home

Hillary - Obama: The Conciliatory Debate ( Post-Debate Thread)

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:03:00 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Update: John Amato of Crooks and Liars, Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo and Arianna Huffington are on MSNBC with Keith Olbermann. Amato was impartial, Marshall said he gave it slightly to Obama.

Arianna mentioned the two lines I thought stood out the most that I mentioned in the live thread -- Hillary saying it took a Clinton to get the first Bush out of the White House and it will take another Clinton to get the second Bush out -- and Obama saying, in conceding Hillary would be ready to lead on Day one , that it's just as important to be right on day one as ready on day one.

****

Original Post

Wow. What a change from last month. They hugged, laughed and congratulated each other.

Both did a great job. I think it was Obama's best debate yet. Hillary did well and was really up on the issues. What did you think?

< Hillary on Mitt Romney | Democrats And America Won Tonight >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Hillary - Obama: The Conciliatory Debate ( Post-Debate Thread) | 147 comments (147 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I saw the last hour (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:56:46 PM EST
    I like both of them. Really liked them. We're going to win this election, whomever is nominated.

    They both did good andgarden. Obama (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Teresa on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:04:20 PM EST
    didn't do too much unity stuff. I really feel better about this whole election now.

    Parent
    I really feel like we're going to win (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:06:27 PM EST
    I don't see how we lose this election.

    Parent
    That was probably (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Nowonmai on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:57:13 PM EST
    The politest presidential candidate debate I have ever seen.

    If these two run as Pres/VP 'landslide' doesn't begin to describe how the voting would go.

    A great debate for democrats (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by andreww on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:58:08 PM EST
    It was a great debate for democrats.  I have serious issues with Hillary.  But after watching the debate - especially a night right after the republicans - I know they are both drastically superior to anyone else.  Moreover, in the event one of them chose the other as a running mate, I can see how that would really fire up the party.  

    Carl Bernstein: Mute Button (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:00:08 PM EST
    I'm changing to MSNBC

    They are just as bad. Bernstein already said (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Teresa on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:03:03 PM EST
    she blew the Bill question and that she showed she'd be a great Sec. of Health and Human Services. Says Obama more presidential.

    Parent
    You read my mind (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:04:55 PM EST


    Parent
    He's like a farty old dog with a decrepit bone (none / 0) (#88)
    by Ellie on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:56:43 PM EST
    His dubious "expertise" on reading Hillary's mind for airtime is proprietary and as irritating as Woodward channeling Bush (or the brain hamster wheezing in the squeaky wheel.)

    It's just sad.

    And shame on Bill Bennett for harrumphing in shock about how dare "the Clintons" promise to clean up what the Bush administration while did in office.

    Parent

    Where is BTD? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:03:06 PM EST


    he's otherwise occupied (none / 0) (#49)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:33:00 PM EST
    maybe he'll be back later or tomorrow.

    Parent
    Now that Josh Marshall has weighed (none / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:00:51 PM EST
    in on MSNBC, I'm wondering, would one of you let us know if BTD was being a post-debate talking head on TV?

    Parent
    Best debate for Obama, (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by byteb on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:11:02 PM EST
    They both were outstanding and I'm feeling very proud to be a Democrat right now.

    Agree, that's the lasting sense (none / 0) (#51)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:34:11 PM EST
    is how good both are and how much better than any Republican.

    Parent
    Both were very good (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by spit on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:13:57 PM EST
    It was a virtual love fest up there! Which is reassuring, actually -- both just put party unity above trying to score cheap points, and it made me happy with them both.

    On substance, I think she "won" on healthcare, he "won" on Iraq, but both made good cases for themselves -- most of the other stuff, they really reinforced each other well, honestly. He got in some great lines, she was solid on specifics. I'm not sure any minds were changed in this debate for the primary, but it made the whole party look great.

    The only audible booing from the audience was at Wolf.

    We will now be subjected to endless speculation about the "Democratic Dream Ticket", not that that hadn't already started.

    Good debate for both (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by jen on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:20:02 PM EST
    I've been quite disgusted by many of Obama's supporters, both in the media and online. This debate gave me some reassurance that no matter which one wins we're going to be okay. Still pulling for Hillary, though.

    HC won the undecideds in CNN's focus (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Teresa on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:24:28 PM EST
    group 60-40. I guess I thought a tie would go to the challenger/underdog but not in California.

    well (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by diplomatic on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:41:51 PM EST
    the conventional wisdom actually IS that a tie goes to the champion/frontrunner/incumbent.

    Like in boxing, a close decision usually favors the current champ.

    Parent

    Not a tie (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by Grey on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:25:19 PM EST
    They were both outstanding, but Clinton was superior on both issues and attitude.  Obama still looks bothered to have to sit there and earn this.  He also needs to stop looking so dour while she speaks; there is no reason to do that.  Clinton, by contrast, usually turns toward him to listen to what he has to say.

    good point (none / 0) (#50)
    by diplomatic on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:33:01 PM EST
    Lots of people in my own family have noticed and commented on that in phone conversations.  Obama looks "sour" way too often.

    Parent
    Hillary & Obama in 08 (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by robrecht on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:25:48 PM EST
    They look good together as a ticket.  Conciliatory debate helps the party.  Obama made a valid point about his initial opposition to the war and Hillary practically conceded the point: "I certainly respect Senator Obama making his speech in 2002 against the war."

    Likewise, Obama & Hillary partisans should tone down their exaggerated rhetoric against each other.  We're stronger together than apart.  I've backed Hillary, but Obama can be a great asset, and if he wins the nomination we must support him enthusiastically.  Separately, these two are so much better than Old Fart and Fakey Head, it's not even funny, together, they're a good pair.

    BTD's prediction is looking good (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by MarkL on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:28:28 PM EST
    after tonight's debate. Maybe I should place a bet on a Clinton/Obama ticket.

    Shocker! (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:40:20 PM EST
    Josh Marshall gives it to Obama. And now Arianna is speaking.  MSNBC is all about balance tonight!

    Turned it to MSNBC after Carl Bernstein started spewing about Bill Clinton.

    BTW, why don't Jeffrey Toobin or Carl Bernstein know to unbutton their jackets when they sit down?

    Oh, and note to CNN pundits, the only people who worry about Bill Clinton is the media and Republicans.   Because they are obsessed with him.

    I can't take it (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:42:20 PM EST
    they are being nice about Hillary.

    Soon, cats will mate with dogs.

    Parent

    Excellent (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by blueaura on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:47:15 PM EST
    I was so happy to see they learned from their last debate and the lovefest the Republicans had in Florida after that.  They both looked good and made a great impression.

    I am an Obama supporter, but if Clinton gets the nomination then I will enthusiastically back her in the general election.

    I was getting worried about the bickering, so this was really good to see. I hope this can continue in their campaigning after tonight.

    ok, i'm a little confused. (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by cpinva on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:53:37 PM EST
    when exactly did sen. clinton vote to declare war on iraq? i've seen this assertion made numerous times, and have yet to locate the specific declaration of war by congress. could someone please provide that cite?

    when did bush request a declaration of war by congress, on iraq? again, no record of this request seems to exist anywhere. congress did vote to authorize the president to use any means, up to and including military force, against iraq, to stop the saddam regime from it's presumed (by the president and his party) ongoing pursuit of WMD's, in contravention of UN mandates.

    this, as every atty. should well know, is not a formal declaration of war, per constitutional requirements. in fact, this is, in part, the basis that bush has used as a means of ignoring the requirements of the geneva conventions, with respect to treatment of captured enemy fighters.

    that being the case, sen. clinton is completely correct in asserting that she never voted for war on iraq, she didn't.

    Clinton and Congress ceded their authority to the (none / 0) (#91)
    by robrecht on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:00:24 PM EST
    ... executive.  That's nothing to be proud of.

    Parent
    On the war (none / 0) (#93)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:01:04 PM EST
    I wish she would just say the truth: she was lied to.  We were ALL lied to.  I was in Amsterdam watching Colin Powell and thinking, "holy crap, this is really bad.  This country is weaponizing."

    And I also remember folks screaming, "let the inspectors do their work."  I was one of them, but I was still terrified because we were being inundated every night-backed up by the media-by absolute and total lies about the situation.  If Hillary Clinton was wrong, then 80% of Americans were wrong.  We all fell for the lying bast*rd's bogus "evidence."

    maybe that's what Hillary is trying to articulate, but for the love of peeps, who cares what people were thinking six years ago.  I can't even remember where I parked my car at the mall yesterday.  I want to know what people are doing NOW.  Don't tell me what you thought in 2002.  This was a time when we as American people had no idea that our government would stoop to such depravity and reckless endangerment.  WE WERE LIED TO.  WE WERE FED FALSE EVIDENCE.  SOME OF OUR MOST TRUSTED GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS BETRAYED US.

    Let's get past what you thought then and get on to what you are going to do now.

    Parent

    my sentiments exactly, all down the line! (none / 0) (#126)
    by RalphB on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:27:49 PM EST


    Parent
    M y h e a d i s g o i n g t o e x p l o d e (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by robrecht on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:58:43 PM EST
    Pat Buchanen is saying Hillary won on the immigration issue for showing empathy.

    there was also a difference on them (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:06:08 PM EST
    that Keith Olbermann didn't quite get.  He said Obama said the undocumented who wanted to stay here have to learn English while Hillary said the government has to help them learn English.

    What they actually said was: Obama said they have to learn English and Hillary said they have to "try to" learn English. Then she added, the Government has an obligation to help them do that.

    So Obama says they have to learn English while Hillary says they only have to try to learn.

    That does make her more compassionate. On the other hand, I disagree with both of them on immigration.  The better policy would be: no fine, no back taxes, no going to the back of the line, no requirement of learning English and not making every crime, no matter how minor, grounds for deportation. Family reunification has to be paramount.

    Parent

    forgot one (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:07:18 PM EST
    forgot to add, not making the undocumented leave the U.S. and wait to return.

    Parent
    Overall I agree with you escept that I (none / 0) (#113)
    by RalphB on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:17:38 PM EST
    really think an attempt to learn english should be required.  You don't have to be Shakespeare but the ability would be good for them.

    My duaghter has been helping my neighbor's wife with english for the past couple of months and it's been good.


    Parent

    One more time (none / 0) (#116)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:20:21 PM EST
    to become a citizen, you have to prove English proficiency, it's the law. To be an immigrant you don't.

    Parent
    I don't know why people think they don't want to (none / 0) (#143)
    by derridog on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:24:21 AM EST
    learn English.  Most of the immigrants I have met, illegal or otherwise, appear anxious to learn English. But it's not that easy. Think how many foreign languages most U.S. citizens know.  For that reason, it couldn't hurt the rest of us to be bilingual in Spanish.  Let's start teaching all children foreign languages in elementary school, when their brains are ready for it, instead of starting in middle or high school, when they aren't. And, hey, the government could help us ALL with that!

    Parent
    Agree 100% (none / 0) (#136)
    by mexboy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:16:24 PM EST
    I support Hilary but was dissappointed with her immigration policy.
    The fact of the matter is that we don't legally allow the number of immigrants needed to support our economy, therefore creating an unmet need.

     Supply and demand is the basis of our economy, and as long as that void exists it will be met by undocumented workers.

    I think that having that deficit in labor is actually planned by the Republicans. Having undocumented workers live and work in the US benefit business and the economy.

    1. undocumented workers pay taxes from which they seldom benefit.

    2. undocumented workers pay social security taxes which the vast majority never collect at retirement. That money pays for American Citizens retirement.
           a) they sometimes use false SS numbers with no way of                  
               collecting what they paid into the system.

    1. Most undocumented workers if legalized would work here for a year or so then travel back to their families in their country of origin.

    2. They would be entitled to the income taxes they paid in retirement.

    The least we can do is allow them to have a driver's license. it would benefit us because we would make sure they know the rules and are qualified to drive, plus they would buy insurance.

    Parent
    I have to say that (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:21:34 PM EST
    the Obama crowd will never defeat Hillary on knowledge...the woman is awesome...

    y'all are gonna be shocked (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:23:04 PM EST
    bless her heart, Taylor Marsh is saying Hillary won the debate.

    (and of course I agree with her completely!  Go, Hillary!!!)

    Is it just me, or has the media toned it down a bit?  Reminds me of how "quiet" they were being the night of NH, when the exit polling started coming in and they weren't bouncing on their toes so much.

    I think they're feeling a change in the air.

    (or, I am totally deluded, which is just as likely possible if not probable)

    If McCain is the Repubs nominee (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by miriam on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:34:46 PM EST
    and Obama is the Dems, I think his Iraq war position will hurt him.  McCain will accuse him of being soft on national security with comments such as "If the country is faced with an imminent threat are you going to sit around and wait for a bomb to hit LA while you decide if the threat is real?"  Which is why Hillary is absolutely right not to say she made a mistake.  John Edwards did, and how did that work out?  Obama was seated on the sidelines and did not see the intelligence reports as HRC did.  We know now they were bogus, but who knew than?  She had to make the decison to protect America.

    Don't misunderstand, I hate the fact that she voted for the IWR, especially when there were other Democrats who didn't, but I still think she will be a superior president. And I think she's the one who can beat the Republicans. But if McCain is the R nominee, she needs Wes Clark as VP.  In terms of national security, the most highly decorated four star general since Eisenhower can take on McCain with one hand tied behind his back.    

    With just two participants (4.00 / 1) (#7)
    by brodie on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:00:32 PM EST
    the format was going to allow for longer answers compared to those previous multiple candidate debates.  Thus Barack's tendency to long windedness wasn't much of a factor.

    From what I saw, Hillary was strong throughout.  But in a Dem primary, too much time spent on Iraq somewhat disadvantages her.

    She was solid and scored points on her healthcare plan, covering all.  Barack here was on the defensive.  Good for HRC that this topic came up early in the proceedings.

    They're not so Obamaphoric over at DK: (4.00 / 1) (#64)
    by MarkL on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:42:14 PM EST
    one Obama supporter has a diary saying "She's going to kick our asses next Tuesday"
    lol

    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:45:21 PM EST
    If it's on DKos, it must be true!  Hahahahaha!

    Honestly, y'all know I hope Hillary gets the nom, but I think this debate showed very, very good sides of both of them--something the party sorely needed.  I know it made me feel better, and I was nervous as a wh*re in church all day; note because of the debate, but because of what the spin would be.  So far, it seems to be pretty even.  

    Although, tomorrow is another day.

    Parent

    Totally Agree (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:50:15 PM EST
    Of course I reserve the right to change my mind when Obama praises Nixon tomorrow. (Joking)

    Parent
    Thanks for that tip....this I have got to read. (none / 0) (#78)
    by Angel on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:51:51 PM EST
    I've quite DKos and TPM because they are so mean.

    Parent
    It Was A Very Clever Diary To (none / 0) (#97)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:05:04 PM EST
    promote Obama supporters to go out and work the system to make sure that Obama won on Feb 5th.

    Parent
    Hillary was great (3.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Lena on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:08:09 PM EST
    and I ended up liking Barack too (despite every effort of his supporters! haha).

    This just reinforced my support for her. I can't imagine that this debate would have changed any minds either.

    They both had great moments. I still think HRC is more professional, brilliant.

    Odd seeing Hillary in front of the Kodak Theater (1.00 / 2) (#31)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:17:59 PM EST
    I guess her potus aspirations kept her from ever getting around to addressing the biggest polluter in her state.
    Environmental record

    Kodak has been widely criticized by environmentalists and researchers as one of the worst corporate polluters in the United States.

    According to scorecard.org, a web site that collects information on corporate pollution, Kodak is New York State's number one polluter, releasing 4,433,749 pounds of chemicals into the air and water supply.[20]

    While Kodak is still listed as the number one polluter in New York State, its massive industrial site in Rochester, NY reported air releases of 1.8 million pounds in 2006 -- which is a reduction in excess of 90% since 1987.[citation needed]

    Ah well, she was nice to Obama tonight. That makes up for it.

    Well, dont' worry. Film production is going down (none / 0) (#144)
    by derridog on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:28:46 AM EST
    the tubes  for Kodak and digital is taking over. You can't pollute Lake Ontario with that (at least I  hope not).

    Parent
    Yeah, yeah. (none / 0) (#146)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 12:32:02 PM EST
    The "experts" have been saying "the death of film is imminent" since the mid-50's when video tape was introduced. Yet today, over half a century later, Kodak's still the biggest polluter in NY.

    Parent
    Didn't see it, watched the posts (none / 0) (#3)
    by blogtopus on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:57:14 PM EST
    Sounds like they were able to reinforce whatever support they have. Inertia continues.

    I like the question about Veeping for each other... I like the response even better.

    Which one has a better chance of winning: Obama / Hillary or Hillary / Obama?

    Discuss.

    I want 16 years (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:07:00 PM EST
    of Dems... so I want Clinton/Obama then Obama.

    Parent
    the live bloggin (none / 0) (#8)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:00:45 PM EST
    freezes macs....is that true?

    mine remained unfrozen (none / 0) (#19)
    by byteb on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:08:26 PM EST


    Parent
    Didn't Have Any Problems With My Mac n/t (none / 0) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:08:39 PM EST


    Parent
    no it's not true (none / 0) (#48)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:32:25 PM EST
    but it may work better in firefox or IE

    Parent
    Anyone think this debate changed minds? (none / 0) (#12)
    by RalphB on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:04:46 PM EST
    Seems like it wouldn't to me.

    Only in the sense that Obama does much (none / 0) (#14)
    by Teresa on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:06:25 PM EST
    better in a two person debate without the unity stuff. He finally showed some ammunition against the Republicans and I like it.

    Parent
    He can think on his feet, take a hit and respond (none / 0) (#56)
    by Ellie on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:37:13 PM EST
    And he's  not so afraid of direct challenge that he can't be direct (and blunt). Still needs to log some miles IMO to weather the kind of full bore media / Rethuggernaut hit squad that was unleashed on the Clintons.

    The rubber stamp candidates that rode in on the wake of the Clinton witch hunt and stolen 2000 election might be deserting a sinking ship but the rattiest of rat bastards and same old dirty tricksters are still around.

    The parade seems to stop by The Daily Show for a tongue bath and teabagging from "reasonable Librul" Jon Stewart and then head for the onramp back to the mainstream -- all crimes and insanity forgotten.

    (When Bush Fluffer and crazy lady Peggy Nooners was on, Stewart typified the "ugliness" of politics by equated 8 yrs of unremitting, lawless BushCo douchebaggery with a dumb comment made by Bill Clinton and magnified a hundred times by the likes of Wolf "Half Way to being an Idiot Savant" Blitzer.)

    Parent

    I haven't changed my mind about (none / 0) (#17)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:07:27 PM EST
    Wolf Blitzer on CNN -- or, in the post debate, Carl Bernstein, et al., on MSNBC.  And KO just started his second hit on her, too.

    Parent
    Yeah I don't watch Keith anymore (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:37:34 PM EST
    He's getting a  little too one-sided for me.

    Parent
    You couldn't change my mind about (none / 0) (#23)
    by RalphB on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:09:44 PM EST
    the media with dynamite under my chair.  I sincerely hate the entire freaking bunch of them.


    Parent
    Almost forgot... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Lena on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:09:28 PM EST
    Carl Bernstein sucks. (he obviously rehearsed some hits on HRC to unleash after the debate, no matter what her actual performance was like).

    And now Bill Bennett . . . (none / 0) (#28)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:14:09 PM EST
    says she won.

    Get clear quickly, my head may explode all over your screen.

    Parent

    And Gloris and Roland disagree. Why (none / 0) (#29)
    by Teresa on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:16:03 PM EST
    am I not surprised?

    Parent
    OMG (none / 0) (#44)
    by Lena on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:28:28 PM EST
    Mine too...

    Parent
    More on the VP thing (none / 0) (#22)
    by brodie on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:09:32 PM EST
    Hillary in a sense has already been VP,  for 8 years, with Bill.  I find it difficult to imagine her in a subordinate position to someone so younger with less experience in DC than her.  Sorta like LBJ to JFK.  That one didn't work out too well once in office, very uneasy relationship for all,  though it was important in getting elected.

    BHO if nominated would have quite a range of possible picks from the female ranks -- just look at the 2 women govs and one woman senator who recently endorsed him.

    Hill has not nearly as many options from the angle of AA considerations -- BHO might be the only viable AA choice as her VP.

    Only problem for Obama (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by RalphB on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:12:52 PM EST
    is both those women governors are on the very conservative wing of the party.  Come to think of it so is the senator from Missouri.

    Oh, after that response to the SOTU, can you imagine that woman in a VP debate?  YUCK.


    Parent

    I Don't Think He Will Go With A Woman VP (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:24:04 PM EST
    Needs to balance his ticket with someone that is perceived to have foreign policy experience.

    An Obama/McCaskill ticket would be a real turn off to me.  In fact, if he picks someone even farther to the right of where he is running now, I don't know if I lie well enough to phone bank for the campaign.

    Parent

    No question those (none / 0) (#36)
    by brodie on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:21:01 PM EST
    women office holders who endorsed Obama are more conservative, but it's a matter of perhaps needing to satisfy the need for a woman on the ticket, even if it's not Hillary, electoral considerations in re competing in swing states, and rewarding those who committed to him when it counted.  

    Agree about Sibelius' tepid SOTU response.  

    Parent

    with all due respect (4.50 / 2) (#58)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:37:57 PM EST
    slotting in an aa or slotting in a woman as vp implies that it's not THIS aa and THIS woman we want.

    I wouldn't vote for just any woman.  I want to vote for Hillary.

    My response to this debate was similar to someone else's on the blog thread, which is that I want Clinton/Obama now, and in eight years Obama and whoever he picks.  They both did extremely well.  They both know their facts.  I just think that it's her turn, and since they are so dang close, why not make him wait his turn?

    (and I was SO HAPPY that he started talking about the democratic party instead of making it seem like the Obama party)

    Of course, we'll see what happens with the spin tomorrow...

    Parent

    Kathy, I expected you would (none / 0) (#77)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:51:32 PM EST
    register the very first reaction to Barck Obama "helping" HRC out of her chair.  But Huff Post beat you:

    HUFF POST

    Parent

    oculus! (none / 0) (#85)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:54:28 PM EST
    You know me so well.  I was like, "wtf?" gettin' all het up before it even started.

    The poor guy can't win for losing.

    Parent

    HIs waiting around to hold the (none / 0) (#89)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:57:27 PM EST
    back of her chair reminded me of my male boss from days of yore who would always put his hand under my elbow as I stepped on or off a curb.  Really, really irritating.  She was gracious though.

    Parent
    see (none / 0) (#96)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:04:20 PM EST
    I was going back and forth, because that's the kind of thing my daddy does--always opens doors, always helps me cross the street.  But then I thought, "oh, no, he is not her daddy!"  

    So, being a knee-jerk feminist and predisposed to thinking everything Obama does backs up he is misogynistic (and having empirical evidence from his own website that his wife would not take a job without his permission) I totally came down on the side of him pandering to the women trying to make it look like he was a gentleman.

    John Edwards could've gotten away with it because he's a good ol' southern boy.  I will admit that.

    Parent

    I might as well weigh in... (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Teresa on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:09:13 PM EST
    he did it before the debate too. He started to pull back her chair and she left to go talk to the moderators and when she came back he was still waiting. As he pulled back the chair, he turned in the other direction for the photographers.

    Had I been HC, I would have just stood there and looked at him. I was thinking, if she wins, will some man pull back her chair every time she has a meeting? Maybe a Secretary of Chair Holding?

    Parent

    I missed the beginning. Good catch. (none / 0) (#111)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:16:16 PM EST


    Parent
    As a good Southern boy, OK old man, I can't (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by RalphB on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:22:15 PM EST
    keep myself from doing things like that.  My Mother would roll over in her grave if I went back on my 'raising'.


    Parent
    well... (none / 0) (#122)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:24:40 PM EST
    bless your heart, Ralph!  Of course you can't.

    Parent
    Funny. Sometimes (none / 0) (#123)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:25:56 PM EST
    I think that, despite your screen name, you might be female due to your spot on comments.  I do thank anybody who opens a door for me.  

    Parent
    what state were you raised in Ralph (none / 0) (#124)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:26:56 PM EST
    I was raised in North Carolina

    Parent
    It was clear he intended to wait around for (none / 0) (#99)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:06:27 PM EST
    a caring moment.  He also put his arm on the back of her chair at one point in the debate and, to her credit, she didn't react.  I call it cooptation, a word I recently learned from BTD.

    Parent
    he reminded me (none / 0) (#115)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:20:04 PM EST
    of my nephew when he is around my father, because my dad expects him to have manners and open doors and pull out chairs, and of course since my nephew is a brain dead sixteen year old boy, he has to keep reminding himself, so a lot of times when we go out to supper and he pulls out my chair, I can hear him whispering to himself, "Pull out the chair, gently push it back in.  Pull out the chair, gently push it back in."

    Obama had that same look of studied concentration.


    Parent

    I think John Edwards would have had (none / 0) (#145)
    by derridog on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:38:04 AM EST
    the good sense and sensitivity not to do it.  Do you think Elizabeth would put up with that?  It's patronizing. It's like Bush giving the German chancellor a little unasked for back rub (well, not quite that bad -but if you want to read code into everything, you could say that Barack is pointing out that Hillary is just a "frail little woman," who needs a big MAN to help her into her chair.   So -heh heh heh-  how is she going to handle the Presidency?)

    Parent
    I dunno (none / 0) (#147)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 03:22:29 PM EST
    didn't Edwards say something about her pantsuit?

    Anyhoo, both of them are tap dancing around mine fields.

    Parent

    Not McCaskill (none / 0) (#76)
    by standingup on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:51:25 PM EST
    She is not that well liked in Missouri and I don't think she would do much for the Democratic ticket.  Personally I don't ever see her going as far as the White House.  Robin Carnahan is the one I would keep an eye on from Missouri but obviously not for this cycle.  

    Parent
    Agree About Popularity (none / 0) (#114)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:19:06 PM EST
    Also, look at the pictures of when McCaskill and Obama are together. She gets this adoring look on her face like he is god or something. Reminds me to much of the women around Bush. I want a strong woman in a powerful position and not someone that looks like a Stefford wife. If I had to look at that act for 8 years, I think I'd gag.

    Also reminds me too much of when Lieberman looks at Bush and for the same reasons.

    Parent

    Honestly (none / 0) (#142)
    by standingup on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 11:02:15 AM EST
    I haven't seen any footage of the two appearing together outside of the SOTU.  But if it is that obvious, it will not go over well in the rural areas.  

    Parent
    Gutsiest pick would by Barbara Boxer, (none / 0) (#83)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:53:30 PM EST
    although she has an in-law connection with the Rodham family

    Parent
    I'd be a terrible pundit. Gergen said Obama (none / 0) (#26)
    by Teresa on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:13:32 PM EST
    did his best unity message tonight. I thought he did really well because he did less of the unity stuff.

    The Sad Thing (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:17:18 PM EST
    is that I think Gergen is one of the better pundits - certainly as Republican pundits go.  

    Why or why does CNN stick with Bill Bennett and Carl Bernstein?  Can't they at least leave the Stone Age and move into the Bronze Age?

    Gloria Borger continues to grate.  

    Trying MSNBC now, not optimistic.

    Parent

    Just in time to see David Axelrod (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:18:51 PM EST
    Shoot me now.  I like Obama so much more when I forget about Axelrod.  God, I hope Hillary was smart enough not to send Mark Penn out.  

    I never hate Dems more than when their paid consultants and party hacks are talking for them.  If only those folks were as good as the candidates.

    Parent

    Seriously (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:20:12 PM EST
    It's like watching a walking, talking, candidate diary.

    Parent
    Creeps those guys (none / 0) (#37)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:21:44 PM EST


    Parent
    Must be a law of nature that campaign (none / 0) (#42)
    by RalphB on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:27:30 PM EST
    consultants have to be creeps.


    Parent
    Crap (none / 0) (#43)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:28:21 PM EST
    Hillary did send out Mark Penn.

    Hillary, repeat after me "Ann Lewis, Ann Lewis"

    Parent

    I turned the channel (none / 0) (#47)
    by byteb on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:31:59 PM EST
    when I saw Penn

    Parent
    Me, too! (none / 0) (#54)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:35:57 PM EST


    Parent
    Amen Ann Lewis is great. Penn bites. (none / 0) (#61)
    by RalphB on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:40:10 PM EST


    Parent
    You're right (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:35:13 PM EST
    that's the reason I liked him so much better tonight, he laid back on the hope and optimism stuff.

    Parent
    Yes, stressed that we're all Democrats (none / 0) (#59)
    by robrecht on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:38:07 PM EST


    Parent
    The Iraq thing (none / 0) (#35)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:20:15 PM EST
    Question: for the General Election, how does Obama think that saying he was against the war (but not being in the Senate) work there? Judgement? How does that fit in?

    Hillary won (none / 0) (#46)
    by diplomatic on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:31:34 PM EST
    Sometimes we try to be contrarians on blogs to avoid sounding predictable, but let me just tell you all that I thought Hillary's performance was the best I've seen her yet.  Maybe it was because of the festive atmosphere and the crowd, but on her own she showed how spooky smart she is, how tough she is (handling the most difficult questions of the night) and how gracious she is.

    If we are to have our first woman President in this country, there is no better time and no better person.

    Obama tried his best to make up for the "snub" and "not likeable enough" moments of the past and he got some serious soft ball questions that he could have done a lot more with the answers.  I just think he would benefit from a few more years of experience (maybe as the VP) and then go for the gold.

    Let's have this ticket happen: Clinton/Obama (in that order.)

    Agree (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Lena on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:39:18 PM EST
    with everything you said, except that I want Clinton/Clark.

    Parent
    Send them all! (none / 0) (#82)
    by diplomatic on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:53:12 PM EST
    heh

    Parent
    Obama as VP? (none / 0) (#53)
    by diogenes on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:35:41 PM EST
    As I said before, being VP for eight years under Hillary will doom Obama just as 8 years of being VP doomed Nixon in 1960 and Gore in 2000.  Pop Bush was doomed in 1988 but Dukakis was SO inept.
    Obama should push for senate leadership if he is not presidential nominee; likability is as important in a senate majority leader as it is anywhere else.

    Gore Won (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:36:46 PM EST
    And Nixon wasn't even endorsed by Eisenhower.  Kind of hard to win as VP when the president makes it clear he doesn't support you.

    Parent
    I've always been of the opinion that Nixon (none / 0) (#67)
    by RalphB on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:43:38 PM EST
    probably won narrowly, but for corruption in WV and IL.  Was glad he lost, but uh oh I just dated myself.  :-)


    Parent
    JFK said post election (none / 0) (#68)
    by brodie on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:43:56 PM EST
    that had Ike started a week or so earlier in stumping for Dick, the outcome might have been different.  He lucked out because Ike was waiting waiting to be asked to campaign while Dick was too proud to admit he needed Daddy's help to beat Jack.

    Gore would have won outright, arguably, had he not distanced himself from Bill.  And gone after Junior harder.

    Hillary/Obama is a potential winning combo.  Obama if he's the nominee almost certainly will feel tremendous pressure to put a woman on the ticket -- I can't imagine there would be any factor more important for him than the gender one.  They're the majority, yet not one has been P or VP.  He wouldn't dare not pick a woman, not after HRC's historic candidacy and the strides she's made for women.

    Parent

    I remember hearing that Bill was calling (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by RalphB on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:48:30 PM EST
    the Gore campaign in the weeks before the election trying to get Gore to spend time in TN and send him to Arkansas, but they wouldn't do it.  If Gore had only won TN, that FL stuff wouldn't have mattered.


    Parent
    some times (none / 0) (#101)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:08:13 PM EST
    people ignore bill at their peril...He is a smart dude...but not as smart as his wife...I would be surprised if Hillary accepted a VP slot under Obama....she has more influence in the senate really...I am so happy about tonite and the focus group at CNN says Hillary won :-)

    Parent
    I would feel (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:51:10 PM EST
    so insulted if Obama chose a woman vp without a dang good reason.  You can't slot one in for the other.  I would feel just as insulted and pandered to if Hillary chose an aa vp in place of Obama.  Totally negates the message that it's about the person rather than the race or gender.

    Parent
    It would be like Bush Sr's choice of ... (none / 0) (#105)
    by robrecht on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:11:08 PM EST
    ... Clarence Thomas to replace Thurgood Marshall.  OK, well maybe not THAT bad, but you get the idea.

    Parent
    Obama doesn't want a documented record (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by ding7777 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:12:29 PM EST


    Parent
    Odd that. . . (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:46:39 PM EST
    will doom Obama just as 8 years of being VP doomed Nixon in 1960 and Gore in 2000.  Pop Bush was doomed in 1988 but Dukakis was SO inept.

    that you chose three Veeps who actually won the Presidency.

    If Obama is not the nominee and wants a shot in 2016 he should not be in the Senate, which is not a good launching pad for executive office.  His obvious move would be to unseat Blago in Illinois and have a successful reform Governorship.

    Parent

    KO has two bloggers on. They both (none / 0) (#63)
    by Teresa on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:40:54 PM EST
    thought Obama won. lol. Josh Marshall and Arianna Huffington. Jeralyn...where are you???

    I'm in the midst (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:53:00 PM EST
    of moving my house. (Actual move is tomorrow.) I'm lucky I even got to watch the debate, I'm camping out at the TL kid's apartment.  But at least the cable and internet is installed and working at the new digs. Maybe next time.

    Amato is doing a great job of being impartial. It's clear Arianna and Josh are pro-obama, but at least they aren't obnoxious about it.

    Parent

    J, seriously, this is the 2nd, maybe 3rd? move (none / 0) (#135)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:52:55 PM EST
    since I've been haunting TL (Nick Berg's execution).

    What's going on?

    Parent

    And Arianna (none / 0) (#86)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:55:00 PM EST
    took a second to get a jab in at Clinton.

    Not a single one of the bloggers on the show was even neutral...all Obama-ites.

    Parent

    Amato was not pro-Obama (none / 0) (#94)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:02:00 PM EST
    he was very neutral.

    Parent
    Josh Marshall's on KO right now (none / 0) (#66)
    by robrecht on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:42:37 PM EST


    A tie may be a win for Obama... (none / 0) (#71)
    by mike in dc on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:47:44 PM EST
    ...since the expectation was that she'd beat him soundly in this format.  He scored some points on Iraq, she scored in other areas.  He may have won over some undecided latinos tonight.

    CNN undecideds gave it to Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by diplomatic on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:48:50 PM EST
    60/40 split

    Parent
    not exactly a large sample size... (none / 0) (#87)
    by mike in dc on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:55:58 PM EST
    ...I never know how useful those "focus groups" are...

    Parent
    We won't really know who won until Feb 5th (none / 0) (#79)
    by RalphB on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:51:57 PM EST
    but I thought they both looked good tonight.  I know I feel better about the whole cycle at this point.

    But the media still sucks.

    well intrade says hillary and mccain (none / 0) (#80)
    by hellothere on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:52:40 PM EST
    will get the two nominations. we'll see!

    Rachel Madow says HRC was "craven" (none / 0) (#95)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:02:22 PM EST
    in saying a blacks have lost jobs to undocumented Lations.

    Just switched to MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by brodie on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:13:51 PM EST
    and caught Rachel going after HRC for her answers about Iraq.  Clearly RM is coming at this from the purist-progressive position.  Haven't heard enough of her radio show to judge how much pro-Obama she is, but so far tonight she's sounding like yet another tv pundit all but officially for Obama.  Like Gene Robinson.

    And once again I find myself amazingly in agreement with Pitchfork Pat who says she shouldn't say she was wrong on her Iraq vote.  Why is it that one of the most RW voices in the media is consistently being the one person to fairly assess Hillary?

    And does this mean we truly are approaching the End of Days???

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#110)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:15:11 PM EST
    He is one of the best pundits...he truly does political analysis. I now shoot me.

    Parent
    she's also bashing Hillary on her (none / 0) (#102)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:08:31 PM EST
    war vote.

    Parent
    Hillary Clinton had to be expecting the (none / 0) (#104)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:10:34 PM EST
    question on her vote for the AUMF.  To me, this iteration of her rationale for the vote is much, much weaker than other responses she has given on that vote.  

    Parent
    This part was pretty good: (none / 0) (#108)
    by robrecht on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:12:59 PM EST
    "I certainly respect Senator Obama making his speech in 2002 against the war."

    Parent
    craven (none / 0) (#112)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:16:36 PM EST
    well, what do you expect from the HuffPostress?

    At any rate, I liked that Hillary called it like it is.  That being said, I think for obvious reasons the question was a minefield Obama needs to avoid, and he did it well.  

    Parent

    that was a stretch and spin (none / 0) (#121)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:24:25 PM EST
    I am surprised at Rachel, looking for wedge. She did not listen that what she said when you have undocumented workers are being taken advantage of by employers. Which is true and she said she wants to fix that.

    Parent
    Stellaaa (none / 0) (#125)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:27:43 PM EST
    exactly.  They are being preyed upon.  We have a responsibility as human beings to stop what is amounting to human trafficking.


    Parent
    And while I do think (none / 0) (#138)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:44:40 PM EST
    illegal immigration may not be the biggest thing causing wage deflation and other problems in a macro sense, but I do think it affects individual workers.  That's why businesses hire undocumented workers - so they can exploit them by paying them less and avoiding taxes and such on folks here legally.  

    Which is why the answer is to comprehensive reform that deals with the folks who are here so that they can no longer be exploited, that's good for the undocumented and good for those already here legally.  And it's good politics, IMO, to point that out because, not to go all Karl Marx, but the Republicans are trying to pit workers against each other.

    Parent

    Madow and Buchanan are (none / 0) (#106)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:11:47 PM EST
    interesting to listen to.

    Who other than us (none / 0) (#117)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:21:15 PM EST
    cares about what happened then. The majority of Americans were for the war.

    IMO The Vote Was Wrong (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:44:49 PM EST
    because the Congress should never have given up that much of their role in the decision process. Nothing Hillary can say will ever convince me that it wasn't an error in judgement. OTOH, she was the Senator from New York and a city she represented had just endured a horrific attack.

    Also, I don't believe that if Obama had been the Senator from New York, he would have made a different decision. I've read various stories about his decision processes and it appears he always takes into account what the political ramifications of his votes might be and that has priority.

    Had Obama made the 2002 speech and followed it up with like action once he became a Senator (votes and speeches), I would be out working for his election now.

    Parent

    You can see how far Sen. Dodd (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:46:47 PM EST
    got with that in the Dem. primaries though.

    Parent
    Most people don't (none / 0) (#127)
    by spit on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:28:30 PM EST
    but primaries are, to a degree, about us rabid partisans.

    On the other hand, I do agree with you about most Americans -- I think people on the blogs are sometimes selective in their memories about just what that time was like. I understand the anger -- jesus, as one of the people out there marching and being treated like an absolute nutjob, there's a little piece of me that would like to just smack everybody who didn't stand with us, too. But that's not really the point anymore, for me, at least. Maybe it's because I live in a place where I'd have to smack friends and people I do otherwise respect -- my circle of folks was not all anti-war from the start, and they're not dumb, either.

    I sometimes wonder, if you polled everybody again on what there position was then, if you'd wind up with 70% of the country suddenly "remembering" that they were against the war from the getgo. Because it sure seems that way sometimes.

    Still, I can't really pick on people who feel strongly enough about it to vote on that alone -- it was an ugly thing. I don't think there are really that many of them, though; I think a lot more people use it as a hammer than use it as a principled stance, if that makes sense.

    Parent

    ACK (none / 0) (#128)
    by spit on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:29:09 PM EST
    there = their. Not a big deal, but I hate it when I do that.

    Parent
    spit (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:40:16 PM EST
    you don't do it much. I have often admired your grammar, especially in the face of certain trolls who don't understand the proper use of an apostrophe.

    But, back on topic:

    I have to admit that if the safety of the United States had been on my shoulders, and I was being told the same lies the rest of the country was being told, and I saw Colin Powell was on the UN lying alongside everyone else, I probably would have voted yes.

    There.  I'll say it.  I would have voted yes.  I was part of the 70% (or however many it was) of Americans who at that moment in time would have voted yes.  Now, by Mission Accomplished, when some of the truth started seeping out, I was furious and felt betrayed and physically ill; however, at the time that vote was taken, I would've more than likely done the same.

    And I would not have given the UN power to veto the United States, because I think that sets a very dangerous precedent and we are a sovereign nation for better or for worse.

    I agree that most folks have foggy memories about that time.  But, it's like heroin-somebody is buying the stuff.

    I will also freely admit that there were people who stood up and paid the price for it.  I recommend you watch Shut Up and Sing if you have not already.  It's a good reminder about what the climate was back then.  And let's keep in mind that the Dixie Chicks still have not fully recovered (meanwhile, that tubby jack*ss multi-millionaire every man is still bashing them)

    Parent

    Kudos for honesty on it (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by spit on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 10:50:34 PM EST
    seriously. I've gotten very cynical in the last few years about people conveniently misremembering where they were then.

    I remember having arguments about it with smart people I very much respected (and still do). We all assumed at the base that Saddam Hussein probably had some little nasty stockpile of something -- I didn't think it was enough to go to war over quickly, and I wanted the UN listened to and respected, but I wanted the inspectors in, too (and to be given the time to finish). At the time, the entire narrative was against me, and in the end, on the night of "shock and awe" I curled into a ball on the sofa that I essentially didn't rise from for several weeks.

    You know the thing that makes me laugh the bitterest laugh of the bunch, is the argument that Bush put out that we'd better hurry up, because summer was coming, and things needed to be wrapped up before the Iraqi heat.

    We were flat out lied to. You're absolutely correct on that front.

    Parent

    back then I was totally against the war (none / 0) (#139)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 12:01:24 AM EST
    and very vocal and more than a few people got really mad at me and called me a traitor etc...I will never forget it, but I had decided that it was all about oil and I still believe that...However, I can understand where Hillary is coming from, being that her own state was the more seriously wounded and so many people that spoke out were really harmed like the Dixie Chicks...Remember that movie star that went to Iraq right before the attack? Cant remember his name but he spoke out too and was villified...those were very very tough times for all of us...

    Parent
    seriously wounded (none / 0) (#140)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 09:16:46 AM EST
    I can understand where Hillary is coming from, being that her own state was the more seriously wounded
    Seriously... people need to stop using GOP talking points.

    NY WAS NOT seriously wounded by anybody related to Iraq or Saddam Hussein.  

    Parent

    mindful (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 10:05:27 AM EST
    You are making an important distinction, but I think that at the time, the way it was being spun certainly linked the two.  Now, of course we all know that it is bogus (though Cheney STILL insists it it not, but he's so irrelevant now it's not even funny)  I suppose you could call me fear-mongered into it.  The Bush administration really worked the media into a frenzy.

    And someone said on another thread, basically, how rich it is for the media to pounce on Hillary for her vote when they were the ones who were pushing the war by mimicking Bush talking points and funneling leaks and rumors into news sections rather than opinion, where it belonged.

    Parent

    who won the debate and the commentators (none / 0) (#148)
    by Hubris on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 09:09:07 PM EST
    considering how biased those websites and the msm on cable is, i wouldn't expect them to say anything other than obama their new god won.

    it's like watching bush sheep from 2000. i find it very very sad.

    obama's been in washington 1 yr, no one points this fact out.. he's missed many crucial and controversial votes, no one points this out, he's voted over 100x "present".. it took hillary in a debate to point this out (sadly the media does nothing in real reporting when it comes to obama).

    obama was NOT in washington during teh vote for war, sadly the media doesn't point this out so many voters actually think obama was there on the floor of congress and voted against the war.

    the media bias against the clintons and pro obama is an embarrassment imo, the manipulation and favortism imo is outrageous.

    it's because of the bias i wont' be voting for obama under any circumstances.

    Hillary - Obama: The Conciliatory Debate ( Post-Debate Thread) | 147 comments (147 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment