debate training, may considerably improve Obama tonight.

    Whether, even so, he can keep up with the wonky wonder, we will see.

    [ Parent ]

    teacher (none / 0) (#110)
    by tek on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:40:34 AM EST
    What teacher? They are both lawyers and both teachers. I don't know how we've gotten this public impression that Barack Obama is a law professor and Clinton is a corporate lawyer. Both Clintons taught law before Bill was governor. Bill taught CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. If Barack can't stand up to Hillary's debating skills, it's not because he's a teacher, not a lawyer.
    BTW: Law professors don't just get out of law school and start teaching. They are drawn from successful professionals who've been in the field for at least two years (as in practicing).

    [ Parent ]
    Why... (5.00 / 0) (#112)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:42:51 AM EST
    ... does Bill's teaching matter?

    [ Parent ]
    I said teacher, not professor (none / 0) (#147)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:27:37 PM EST
    and I know the difference, believe me.

    And I was talking about surprise at his shortcomings in debates so far, considering that he has taught for some time.

    As I was not addressing inabilities in debate by  the other candidate, or her spouse, their teaching experience was not addressed.

    See how debate works?

    [ Parent ]

    The Obama rules (none / 0) (#3)
    by TheRealFrank on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:38:23 AM EST
    The problem for Clinton is that her campaign (and mostly Bill) have been relentlessly depicted as negative over the last few weeks.

    So, if she counterattacks when Obama attacks, she'll probably get the negative press, while he gets away with it.

    But, she needs to pull of a debate win, as the polls are moving his way.

    I think the best she can do is to focus on action, not talk, and impress viewers with knowledge and clear statements about the economy. And if she needs to counterattack, she needs to do it calmly and with a smile.

    My new attack theory.I think if Bill keeps quiet, (none / 0) (#12)
    by byteb on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:54:10 AM EST
    until Tuesday, then Hillary can attack w/o negative consequences.I noticed that after Obama and Edwards double teamed Hillary b/4 the NH vote, the perception was that Hillary was attacked unfairly. She won NH. When Bill and Hillary went after Obama before SC, the perception was that he was being double teamed and the SC vote for Obama was for BO beyond expecttations. Therefore, my new and untested attack theory is that negative can be a good tactic but too negative, perception of double teaming is viewed as unfair by the public and the attacker is punished in lack of votes.
    Debate and Discuss.

    [ Parent ]
    The perception was (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:07:43 AM EST
    Hillary was attacked unfairly?

    In what universe?

    [ Parent ]

    after the NH debates with Edwards (none / 0) (#39)
    by byteb on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:18:39 AM EST
    and Obama going after her, then followed by her emotional moment where Tweety and his minions slobbered all overthemselves in glee, there was the view not only in the public but, I think, even in the MSM, that the Hillary Pile On had reached an unfair and rotten low. It took a lot but it happened.


    [ Parent ]
    consequences (none / 0) (#114)
    by tek on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:44:41 AM EST
    Hillary attack without consequences? LOL. Have you not been following the media coverage of Hillary since Iowa? She doesn't dare open her mouth without the media attacking her. It doesn't even have to be her. She's been hammered over PERCEIVED attacks from Bill and the whole Ted Kennedy endorsement of Obama stemmed from remarks a Hillary supporter made when introducing her at a rally.
    Talk about thin-skinned, I'll never have a favorable view of the Kennedys again. Ted Kennedy's outrage is so stupid because JFK did not want to embrace civil rights, Bobby finally made him do it. Guess that's what outraged Teddy, the truth.

    [ Parent ]
    Bad news day for Hillary (none / 0) (#53)
    by magster on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:28:33 AM EST
    will make tonight's debate interesting for Hillary.

    See NYT front page
    ABC news

    [ Parent ]

    bad news (none / 0) (#118)
    by tek on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:46:14 AM EST
    Yes, she'll undoubtedly be hammered over this the whole debate in hopes that she won't be able to say anything about her ideas for the country.

    Democrats eat their own.

    [ Parent ]

    winner (none / 0) (#119)
    by tek on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:47:17 AM EST
    Oh, and then when it's over, no matter how pathetic Obama is, the blogs and the media will declare him the undisputed winner.

    [ Parent ]
    I could care less (none / 0) (#126)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:53:40 AM EST
    they have been consistently wrong. Steer your own ship.

    [ Parent ]
    Well... (none / 0) (#128)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:57:41 AM EST
    ... as a Clinton supporter you should care.

    Regardless of whether we like it or not, most people are not out reading blogs and learning information on their own.  My guess is that most people still get all, or at least most, of their information from the MSM.

    So if the media says Obama won, many, many people will believe that Obama won.

    [ Parent ]

    I think we may (none / 0) (#143)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:50:10 PM EST
    find the same people who wouldnt let the media shove their garbage down their throats in NH live in other States too.

    The "media" never paid my mortgage, baby!!

    [ Parent ]

    The media sold us Bush (none / 0) (#172)
    by BernieO on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 07:06:45 PM EST
    A lot of people bought the media's negative portrayal of Gore and their praising of Bush as a straight talking, regular guy. That includes a lot of Dems who voted for Nader.

    Much of the public has realized that Bush was a mistake and now respect Gore, but I do not get a sense that a lot of people get that it was the media who misled them. A lot of people I know who have changed their minds think that Gore and Bush have changed since 2000, not that they were sold a pile of hooey.

    Clearly the public has not yet awakened to the rampant bias in the media, except for that brief outcry against sexism. If they did, there would be an uproar to equal or surpass that one. Until the public figures it out, this garbage will continue to destroy good candidats.

    [ Parent ]

    I am (none / 0) (#132)
    by tek on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:07:37 PM EST
    steering my won ship or I wouldn't be here defending the media underdog, right? Whatever.

    [ Parent ]
    yes! (none / 0) (#142)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:48:33 PM EST
    "Your" as a general "Your" - not you personally.  I should have written "people should stee their own..."

    [ Parent ]
    We all (none / 0) (#159)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 04:03:09 PM EST
    know ABC and NEWS is an oxymoron.

    [ Parent ]
    Not doubt it's big (none / 0) (#4)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:42:00 AM EST
    I've noticed Obama is always talking about ideas and Hillary talks about specifics. She doesn't say what they are, but she does talk about having them.

    She is pretty specific (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:06:59 AM EST
    certainly much more so than Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    It's a joke (none / 0) (#43)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:22:00 AM EST
    They are both very specific in stump speeches and esp. on their websites.  But in the short exchanges and quickie Good Morning America interviews neither reallly has time to be specific.  But she often makes the point that she has them.

    Btw the one Clinton specific that really bothers me is the five year interest rate freeze. The 90 day suspension of forclosure isn't bad.  But freezing interest rates for five years has to be the worst idea I have ever heard.

    [ Parent ]

    The 5-year freeze won't pass Congress (none / 0) (#73)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:43:42 AM EST
    and gives her a great soundbyte with her public -- the working class, the lower middle class.

    So it's perfect positioning, since those who don't like it don't like her and won't vote for her, so no loss.  And then Congress would pare it down to a one-year freeze, if at all, depending upon whether current rate cuts and future expected rate cuts turn it around with refinancing for those homeowners on the edge, anyway.

    [ Parent ]

    We disagree (none / 0) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:44:51 AM EST
    on our appreciation of who is more specific.

    [ Parent ]
    I think Obama will get slaughtered (none / 0) (#5)
    by MarkL on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:42:46 AM EST
    He has used the presence of other candidates both to cool off, and also to avoid answering questions. This time he won't be able to keep up with Hillary.
    The only caveat  I have is if the the Kazakhstan/uranium story is a topic tonight, Hillary may have to spend a lot of time on it.

    I doubt it (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:06:18 AM EST
    The story itself is rather opaque.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, I agree. I do think Bill C. (none / 0) (#27)
    by MarkL on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:09:37 AM EST
    should declare that he will step down from this position if Hillary becomes the nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    What position? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:10:44 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    with the charity. Fundraising (none / 0) (#36)
    by MarkL on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:12:45 AM EST
    through meetings with dictators is ok for a private citizen, but not for the First Gentleman.

    [ Parent ]
    why? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:24:50 AM EST
    OBama said he would meet with dictators.  No word on whether he would a charitable contribution out of it,

    [ Parent ]
    Do You Agree With Bush? (none / 0) (#79)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:48:54 AM EST
    Whose (selective) policy is not to meet with "dictators"?

    Not sure what you are getting at, except a rather poor gratuitous swipe at Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    making a point (none / 0) (#109)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:39:35 AM EST
    that seems to have gone over your head.

    [ Parent ]
    OK (none / 0) (#153)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:52:08 PM EST
    What's your point?

    [ Parent ]
    That will be singular (none / 0) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:43:56 AM EST
    First Spouses have always been very involved in charities.

    [ Parent ]
    That's a good point. (none / 0) (#111)
    by MarkL on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:42:18 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    And Bush senior has shilled for (none / 0) (#173)
    by BernieO on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 07:10:01 PM EST
    the Reverend Sun Myung Moon with no outcry.

    [ Parent ]
    Why close the Foundation of course (none / 0) (#71)
    by RalphB on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:43:02 AM EST
    Don't you know how bad it is to fight AIDS with the "wrong" kind of money?  Letting those poor people die is the "progressive" solution.  Right?

    The story has a bunch of loose ends in it anyway.  Reminds me of Gerth's early crap on Whitewater.  Oh wait, one of the author's of this story was in on that as well.

    [ Parent ]

    Doesn't need to close, can continue (none / 0) (#77)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:46:48 AM EST
    without him.  He could be "of counsel" to it, and if the story gets legs, he could say he would turn it over to others for the nonce.

    That is, if the story gets legs.  It is complicate -- opaque, as BTD says -- so we'll have to see.  I don't know if Obama will bring it up tonight, or will be able to bring it up in a soundbyte -- since all Clinton has to say is "Rezko," a code word that does resonate more now, as it has been out there for more than a day and is simpler to understand.

    [ Parent ]

    First Guy should be as visible as any First Spouse (none / 0) (#139)
    by Ellie on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:24:43 PM EST
    Fundraising, stumping and -- just as the Spice on both sides have been -- dishing it out as hot or cool or sweet and tart as suits their personalities and the situation.

    As much as the gum-snapping gossips of Punditstan are dying to get back to trashing The Clintons, and "their" record as prez, only one is running for office and they should strive for the same ability to distinguish them as they've managed to do for, eg, the Doles.

    If/when Sen. Clinton wins, she should send him abroad -- [insert goofy Clenis joke here, or GOP alternative that Neil Bush got three] -- where he's much admired.

    (Total Non Sequitur: Oh here's a TIVO moment worth noting at Media Matters. As Schwarzo declared St. McCain not a girly-man and McCain talked about fighting Terra with perma-war -- wurrounded by a sleuth of Repugs including Ghouliani who's piping up with HIS endorsement -- CNN helpfully runs with the breaking announcement that yet another al Qaeda Number Three was killed!

    This is beyond kabuki. It's like Tosca performed at the Caracala Baths, or Aida at the foot of the Luxor pyramids!

    I've gotta say, they have more No. 3's than I have cousins -- and my family's lousy with coodge.)

    [ Parent ]

    rather opaque (none / 0) (#124)
    by tek on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:52:24 AM EST
    Bill saying that JJ ran a clean campaign in SC after a reporter said that JJ won twice in SC has now been stretched into "Bill Clinton's racist remark against Jesse Jackson." Never fear, the mining thing will be dealt with as the gospel truth it will be the first question and the moderator will clobber her with it and then give Obama ample time to clobber her with all kinds of smears. Rezko will never come up, but they'll be hoping she counters with it so BO can show outrage that she would criticize him unfairly. It'll be a circus managed to benefit Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm probably not going to be around (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:44:47 AM EST
    to watch, so I'm counting on you all for reactions.

    BTD: Your point about the "Obama Rules" is right, I think, and Hillary will have a very difficult time doing what she needs to do.

    Clinton's Options (none / 0) (#7)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:48:18 AM EST
    I think Obama needs this debate more than Clinton.  While he may have gained in polls in the last week, he's still behind.   And he may have more ground to make up than folks realize since, for example, something like nearly a quarter of Californians have voted and polls say they favor her by something like 20%.  If you assume that she benefits elsewhere from early voting, then he has an even bigger problem.

    It certainly poses more risk for Clinton to attack.  But I think she needs to attack less.  So I suspect Obama will be the one firing first, as he did last time.  

    I think Clinton does better when she holds some of her fire.  If she were, for example, to repeatedly point out his attacks without responding at first  and instead launch into what she would do.  Then, if he keeps it up, she can unload like she did in NH - where she finally got frustrated about the change issue with Edwards.  It worked because it was obvious she was playing defense.  That's the dynamic she needs to set up - to make it obvious she's playing defense when she goes after him.  

    Early voting (none / 0) (#11)
    by TheRealFrank on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:53:13 AM EST
    As far as I know, pollsters factor that in, so they are in the poll result.

    The downside for Obama is, however, that those are voters that can no longer change their minds; they can't move his way anymore.


    [ Parent ]

    Oh, one more thing.. (none / 0) (#26)
    by TheRealFrank on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:08:31 AM EST
    I believe that Clinton and Obama are essentially even in the polls now. Basically, the race starts from zero, with Obama having an edge because of his momentum.

    Therefore, I think that Clinton needs a clear win in the debate, otherwise she'll lose on Feb 5th. Not by a wide margin, but the way that such a loss will be talked about afterwards will be something she could not come back from.


    [ Parent ]

    I think that overstates it (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:10:09 AM EST
    Hillary still ahead.

    [ Parent ]
    Btw (none / 0) (#37)
    by TheRealFrank on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:14:29 AM EST
    here is the definite proof from Gallup that the division of voters by race hasn't changed much at all since Iowa. The whole "black voters ran away from Clinton because of her statements" just doesn't hold up.

    It simply looks like a lot of black voters had doubts about Obama's ability to win, but flocked to him after Iowa. And they stayed with him.


    [ Parent ]

    Yep (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:20:52 AM EST
    Honestly, I wonder if the polls are not OVERstating Obama's support now.

    [ Parent ]
    One poll (none / 0) (#46)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:24:36 AM EST
    shows the black vote pretty even in TN.  But that is just one poll...

    [ Parent ]
    That would be a surprising result (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:33:41 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    He is not even. (none / 0) (#127)
    by tek on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:53:47 AM EST
    She's well ahead in many key states.

    [ Parent ]
    My question is (none / 0) (#9)
    by Lena on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:51:01 AM EST
    even if HRC does well at the debate, how can she not be panned? The press loves Obama and hates her.

    The only way she can possibly "win" this thing is if there's absolutely no doubt that she bested him. Aside from this slim possibility, the debate will only help Obama (I think).

    This media bias belief (4.00 / 1) (#17)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:58:57 AM EST
    is getting way out of hand.  You're starting sound like little Limbaughs.  I'm not saying there is no slant but main reason for the bias is ratings.

    [ Parent ]
    media slant (3.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:10:31 AM EST
    I keep asking myself if I am being paranoid.  As a long-time knee-jerk feminist, I am constantly stepping back and asking, "okay, is that really sexist or am I just really sensitive."  I will freely admit that it splits fifty-fifty most of the time.  But, with the media Clinton bias, where we are constantly barraged with negatives about Clinton, I don't think I am over reacting.

    And I keep thinking about the first time I met Obama when he came to Georgia.  I was so impressed with him as a person, but there was nothing presidential about him.  I clearly remember thinking, "he must have been a really good professor," but nothing more.  His speech wasn't nearly as polished without a teleprompter, and he seemed annoyed with folks talking in the back of the room.  When he shook my hand, he was looking over my shoulder or being distracted by who was next in line.  Honestly, I felt like I wasn't even standing there.  Now, contrast that to when I met Bill Clinton and then Hillary Clinton: they both looked me in the eye, they both talked to me and they both made me feel like what I said mattered.

    I know that's not much to go on, and y'all don't know me so why the heck should my impression matter any more than Bush saying he looked Putin in the eye, etc, but the impression I got from Obama that night was that he was always looking for the next best thing rather than really looking at what was right in front of him.  And I think the way he has campaigned has born out that impression.

    [ Parent ]

    Are you kidding? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Lena on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:07:21 AM EST
    I'm in Florida, and the day after she won big Zhere, our local paper had a huge splashy headline about McCain. It didn't even mention Clinton on the front page. She was somewhere in the middle, with the headline pointing out that our vote meant nothing, since no delegates would be seated as a result. Great coverage!

    Plus, who exactly will be touting her debate performance tonight? Matthews? Russert? Bill Bennett? Gloria Borger? Andrea Mitchell? There will be a few who will be willing to call a win a win, but very few.


    [ Parent ]

    Heh (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:08:21 AM EST
    You gotta be kidding me.

    [ Parent ]
    I... (4.00 / 1) (#33)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:11:01 AM EST
    ... am an Obama supporter, and I will even admit that there is an anti-Hillary bias in the media.

    Of course... I think they are right half the time, but that is beside the point!  :)

    [ Parent ]

    Good for you (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:19:04 AM EST
    Look, I am surprised Obama folks argue against this.

    This is a good reason to make him the nominee.

    It is why I support him.

    [ Parent ]

    I said there's is a slant (none / 0) (#55)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:30:04 AM EST
    I just don't think it's an aggenda of hate. I don't buy when Rush says it and I don't buy it here.  It's the storyline that get's the headline, not the news.  

    [ Parent ]
    You gotta be kidding me (1.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:32:59 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Then again you may be right... (none / 0) (#61)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:37:00 AM EST
    I just finished reading the Kazakh piece om MSNBC.  Hard to deny the timing of this isn't fishy.  Also hard to deny the Kazach deal isnt' fishy.

    [ Parent ]
    The story is very opaque to me (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:43:00 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    You gotta be kidding me (none / 0) (#102)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:25:54 AM EST
    ...

    [ Parent ]
    Explain it to me then (none / 0) (#133)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:10:13 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The story (none / 0) (#137)
    by Steve M on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:22:38 PM EST
    Bill helped facilitate a deal whereby a Canadian businessman got some uranium mining contracts from the government of Kazakhstan.  As part of greasing the wheels, Bill had some nice things to say about the Kazakh government, which actually isn't all that nice.  After the guy got the valuable contracts, he donated a big chunk of the proceeds to the Clinton Foundation.

    That seems like the gist to me.

    [ Parent ]

    BTD you're smart enough to know (none / 0) (#141)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:42:32 PM EST
    you don't have to break the law to do something wrong.  Or something that just looks wrong. If this becomes a story the details will be overshadowed by the numbers, which looks to be +/- $130,000,000.00

    [ Parent ]
    What could be fishy about the deal itself? (none / 0) (#161)
    by ding7777 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 06:09:21 PM EST
    China, Russia, Japan. Canada, South Korea all have companies receiving uranium mining deals

    [ Parent ]
    Whether the intent (none / 0) (#68)
    by Lena on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:41:35 AM EST
    behind the slant is hatred or not, it doesn't make a difference.

    The bias is still there, and it gives HRC a tough uphill climb to the nomination.

    [ Parent ]

    If A Lot of Folk Watch (none / 0) (#16)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:56:43 AM EST
    that will help.  Because people will have seen the debate itself.  It certainly helped her in New Hampshire.

    The question to me is will the moderators play it straight.  Thank goodness it's not Russert.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary Has to Attack (none / 0) (#13)
    by bob h on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:54:35 AM EST
    obliquely.  No accusations about Rezko, etc., just simple statements that flashy oratory and wishful thinking about bipartisan good feeling will not do it.

    One way to attack, is to ask Obama (none / 0) (#85)
    by ding7777 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:56:35 AM EST
    if he is willing to cross  the aisle on National Security?

    [ Parent ]
    Wolf Blizer will be moderating N/T (none / 0) (#14)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:55:00 AM EST


    I think if she can get Obama angry then he'll lose (none / 0) (#18)
    by Angel on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:01:53 AM EST
    his cool and she wins.  But it has to be done in the right way.  I'm not sure what that way is though.  He does get pissed off quickly and has a tendency to make faces, such as the brow furrow when he snubbed her at the speech Monday night.  The attack in the other debat about her "being likeable enough" showed him looking down and not at her, sort of childish if you ask me.  He needs to get angry and act childish.  That's the only way the media will get on his case.  Let's keep our fingers crossed about the questioning, though.  My prediction is that Obama will be the first to hurl and it will again be about Wal Mart.

    Remember (none / 0) (#20)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:06:25 AM EST
    A lot of the media did not see how unlikeable Obama was in his 'your likable enough" moment.  And Clinton's best moment in that debate - where she said that she had actually brought change - the media hated.  So I'm not sure the media's views matters except that it helps Clinton if they pile on her unfairly.  

    [ Parent ]
    correct me if I am wrong (none / 0) (#149)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:35:01 PM EST
    but isn't the trial attorney taught how to piss off the witness so they will blow it with their testimony??? If so, maybe that will be the strategy...I cannot watch, but will join the blog about it...

    [ Parent ]
    The winner will be (none / 0) (#22)
    by eric on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:07:13 AM EST
    The winner will be the candidate that most convincingly articulates how he or she is going to honor the pledge that they gave to John Edwards.  There is a whole block of people, including myself, who are waiting to see which candidate makes a point of adopting the Edwards cause of ending poverty.

    Whoever does the best job of convincing us that they are taking Edwards' cause seriously will benefit from a large block of voters that are looking for some direction right now.

    That will be part of it (4.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:11:50 AM EST
    but I think folks are overstaing the impact of Edwards here.

    [ Parent ]
    overstated? (none / 0) (#44)
    by eric on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:22:45 AM EST
    How is it overstated?  It is an easy way to pick up previously committed supporters.  It is worth at least a few percentage points.  In some places, a lot more.  That would be a lot of movement from one debate.

    [ Parent ]
    I can't speak for BTD (4.50 / 2) (#48)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:25:56 AM EST
    but a lot of folks are assuming (1) Edwards supporters will go where he says and (2) Edwards supporters are heavily leaning Obama-ites.

    I think what both points fails to realize is that by their very nature, Edwards supporters are extremely independent and will do whatever they want.

    Not to say that Clinton and Obama folks aren't independent, but you see what I'm getting at.  They're not going to go lockstep one way or the other.

    [ Parent ]

    as an edwards supporter, i think it is fair (3.00 / 1) (#90)
    by hellothere on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:04:35 AM EST
    to say i won't be voting for obama. and i do represent the typical edwards supporter. we actually see what the real program is and not the verbal script on tv or in person. witness obama does a good scripted speech but not so well when under pressure in a debate with sometime good questions.

    [ Parent ]
    Worth a few percentage points (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:31:33 AM EST
    in SOME places is something I agree with.

    Ergo, people are OVERstating its importance.

    [ Parent ]

    I Predict (none / 0) (#30)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:10:25 AM EST
    that will be Clinton.  She's better at that kind of language than Obama is.  She's been using it for the past month or so.  

    It wouldn't surprise me at all if that ends up being her strategy.  Let Obama do whatever he's going to do, she'll attack Bush and push her plans for the middle-class, working-class, low income voters.

    [ Parent ]

    One More Edwards Thought (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:12:02 AM EST
    If Obama fires first, she could respond with, you know, John Edwards was right and I'm not going to squabble with you tonight.  I'm going to tell the American people what I'm going to do for them.  And then launch into specifics.  Or something like that.  

    [ Parent ]
    You Would Make A Good Political Advisor n/t (none / 0) (#87)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:01:20 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I Doubt That (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:15:22 PM EST
    But I do think there's something to the idea of attacking by not attacking.  How she could do that and be effective in this media climate, I'm not sure.  But I think she has a chance to create a giant media backlash like she did in NH.  Like NH, the demos of most states on Super Tuesday favor her.  As in the weeks leading up to the debate, the media hasn't been able to contain its Clinton hatred.  That's her best shot at overcoming the Obama Rules - make the media's love of him work against him.  Most Democrats, afterall, hate the media.

    [ Parent ]
    i think obama's advisors have told (none / 0) (#72)
    by hellothere on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:43:34 AM EST
    him to attack. witness his comments about hillary from yesterday. obama does his unity routine with some flair but his attacking leaves a lot to be desired. he gets angry and petty.

    [ Parent ]
    Angry and petty? (4.00 / 1) (#76)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:45:44 AM EST
    This is an odd one to me.

    I have seen very little difference in the "anger" or "pettiness" of Clinton or Obama's attacks on each other.  

    I have seen Obama get angry in debates; I have also seen Clinton get angry in the debates.

    Now... I do think that Hillary has been the better debater up to this point, but I don't think it is because she is less angry or petty.

    [ Parent ]

    frankly, i find it very surprising that (2.00 / 1) (#80)
    by hellothere on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:49:50 AM EST
    you fail to see obama's behavior as not angry and petty. witness his comments about her being "likeable" and the snub at the state of the union. i have watched the debates as well. in fact i used to be a debater. he lacks in style and delivery in the debates as they are not scripted with a teleprompter.

    oh please feel free to disagree with more of obama meant this and said that, as that is standard for obama and his advisors to do after the each burhahaha.

    [ Parent ]

    ugh... (4.00 / 1) (#84)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:56:27 AM EST
    witness his comments about her being "likeable" and the snub at the state of the union.
    There was no snub.  And I didn't have a problem with the "likeable" comment.

    I also don't think that either of those things have anything to do with being "angry" or "petty."

    he lacks in style and delivery in the debates as they are not scripted with a teleprompter.
    Okay... but that has nothing to do with what I said about being angry or petty.
    oh please feel free to disagree with more of obama meant this and said that, as that is standard for obama and his advisors to do after the each burhahaha.
    "oh please feel free" to make very broad generalizations about Obama supporters.  It gives you a lot of credibility.

    [ Parent ]
    with all due respect please take a look (none / 0) (#89)
    by hellothere on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:02:36 AM EST
    at the comments in general about many of the obama supporters. witness obama rules for the supporters and press! everything obama says and does is wonderful no matter how bad or questionable and everything hillary does just shows how nasty those clintons are. come on, you know that is true.

    now there are some obama supporters who are very credible and show maturity in their thoughts and comments. however and unfortunately they are drowned out by the over the top actions and comments of the supporters who are all yea, yea and no critical thinking.

    [ Parent ]

    with all due respect... (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:12:28 AM EST
    ... you need to learn how to not make general assumptions about people.  

    And come on... if you really think that the majority of Clinton supporters have been better than the majority of Obama supporters, I am not sure what to tell you.  Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that either have been better; I am saying that both sides have tended to be equally ridiculous.  

    however and unfortunately they are drowned out by the over the top actions and comments of the supporters who are all yea, yea and no critical thinking.
    Well... again, I could make the same argument about Clinton supporters.  I could also make an argument that making general assumptions about people because of the candidate they support is not exactly mature or thinking critically.  

    [ Parent ]
    yeah well this is turning into you said (none / 0) (#116)
    by hellothere on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:45:41 AM EST
    and i said. or the shorter version of nana, i don't agree! so have a nice day and watch the debate.

    [ Parent ]
    blue aura, i would appreciate a comment (none / 0) (#148)
    by hellothere on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:33:39 PM EST
    and reasoning as to why you are troll rating my comments. thanks

    [ Parent ]
    eric (none / 0) (#42)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:21:32 AM EST
    Good point about Edwards folks, which I think some of us lost the thread on (speaking for myself, I certainly did).  The first ten minutes of Hillary's speech last night in Atlanta was praising John AND Elizabeth Edwards, and she certainly gave him credit where it was due for bringing some important issues to the forefront.  I don't watch or listen to Obama's speeches, but maybe someone who does could offer their input on his reaching out to Edwards supporters.

    I think you are right that it will be a key point for both sides in the debate to reach out to Edwards folks without seeming to be pandering.  Expect a twenty minute praise-athon similar to the "no one is racist" opening from two debates ago.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama on Edwards (none / 0) (#140)
    by blueaura on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:26:41 PM EST

    John Edwards has spent a lifetime fighting to give voice to the voiceless and hope to the struggling, even when it wasn't popular to do or covered in the news. At a time when our politics is too focused on who's up and who's down, he made a nation focus again on who matters -- the New Orleans child without a home, the West Virginia miner without a job, the families who live in that other America that is not seen or heard or talked about by our leaders in Washington. John and Elizabeth Edwards have always believed deeply that we can change this -- that two Americas can become one, and that our country can rally around this common purpose. So while his campaign may end today, the cause of their lives endures for all of us who still believe that we can achieve that dream of one America.


    [ Parent ]
    thanks (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:36:09 PM EST
    HEre's another quote that I snagged from Taylor Marsh:

    "I thought I'd take a moment to try to add some clarity to the anti-choice Present votes in IL.

    Lorna Brett was president of CNOW from 1996-1998. She was not president at the time we were lobbying on these bills. Five of those votes occurred in the 92nd General Assembly session in 2001. NOW records indicate that she hasn't been a member since 1999. She was not there when we were lobbying against these bills. She is using her very old affiliation with NOW to try to validate her criticism of Hillary Clinton.

    Voting Present on those bills was a strategy that Illinois NOW did not support. We made it clear at the time that we disagreed with the strategy. We wanted legislators to take a stand against the awful anti-choice bills being put forth. Voting Present doesn't provide a platform from which to show leadership and say with conviction that we support a woman's right to choose and these bills are unacceptable.

    The Present strategy was devised to give political cover to legislators in conservative districts. Barack Obama did not represent a conservative district; he could have voted No with very little negative consequence in his district.

    - Bonnie Grabenhofer
    IL NOW State President"

    Now they're going to say this was one of his accidental button pushes

    [ Parent ]

    Aha, much more than we knew before (none / 0) (#155)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:11:44 PM EST
    about Brett, about an Illinois group's refusal to endorse its own Senator, etc.  Much becomes more clear here, even from its previous statement on the Illinois NOW website.  I ought to have been back to it to see updates since -- as this could have significant impact in my state nearby, and now our primary might matter, too.  Thanks.

    [ Parent ]
    are "obama rules" similar to (none / 0) (#38)
    by cpinva on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:17:54 AM EST
    "bush rules" with respect to the debates? in other words, if sen. obama manages to make a few nominally coherent statements and not trip off the stage, then he will be considered the winner, because the expectations for him are so low to begin with?

    if that's the case, then i think we can reasonably dispense with the rest of the primaries, and just nominate sen. clinton.

    cp (none / 0) (#45)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:24:27 AM EST
    Oh, God, debate flash-backs are hitting me hard right now when Bush just blinked and stared into the camera as he waited for something brilliant to magically be whispered into his ear.  He was AWFUL, and the press propped him up like he was a god.

    [ Parent ]
    not fair (none / 0) (#49)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:26:55 AM EST
    to compare the two.

    [ Parent ]
    Not really (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:27:54 AM EST
    The Media has been critical of Obama's debate performances.

    I am speaking strictly of the going negative thing.

    [ Parent ]

    I have a problem that (none / 0) (#50)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:27:23 AM EST
    Obama can call her names and can be as negative as he wants to be but that is considered ok and noone else is allowed to show anything negative about him...I remember the same rules when Bush was running for president...and we know what that got us...The republicans are going to have a blast with him after he gets the nomination...oh well, those of you that vote for him, cannot say you weren't warned....:-)

    Is Talkleft Going To Retract? (none / 0) (#51)
    by Oliver Willis on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:27:37 AM EST
    This stupidity on "the snub" is beneath liberal blogs.

    Just asking.

    Oliver (3.66 / 3) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:29:37 AM EST
    do you plan on stopping this asshat behavior anytime soon?

    Your attacks on Jeralyn are really beneath contempt.

    Attack me. She does not criticize bloggers. I do.

    I am fair game She is not.

    Show some class.

    [ Parent ]

    No offense... (4.00 / 1) (#62)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:37:15 AM EST
    ... BTD, but calling someone an asshat is not exactly showing class.  

    Further... it appears that he was referring to TalkLeft, the blog, and not specifically Jeralyn.

    Don't get me wrong - I have seen some of the behavior that you characterize as "asshat behavior."

    But I don't think that the above post was one of those instances.

    [ Parent ]

    I am not a classy person (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:39:13 AM EST
    I know boorish behavior when I see it.

    As for who Oliver was referring to, I have not written about the "Snub."

    I do not care about it. I will not debate it.

    Oliver seems eager to.


    [ Parent ]

    hehe (none / 0) (#69)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:42:12 AM EST
    I am not a classy person

    Fair enough...

    And it made me laugh.

    [ Parent ]

    Good One (none / 0) (#83)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:55:06 AM EST
    Although the care you show for JM is quite touching, classy or not.

    [ Parent ]
    I think you're classy enough (none / 0) (#151)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:43:52 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    (I really do) (none / 0) (#152)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:44:22 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    May I just say. . . (1.00 / 1) (#60)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:36:43 AM EST
    that while it's disappointing that you need to police the blog to this extent, I for one very much appreciate the fact that you do and the tone it gives the place.

    Please feel free to (gently) bring the boom down on me as well if I forget myself.

    [ Parent ]

    Luckily (4.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:40:13 AM EST
    It is not necessary very often.

    And to be fair, it is mostly Clinton supporters here who cross the line.

    [ Parent ]

    The Facts (none / 0) (#86)
    by Oliver Willis on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:00:56 AM EST
    I said "Talkleft" I didn't say anyone specifically, but Jeralyn has been unfairly attacking Obama. Sorry I'm blunt, but I am. I support Obama but I'll gladly support Sen. Clinton if she's the nominee. But this bull from her campaign and her supporters has gotta stop.

    [ Parent ]
    Great (3.50 / 2) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:06:34 AM EST
    You attack someone who YOU KNOW will not fire back at you.

    That is cheap stuff.

    [ Parent ]

    Specifically, you did refer to Jeralyn (2.00 / 1) (#92)
    by ding7777 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:07:21 AM EST
    Oh, sweet lord Jeralyn. Please don't tell me you've decided to dunk your head into the same Kool-Aid as Taylor Marsh? You're better than this kind of bull. You guys sound almost as bad as the right-wing blogs now.


    [ Parent ]
    come on... (4.00 / 1) (#95)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:14:45 AM EST
    ... he didn't mention Jeralyn in this thread.  Why you do need to bring it up here?

    [ Parent ]
    Actually Oliver did (2.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:15:50 AM EST
    And we all knew who he was talking about.

    [ Parent ]
    what i meant... (none / 0) (#98)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:16:54 AM EST
    ... was that the quote that ding7777 posted was not in this thread.  

    I don't get the need to bring it up here.

    [ Parent ]

    Fair enough (none / 0) (#99)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:18:28 AM EST
    I can tell you THAT comment was on my mind when I responded to Oliver.

    [ Parent ]
    Because he was asking for a retraction (none / 0) (#115)
    by ding7777 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:45:03 AM EST
    A retraction of what?  A retraction of the post regarding the "the snub" Jeralyn posted -  in which Oliver called her out by name (twice).

    [ Parent ]
    Is this the Oliver Willis who used to be (none / 0) (#169)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 06:33:45 PM EST
    a Democratic blogger?

    [ Parent ]
    Oh sure (none / 0) (#81)
    by RalphB on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:53:23 AM EST
    Who am I going to believe, my own lying eyes or some dip congressman?  No question there.


    [ Parent ]
    MSNBC (none / 0) (#63)
    by Saul on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:38:19 AM EST
    is weird.  You got Chris and others trashing Hilary and fawning Obama yet in the Abrams Report he talks about how the media is trashing Hilary but he never reports on how Chris Matthews is doing it on the same station who comes on two hours before Abrams.

    I did not see Abrams (none / 0) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:41:22 AM EST
    but obviously he can not name his own people even if he is alluding to them.

    [ Parent ]
    I saw it, you have it correct here (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:54:03 AM EST
    Abrams kept calling out the big, bad media without ever pointing out one of the biggest and baddest in its bias -- his own network.

    So it was nonsensical, but entertaining nonsense.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't Like Piling On (none / 0) (#93)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:12:23 AM EST
    I had been an Edwards supporter all the way and have now switched to Clinton. I was never very impressed with Obama and still don't understand what all the fuss is about? Just what is it he's done to cause all the commotion?

    However I didn't actively dislike him until after New Hampshire when it seemed to me that the media and many liberal blogs went completely nuts. There was non-stop Clinton attacks and such slavering over Obama that I found it repulsive. I don''t like piling on and I DO like both the Clintons.

    My dislike for the piling on is so strong that I'm not sure that I will vote for Senator Obama if he is the nominee. I'm tired of holding my nose and voting. I'm tired of the Democratic Party thinking they can pretty much do whatever they damn well please because they are so sure they can take our vote for granted. Where we gonna go? Right?

    They need to only take a look at Florida in 2000 to answer their own question. Yes, the election was so corrupt it would shame a Banana Republican and yes the Supreme Court stole it for Bush. Yes, yes, yes... But none of that would have been possible if the vote hadn't managed to stay close because so many liberals voted for Ralph Nader in protest.

    That protest gave us 8 years of George W. Dunderhead. Do I blame the people that voted for Ralph Nader? No. I blame the Democratic Party.

    blame the party (none / 0) (#131)
    by tek on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:03:21 PM EST
    Amen.

    [ Parent ]
    Regarding the Clinton charity scandal (none / 0) (#101)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:24:42 AM EST
    a subject that will clearly be mentioned in the debate tonight.

    Josh Marshall had an interesting point:

    "One point that should not go unmentioned is that what former President Clinton is described as doing in that Times article is little different from what the first President Bush has done in his post-presidency. And his son is the president. So if it would be a problem with Bill, and I think it would be, it unquestionably is already a problem with the current president's dad. And no one has seemed to much bother about it. "

    Bottom line:  The media hates the Clintons and loved the Bushes (just as they now love Obama).  If they love you, they will swoon.  If they hate you, they publish hit pieces on the day of a debate.

    This is all about the media annointing the leader..

    Thanks, I wondered when the Bush I (none / 0) (#103)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:32:05 AM EST
    connection would be brought up, or whether it even would be brought up.  It seemed to me that Obama going after this, after Bush I, could further confuse -- after the Ted Kennedy endorsement -- the Republican crossovers to whom Obama is reaching out.  

    They still love them their Bush I, but not so much his son.  So going after Bill Clinton this is going after the Good Bush of the Repubs' Golden Oldie '80s.

    [ Parent ]

    Does Josh mention the Clinton hate specifically? (none / 0) (#105)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:36:37 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Do you see where my quotation marks end? (none / 0) (#113)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:42:59 AM EST
    I added the final comment myself.

    However, the clear implication from Mr. Marshall is the media is biased against the Clintons.

    [ Parent ]

    Too bad he can not make it an (none / 0) (#121)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:48:49 AM EST
    EXPRESSION.

    [ Parent ]
    the kazak story is by (none / 0) (#117)
    by english teacher on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:45:56 AM EST
    jeff van natta, fyi, fwiw.  

    [ Parent ]
    which marshall points out (none / 0) (#120)
    by english teacher on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:47:49 AM EST
    i should add.

    [ Parent ]
    clinton's strength (none / 0) (#129)
    by tek on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:59:31 AM EST
    is her campaign speeches and meeting people face to face. I believe she's won where she has because after she's campaigned in a state and people see her and hear her talk about what she'll do they see she's the one who can handle these terrible problems. Anyone who thinks Barack Obama, with his very limited experience, can step into the WH and adequately address the most serious problems this country has had since 1866 is dreaming. It's irresponsible to even promote this guy as a viable candidate. Thank you very much blogs, media, and D. C. Dems.

    West Coast (none / 0) (#156)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:15:07 PM EST
    Gee, the debate is on at 5:00 in California, everyone does not have Tivo.

    Yes (none / 0) (#163)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 06:21:05 PM EST
    Even when we're the site of the debate and the largest state of voters on Tuesday, we still can't get it set for a time when many of us will be able to see it.  It would've killed them to start it at 6 PST?  Oh, wait, that's 9 EST, which means it wouldn't be over until 10:30 and so the talking heads would only get 1 hour of primetime to tell us what we just saw.  

    [ Parent ]
    At this point (none / 0) (#157)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 02:22:55 PM EST
    the majority of the voters that pay attention have picked sides. The people they need to speak to are the Edwards voters and the I think about 20% undecideds, (is that an exaggeration, I read that somewhere). People who have never seen them before will be surprised by two things: Hillary is sharp and her language is sharp. She makes you understand or at least pulls out the issues. Obama will surprise them, cause he starts strong, then he does not close it. Your mind wonders when he answers. Obama has to attack her. Cause then he distracts from his lack of experience and not so progressive side. She spends time defending, unless she can do the "slumlord" comeback.

    Stellaaa (none / 0) (#160)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 06:00:39 PM EST
    agree with you mostly, but I think Obama must also be mindful of the senate debate where that guy walked over and got in Hillary's space.  (Man, what was that guy's name?  Sure BTD will know since he seems to know everything about these things.)  Now that it's just the two of them, everything will be exaggerated and the media is just looking to pounce (though, as discussed, more to pounce on her than him).  In the last debate, he kind of had Edwards to work off of-the way they kept slapping each other on the shoulder and such-and that might have been to his detriment.

    Okay, my mind just wondered in the middle of that.  In short: what the heck do I know?

    [ Parent ]

    Rick Lazio (none / 0) (#164)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 06:24:35 PM EST
    One of the best quotes ever about the public's reaction was one of his advisors to that moment, I'm paraphrasing, but it was something like "he reminded women of their ex-husband."  Ha!

    [ Parent ]
    Re: (none / 0) (#167)
    by Steve M on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 06:28:09 PM EST
    Have people seen this cute blog post?

    A President Like My Ex-Husband

    [ Parent ]

    that's (none / 0) (#174)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:47:53 PM EST
    is freakin' hilarious.

    [ Parent ]
    Does anyone know the format tonight? (none / 0) (#165)
    by Teresa on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 06:25:41 PM EST
    One hour standing and one sitting?

    By the way, it has taken me two hours to catch up on all the great posts today. I really enjoy the discussion here.

    I am not sure (none / 0) (#166)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 06:27:52 PM EST
    that I will be able to join the live blog tonite because of my computer freezing everytime you put up a poll....I will try

    I am not sure (none / 0) (#168)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 06:28:42 PM EST
    that I will be able to join the live blog tonite because of my computer freezing everytime you put up a poll....I will try

    Make Or Break Debate? | 174 comments (174 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment