Late Night: Post Debate Thread II

(Comments now closed, new thread is here.)

Via No Quarter:

We're having server issues due to traffic spikes or something like that. While Colin, our webmaster works on it, here's a new thread to discuss the debate and other topics.

I also have to finish deleting the insults and personal sniping from the first debate threads.

Please, keep it civil. We are almost at the end of this interminably long primary process, with just a few weeks to go. There are two remaining candidates. State your opinions without rancor.

Update: Debate transcript is here.

< Texas Post-Debate Live Thread | Texas Debate: The Morning After >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Kathy, I've also gotten emails (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:21:36 PM EST
    about the xerox line.  Spoke to my son after the debate and the first thing he said was that he liked the xerox line.

    I swear journalists have absolutely no idea what strikes the guy on the street as funny and effective.

    I liked the Xerox line too (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:22:39 PM EST
    In fact I think I said it in one of the Talkleft thread....I'm guessing Hillary plagierized(sp) me.

    Ditto -- I said I liked it because (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:27:28 PM EST
    I like a fighter, and I like a memorable line.  She doesn't do a lot of them, but this one will stick . . . like a bad sheet of paper caught in the Xerox machine tray, if ya know what I mean. :-)

    Just watched the local news - (none / 0) (#13)
    by liminal on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:33:26 PM EST
    - and they highlighted the Xerox line.  The local news broadcasts into Ohio as well.  I bet it gets a lot of play on broadcasts people actually WATCH (you know, because there is a winter storm going on and we need to know where it is going and what it will do), as opposed to the hyperbolic echo chambers of the cable news channels.  

    Huff Post, of course, has Xerox (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:36:58 PM EST
    line and booing as title of debate article.

    Good - Hillary is using her enemy (none / 0) (#50)
    by diplomatic on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:53:29 PM EST
    The Clinton team knows that her enemies in the media will love to talk about how she got booed for being negative with that line, but what they will create for her instead is a continuing narrative of the Obama plagiarism story for FREE.

    The more they keep bringing up the "change you can xerox" quote the more that non-politial junkies get to hear about Obama's habit of copying.  They will wonder -- what's this xerox thing about?  And then they will find their answers.

    It is obvious to me that the Clinton team knows the plagiarism/phony Obama stories were working in her favor so they put out a well crafted line that is sure to be quoted in all the papers.

    The positive ending with standing ovation negated any possible narrative that Hillary was angry or desperate in this debate (which she wasn't at all of course)  But the media was going to try...  

    It's brilliant strategy.  Oh by the way, the last 2 days Hillary has caught up in the Gallup tracking numbers.  The Obama momentum is vulnerable.


    I have to watch the video of the (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:57:39 PM EST
    ending because my computer kept freezing up, probably because I had both TL's live blog and CNN.com open.  

    here is a link (none / 0) (#73)
    by diplomatic on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:03:53 PM EST
    just in case that doesn't work (none / 0) (#92)
    by diplomatic on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:15:05 PM EST
    I love irony. (none / 0) (#75)
    by GV on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:05:30 PM EST
    If you want to watch the ending of Hillary's speech, just go here.

    good, Edwards rocks (none / 0) (#98)
    by diplomatic on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:18:13 PM EST
    Edwards supporters can find a home with Hillary! lol.

    obama fizzle (none / 0) (#179)
    by Dcrpfs9668 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:15:10 AM EST
    thats because his momentum is hollow, and based mostly on irrational teen fans who don't know what month the general election is in... I can't beleive it when i hear supposidly rational adults questioning their own judgment in the face of the Pundits grand announcement, "Well, the kids are doing it!" What was the last major decision you left up to irrational 18 yr olds who you didn't know????????? Trust me! I'm a young Hillary voter, and i can't believe what i'm seeing from some ADULTs this year!

    Ralph (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:25:29 PM EST
    Sometimes I think, "did I have a mini stroke and didn't notice?"  because it seems like the pundits see things that I don't.  I am just gobsmacked by some of the comments being made tonight, and that crap about the "swan song" and bowing out gracefully is just ludicrous.  They are treating it as a done deal.  2% separates the two of them in delegate counts.  There are three more huge states to go.  It's just like Bush with Florida when Fox was saying that there had to be a recount, and we were all, like, "what?"  Only, now the folks who so ardently led the charge to count all the votes are telling her to throw in the towel.  They don't even talk about Huckabee this way and there is no way he can possibly get the nom.

    This should be a Twilight Episode.  It really should be.  She was brilliant, she brought the audience to their feet and that Xerox thing is going to score big time.


    I know. They are so bad calling it her ending (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:35:58 PM EST
    They even suggested that she will throw in the towel and be classy so she can run in 2012. What is with that? I hope not. I was for Edwards and I felt he got out too soon. He kept the debates going. I am in Penna and I want a chance to vote in this primary. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry got to vote for the Democratic candidate. At least I am a Democrat who wants to vote and not have it all chosen and closed by the time it gets to me.

    i agree!!! (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Dcrpfs9668 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:38:56 PM EST
    Is it just me, or does CNN have an unspoken endorsement for Obama... Even Bill O'Reilly talked about it the other night. He said the liberal media has jumped on board for her downfall... I had to agree with him. My girlfriend says it's because she's a woman, and this is American mysogeny at work...I don't know...I used to like CNN.

    Media (none / 0) (#172)
    by ChrisM on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:10:23 AM EST
    Both CNN and MSNBC have become Obama Central, just like FNC used to be Giuliani central.

    I used to like watching Keith Olbermann but I can't anymore. The pro-BO is way too pronounced for my taste. Even the great Rachel Maddow is hard to watch in that respect.

    Don't get me wrong, I think HRC has received bad advice from her campaign. She should focus on her strengths... like tonight when she talked about foreign policy, she owned the place.

    One thing no one ever questioned is her smarts and command of the issues. She should focus on that.


    Obama on foreign (none / 0) (#192)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:33:40 AM EST
    policy sounded quite good.  I think he did better on Iraq, and Hillary didn't have quite as much gas here...Particularly when Obama said staying in Iraq 100 years is not just about soliders dying but also about all the money being spent....He sounded more able to take this to McCain.

    Hillary did well in being personable.....I too thought that her final statement was "validictory"--it sounded to me as if she were saying goodbye and she was receiving a thank you from Democrats....I just saw tonight how she would accept defeat....

    Obama looked like the nominee....looking toward McCain....Hillary talks about Bush, not McCain.

    I heard that Congresswoman Tubbs said after the debate that Hillary made it to the mountaintop tonight just as did MLK--unfortunate comparison.....Hillary's last, best moment....

    But time will tell....


    Mini-strokes must be going around :-) (none / 0) (#21)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:38:17 PM EST
    That swan song stuff has got to be because lots of people have no idea of graciousness.  Seemed to me that she was showing good manners and that's hardly bowing out.

    Twilight Zone is an apt description of this whole campaign season.

    About "xerox", a guy at work has got several videos of Obama/Patrick "sharing" and even a couple of Obama "sharing" Edwards speech fragments from '04.  He's a Republican so those will probably go to the RNC once he has compiled enough of them.  Certainly more than a couple now.

    Local TV a bit earlier showed the debate watch party when Clinton was there.  Room looked full and loud.  Just went back to it for Obama's appearance and it's no longer full.  Don't know what that means but FWIW.


    did you see the vanilla ice one? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:43:09 PM EST
    check out No Quarter.  Hilarious.

    I wonder, though--is someone tracking down the "2 times" statement?  Because I was under the impression that it was more than twice; or perhaps I am confusing it with other folks he's "shared ideas" with?  I think that might be an issue.

    Also, the Clinton campaign (sorry for posting this twice) pointed out that Obama has waffled on the Cuban embargo, which will matter to Cuban Americans (and frankly should matter to all of them)

    I think she's going to nail him on the waffling vis-a-vis sitting down with world leaders.  He already gave a disastrous photo op in Kenya.  Perhaps he's learned from that mistake?  At any rate, I don't know what the difference is between "preconditions" and whatever word he used--negotiations?  He was basically saying what she said, but used more words and made it less clear.

    I mean, how many times did he do that?  Say exactly what she said, or say I agree with her, but I would do X, only she had already mentioned X?  Cream, you were right about the classroom analogy.  He is just like every ninth grade boy I have ever seen--loves the sound of his own voice.


    Problem is that I was talking about (none / 0) (#43)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:49:37 PM EST
    those ninth-grade boys who grow up to be professors and still talk like that.  I start to zone . . . but then, I did that a lot in ninth grade, too.  Luckily, I'm a boomer, so with sixty and more of us in every classroom, the teachers didn't notice me doodling instead of taking notes.

    Btw, about Obama's nonstop writing on his legal pad, is he writing?  I have this weird sense that he's doodling, too, until he gets a chance to talk again.  I still do that in meetings, too.:-)


    I think his writing (none / 0) (#51)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:54:34 PM EST
    just goes to the same problem I have stated from the get-go: he is unseasoned.  Look at Clinton while he Obama talking--nodding, smiling, engaged.  Even when he's attacking her, she's smiling.  Now look at him; his face is a mask and even when he's not furious or annoyed, he looks it because he's just got that kind of face.  He's writing, he's looking down, he's waving his hand in the air to make sure they know he doesn't agree with her.  All of these mannerisms are going big problems when the media doesn't adore you anymore.

    Remember what they did to Al Gore with the sighing?  Obama has got to realize that he is on camera at all times and needs to look as if he is paying attention, even if he isn't.  This public face during debates is a real issue, and if he manages to get the nom and goes up against McCain in the ge, Obama is going to look like an antsy kid next to the more seasoned, rehearsed McCain.  (apparently, it matters more when it's two men)

    People say they want politicians to be genuine and unrehearsed and "real"...ask Howard Dean how that worked for him.


    Check out the Meyers-Briggs type (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:59:00 PM EST
    analysis at Saloon.  He's a doodler alright.

    Oops. It is at Slate. (none / 0) (#91)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:14:12 PM EST
    And here I was hoping that (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:24:44 PM EST
    there really is an online magazine called Saloon.

    Now I'm always going to think of Salon that way. :-)


    Yes! the Vanilla Ice clip is hilarious (none / 0) (#45)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:51:04 PM EST
    and the Bamboozled video over there is also great.

    There's certainly more than 2, unless the guy where I work is doing more than 1 of each.  I'll see what I can find out from him on Monday.


    understand (none / 0) (#169)
    by Dcrpfs9668 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:06:24 AM EST
    you're right! He always says "Understand..." AS IF WE DIDN'T! This is the most important election in a long long time. I sure as heck understand...That's why i voted for Hillary in MA!

    won't they freak when she wins!!!! (none / 0) (#31)
    by nycvoter on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:44:33 PM EST
    That line played better than some think (none / 0) (#40)
    by diplomatic on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:48:43 PM EST
    it did not get a negative reaction from focus groups.  Just because a few people in the audience booed it doesn't mean it didn't serve a purpose.  It guarantees that the plagiarism story makes it on all the papers tommorrow!

    CNN focus group (none / 0) (#56)
    by diplomatic on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:55:55 PM EST
    they had a dial meter focus group...

    Also FOX News had a focus group with similar responses (that people liked the line) but take that one with a huge grain of salt.

    But even if you disregard focus groups, consider the fact that this line will now be quoted in all the newspapers guaranteeing that the "Obama copies speeches" narrative lives on and people who had not heard about it will now do so.  They will make the final judgement on whether they think it matters though.  But at least know it's out there big time.


    I am so proud to be a Hillary supporter (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by athyrio on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:23:50 PM EST
    and believe she totally looked presidential tonight.....Go Hillary!!!

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by kiriacon on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:28:16 PM EST
    Hillary is so clearly much more qualified to be President. I don't know what the talking heads and other blogs were watching tonight, but it was not the same debate I saw. I think a lot of people want an Obama nominee because they can beat him.

    Amen to that! (none / 0) (#145)
    by Dcrpfs9668 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:46:26 PM EST
    Hillary is the best qualified candidate by far! I am a young voter and i feel insulted every time the media says Obama wins all the youth vote. There are thousands of young voters in MA who worked hard so she'd win here. I'm no way near Texas, but i know for a fact that RI students LOVE Hillary...Hillary's inspired me in a profound way this year, and whether she wins or looses, i will never forget it.

    That is wonderful to hear -- and (none / 0) (#153)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:53:14 PM EST
    we won't forget what Massachusetts, with all its campuses, did.  You keep it up -- even with your primary over, you sound like someone who would be great at the Clinton phone-banking to other states.

    aparently (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by NJDem on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:28:35 PM EST
    there was an up-tick with the CNN focus groups that rate what the candidates say (you know what I mean).

    Regardless of what the pundits say (and frankly I haven't been watching them) everyone is talking about the xerox line and her closing statement--that can't be bad for her.

    And, BO's last words were "that's it" and then got up.  So I don't think he thought it went so great for him, or he just really wanted to get out of there.

    His campaign was quick to attack her closing statement saying it's similar to something Edwards said, though I've heard others say it was more like  BC.  Either way, that standing ovation was for her, and I hope that's how it plays in Texas.

    looked to me (none / 0) (#11)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:30:00 PM EST
    like he jerked her chair back.  Like, "let's go."

    Here's what Edwards said in the October (none / 0) (#24)
    by ding7777 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:39:22 PM EST
    debate in Philly
    The truth is, when this election is over, I'm going to be fine. Senator Clinton's going to be fine. Senator Obama's going to be fine. The question is, will America be fine?

    and from a December 13, 2007 debate in Iowa

    All of us are going to be just fine no matter what happens in this election. But what's at stake is whether America is going to be fine

    when I heard her say it (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by nycvoter on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:48:01 PM EST
    I thought of Edwards, but it aint what obama did, no way

    I did too. What she said was an introduction (none / 0) (#52)
    by Teresa on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:54:46 PM EST
    to how much better off she is than the veterans she visited in the hospital. I'm not sure there was a better way for her to get there without saying a fairly normal statement like that. It definitely doesn't compare to quoting someone else quoting MLK or JFK.

    Obama's Use of Patrick's Line (none / 0) (#207)
    by cal1942 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:55:23 AM EST
    I've been bothered by the counter reaction from Obama's supporters, some in the media and his campaign in their attempts to throw the criticism back at the Clinton campaign.

    In the 1988 primary season Joe Biden used unattributed lines from a speech by British Labor party leader Neil Kinnock. The Dukakis campaign called him out and the media jumped on it.  Biden's campaign was ruined and he quickly faded. There was an irony in that Biden had credited Kinnock on all other occasions except that one. Apparently Obama used Patrick's lines on several occasions but never once gave attribution.

    So what does that say about what's happened to our standards over the past 20 years?  

    Is a particular candidate allowed carte blanche and does it have something to do with excusing any behavior in pursuit of demonizing his opponent.  Is this what we've become?


    Hardship you can xerox? (none / 0) (#187)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:30:07 AM EST
    Huh, I guess Hillary only knows aobut Hardship you can Xerox.

    It is good... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by ding7777 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:28:49 PM EST
    CLINTON: Well, I think that if your candidacy is going to be about words, then they should be your own words. That's, I think, a very simple proposition.


    And, you know, lifting whole passages from someone else's speeches is not change you can believe in, it's change you can Xerox. And I just don't think...

    But isn't the whole xerox thing (none / 0) (#47)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:51:51 PM EST
    undermined by her lifting lines from Edwards and her husband? What is she going to say? "I can plagiarize because my campaign isn't about words but about ideas uncluttered by words."

    Silly, but sometimes silly wins votes.


    BinP - its sop 101 (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by ding7777 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:27:04 PM EST
    for a politico to declare that s/he will "be fine" no matter the outcome of an election.

    But Clinton has not based (none / 0) (#173)
    by standingup on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:10:30 AM EST
    her campaign on being audacious, authentic and an agent of change.  What is one is to believe when they discover portions of his speeches are not authentic but have been used by other candidates who shared a common campaign manager with Obama?  Describing it as plagiarism is wrong and misses the point.  Is Obama who he says he is or is he an image that has been crafted by a consultant or manager?    

    Curious about this -- (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:35:37 PM EST
    from the last thread, but it closed before there could be much in the way of a reply.  Are these actually the Obama stances?  (It's from an Obama backer.)

    SSA and Medicare are "not good" things, as "those are budget busting programs that are poorly managed. I do wish he would have pointed to Harold Pollack et. al.'s letter. Tying her to fines and garnishing wages was good for him. Got in a dig on transparency and her arrogance in '94. He took that exchange."

    I thought Clinton got Obama on his plan for fines and penalties.  But heavens, I also thought that Dems were for Social Security and Medicare.

    Also: ""He did not flip-flop on Cuba. He said an agenda for the talks would have to be set. He did not say, like she did, that they would have to meet any preconditions other than setting the agenda. . . ."

    I thought this was a switch for him on Cuba -- and of course, I though that as soon as he said he would not have preconditions, he started listing his preconditions (a preset agenda, etc.).

    "He continues to embarrass her on the "Day 1" question: his judgment is better than hers, and he's not afraid to point that out. He can combat McCain on Iraq with more authority; that's just a fact.  Now, at the end of the day, he improved vastly while she continues to tread water. Her best moments continue to be times when she gets emotional and her voice shakes."

    Well, I just didn't see any of that, but it's just opinion.  However, on the preceding points, these are stated as factual on Obama's stands -- and is he buying into the attacks on Social Security and Medicare, etc.?  If so, how can Kennedy and Kerry back him?  (And I will write my governor to ask how in the heck he can support him.)  

    What is going on -- is the frontrunner Dem really not for historic Dem programs and policies, those that are our hope for hanging onto working-class support?  And, for that matter, AA support?

    Obama and SS (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Prabhata on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:46:46 PM EST
    Obama keeps hitting Clinton on SS.  He is saying that SS needs to be fixed.  He buys the idea that SS is going belly up.   Hillary simply says that SS is fine, and all we need to do is to change the present limit, so that those who make above 35K (current SS limit) will pay SS on the money above the present limit.

    he has also suggested (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:47:47 PM EST
    that the retirement age should be raised, which I don't quite think all those baby boomers whose kids convinced them to "switch" will like.

    Don't tell Josh Marshall! (none / 0) (#100)
    by herb the verb on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:18:47 PM EST
    His head might explode!

    The Point at which I knew Obama (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:54:57 PM EST
    was all talk and no substance was very early on and it's germaine to his answers about Diplomacy.


    The point is not so much what Obama's stance is, it can be willingness, commitment, whatever, the point is how he's confused about where Reagan and Kennedy stood on the issue.

    Obama says "I want to get back to Kennedy and Reagan" but gives different answers than they did.

    Clinton gives the same answers Kennedy and Reagan did.

    And that has been the entire story of the campaign for me.

    Clinton is what Obama talks about.


    GREAT line--and so true (4.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:02:12 PM EST
    Clinton is what Obama talks about.

    "all talk and no substance" ?!?! (none / 0) (#69)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:01:33 PM EST
    The debate was full of talk and substance from both candidates!

    Obama says "I want to get back to Kennedy and Reagan" but gives different answers than they did.

    Clinton gives the same answers Kennedy and Reagan did.

    Huh?  Giving the same answers that Reagan did is not a plus!


    Kennedy and Reagan (none / 0) (#71)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:02:44 PM EST
    Read the link.

    Obama's the one who wants to be most like Reagan anyway.


    um... (none / 0) (#150)
    by Dcrpfs9668 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:50:32 PM EST
    It is a plus, if you claim to be like them...You can't claim to be like them, and then not be like them. Thats lying. Or at least a little hypocracy...I mean this w/ all due respect. Obama is a good guy, but he's not ready.

    um 2... (none / 0) (#152)
    by Dcrpfs9668 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:53:06 PM EST
    I don't know why he'd want to be like Reagan though... Kennedy, i understand...But not Reagan...

    Because he was (none / 0) (#203)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:45:37 AM EST
    'the great communicator' with a sunny disposition telling the american people that there was nothing wrong with America or Americans and that it was 'morning again in America!'

    Now, do you remember?


    Because he was (none / 0) (#205)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:47:54 AM EST
    'the great communicator' with a sunny disposition, telling Americans there was nothing wrong with American and nothing wrong with Americans...that it was 'morning in American again!'

    Now, do you remember?


    Social Security (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by cal1942 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:17:57 AM EST
    Jeffrey Liebman, an Obama economics advisor favors privatization of Social Security.  

    Another of his economics advisors, david Cutler, wants to keep health care industry profits high as an incentive.  

    Edwards and Clinton offer government insurance to compete with private companies.  Obama has no government insurance offering in his health care proposals.

    Obama's woeful solution to the mortgage crisis (a $500 tax credit)came from economics advisor Austen Goolsbee.

    Obama is the most conservative Democrat I've seen get this far in the primaries.

    I was an Edwards supporter and I believe policy tells a lot about the candidate.  For me it was an easy switch to Clinton.

    What bothers me is that if Obama is nominated and elected, what happens to potential progressive legislation and will we see a continuing erosion of the middle class?

    Apparently this is what he means by reaching across the aisle, about reconciliation.  So there is a strong possiblity that the progressive change that the nation wants just won't happen.  

    But the biggest worry of all is, what's to become of our political system if people never get the changes they need?


    Obama has spoken dismissively of (none / 0) (#26)
    by MarkL on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:41:37 PM EST
    "big government' programs.

    Isn't that RW talk for Dem programs? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:45:12 PM EST
    What are Kennedy, Kerry, Durbin, et al., doing to us?

    Well of course. (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by MarkL on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:48:51 PM EST
    I had a comment removed yesterday wherein I likened Obama to liberal Republicans of the past, but I think it's a fair comparison.
    He does not share my values, or yours.
    Philosophically, he favors private initiative and enterprise; whereas I favor what WORKS.

    Well, they are a little delusional after all. (none / 0) (#29)
    by Teresa on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:43:40 PM EST
    No, I don't think Obama feels that way at all. His supporters just use that argument because it is the anti-Clinton point of view. I don't think they are speaking for him.

    One thing's for sure, he is going to disappoint either his conservative/Independent voters or his liberal voters. He can't please them both.


    except for the guy posting here (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:58:07 PM EST
    ... I have never heard an Obama supporter speak dismissively of SSA.  Let's not tar all the supporters because of one guy's comments please.

    I suppose I'm as hard (none / 0) (#77)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:06:39 PM EST
    anti-Obama as anyone and even I don't think he wouldn't protect SS.  If I had to guess, that poster is not for any Democrat in the race  :-)

    Privatization would be an easy sell, for (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by MarkL on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:08:06 PM EST
    a Democrat. I don't trust Obama on SS---period.

    Well I was wrong (none / 0) (#102)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:20:55 PM EST
    turns out he does support Obama and is spouting more of that junk downthread.  Real winner that one :-)

    Here's the distinction (5.00 / 2) (#210)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:05:15 AM EST
    and it's the same one Paul Krugman made when he took Obama to task for his comments on Social Security:

    There is a difference between a problem and a crisis.  The crisis meme was what the Republicans pushed so they could convince the public that the only way to save SS in the future was to privatize it now.  Obama's words echoed those R talking points and made it sound like an imminent threat.  It's not.

    Yes, there is a solvency problem long term and it must be addressed...as it has been in the past...adjustments/choices must be made.

    Interestingly, SS has the lowest overhead of all government programs at around 3% and gets awards for being the best managed.

    Also, let's keep in mind that SS was originally a 'widows and orphans' safety net which expanded and expanded and expanded to include more and more marginal folks who now collect social security as dependents of one kind or another.  Those expansions alone have accelerated the difference between income and payout, bringing the problem closer than it otherwise would have...that, and the fact that people are LIVING so much longer than anticipated when SS was designed...and redesigned.

    That's how I see it, anyway.


    Hi DC wonk, I tried to reply to you (none / 0) (#83)
    by Teresa on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:09:44 PM EST
    in the last thread but it closed on me before I could post it. I am so glad you agree with what I said about the party being more important than the Presidency and it being a healing moment. You are a great Obama supporter and I really respect your honesty.

    I actually have had that SS/Med argument with some young Obama supporters on DKos. I know they are just uninformed and don't represent what Obama stands for and I agree they are in a minority. I do think he was wrong to even hint at the social security crisis stuff.

    My delusional remark was just being snarky because he said tonight that his supporters aren't delusional. Some of them really are but so are some of Hillary's.


    Well thank you! (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:25:05 PM EST
    I appreciate your comments (it's the first nice thing anyone has said to me in the past couple of weeks here).

    Frankly, I think a lot of supporters -- on both sides -- can learn from both Obama and Clinton tonight.  Like you, I also thought it was a healing moment for both of them and I'm very proud to support a party that winnows its candidates down to these two, who both are clearly trying their best to win in the dirty world of politics and yet are trying their best to both take the high road.  It'd be so easy for either of them to fight dirty, but there's been fairly little of it in this campaign (and the little that's been looks even smaller if you compare it to any other prez campaign).  I think it's high testament to both of them.

    You can look at all my posts, I have never ever said a bad word about Clinton, I think she's awesome, and I thought she was awesome again tonight.  (Despite what others here think, not only do I think the Xerox comment not go over well, I thought that she regretted saying it herself -- it was the only time she didn't take the high road.  But a minor blip, as far as I'm concerned, in 90 minutes of debate).

    (I have criticized Hillary's advisors, I think some of them have occasionally wanted to take the low road -- but, and perhaps I am naive, I think Hillary's own instincts resist that sort of thing).

    As I've said from the beginning, I think both candidates are exceptional (and I take offense when anyone insults either of them unfairly -- and I have complained to other blog-masters about how they've portrayed Clinton), and that reasonable people can disagree as to how to weigh their strengths and weaknesses.

    I wish the other supporters here could get along as well as you and I seem to do!


    Whoa! Two in one night! (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:51:11 PM EST
    Thank you.  Actually, I am blown away by how nice that comment is.  (And just think, a few hours ago I was just this close to leaving this site)

    I'm a fairly un-reconstructed hippie who believes in love and peace and all that apparently old-fashioned stuff.  I'm not naive, but, at the least, I think that, we need to play fairly.  And so on this site I've been defending Obama (and defending Clinton too), and on other sites I've been defending Clinton.  (I wrote to Josh Marshall and complained about his claim that Clinton wanted that MSNBC guy fired.  I explained what I thought was the whole context and a reasonable inference.  He wrote back, was pretty nice about it, but basically said he disagreed on the interpretation.  I still think he's very wrong on that issue, but he kept my respect with his answer to me)

    My son recently had to do a report on MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech.  And so we found it on YouTube and watched it.  In that speech MLK talks about  how that even though blacks are getting physically and mentally brutalized, they shouldn't  stoop to that level and lose the moral authority of their argument.

    I see an analogy to what's going on here.  Both Obama and Clinton are fighting the good fight, and, for the most part, they are taking the high road (despite what must be enormous pressures to the contrary).  If we want the other to not engage in dirty politics, then we have to be above it, too.

    And so I wish the supporters would do the same.  I know, I know, it's hard when we're so passionate about it.  But, hey, we can look at it as practice -- being masters of our own passions is a good things.

    Criticism is fine if it's fair and relevant, imho.  Want to criticize Obama for missing a vote, that's fine.  Want to say he's got no substance, and that's just plain untrue and unfair.  

    So, yeah, when I see stuff unbalanced and unfair, I have the urge to try to step in and balance it.

    It's very comforting to know that a few people here have noticed that I have tried my best to be fair.  I was getting the feeling that I was completely useless here.

    Every little bit helps.  Think globally and act locally, ya know!  Let's all raise the level of our discourse.

    And, again, thank you very very much for your comments.  They are very much appreciated.


    Don't even think about leaving. You're one (none / 0) (#157)
    by Teresa on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:59:48 PM EST
    of those fair minded people who make me realize the whole world's not gone crazy!

    I second what PL said about you. (none / 0) (#146)
    by Teresa on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:46:57 PM EST
    I wish all of us could feel the way you do. I'm frustrated that so many people can't see the good that came from that moment rather than to turn it into something to be critical about.

    I only have two problems with Obama: his unity message, because we have backed up too far in the past seven years to compromise with anybody right now, and I really don't think he is as committed to healthcare as HC is. That is very important to me.

    I think the reason so many HC supporters are angry right now is because of the media. It absolutely blows my mind. That moment tonight made me feel real warmth toward him because she seemed to feel genuine about it. I hate to see people mock it for that reason. When/if she gives up her campaign and endorses him, will they make fun of her even then? She is going to ask her voters to support him and they will probably blow her off and say who needs them. They being supporters like the ones at other blogs, not here. We have got to come together.

    Thank you for listening to me :)


    I understand your frustration (none / 0) (#177)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:14:54 AM EST
    I've said many times here that Hillary's treatment by the media has been consistently awful.  A disgrace.  And, yeah, that's incredibly frustrating.  Plain and simple: it's just not fair.

    I hear what you're saying about Obama's unity message, and, if I may elaborate a different take on it (not that I think you'll agree, but perhaps you'll better understand where some of his supporters are coming from):

    I think that people are overstating what his "unity" message means.  He doesn't mean, at all, to compromise with people that are just unalterably opposed to his ideals (e.g., rabid anti-abortionists).  Clearly, no compromise can be made with them.  Period.  Furthermore, of course he's not naive enough to think that the RW Noise Machine is not going to do their best to rake him over the coals.

    But I think (and I hope) that his message will appeal to some decent percentage of people that this hyperpartisanship has got to stop.  Look, we all know that the Dems will not control 60 votes in the Senate, and that, if the hyperpartisanship doesn't stop then a minority of 45-or-whatever GOP Senators can stop everything that any Dems want to do: health care and everything else.

    So how do we get past that?  In part, we get past it by getting our own citizens who vote to demand something better.  In part, we keep talking about getting people to focus on the bigger picture (health care for Americans) rather than scoring political points.

    Will it magically make everything good?  Of course not.  But changing our attitudes about this stuff requires a leader who will challenge us to change our attitudes.  When JFK said "ask not ...", he was challenging American citizens, and those citizens responded.  Some of the "best and brightest" saw public service as a high ideal -- and it brought us everything from Peace Corps volunteers (spreading good, and goodwill about America, across the world), to the Great Society (which, despite some overreach, did reduce poverty in America quite significantly).  But it took a leader to inspire us to do that.  With words.

    Will Obama be able to inspire at least some folks to change their ways?  I don't know, but, to many, it's worth a shot.  It's worth a shot because it's an empowering message.  It's a positive message.  And, Obama's right that the last American leader to have a powerful positive message was Reagan.  The left (and I am a proud member of the left) complains too much, while the right is proud about this and proud about that, and etc.

    Will it work?  I don't know.  But to many, it's worth a shot.  To paraphrase that slogan: "perhaps we can" <g>  The hyperpartisanship (and, yes, I'll place almost all the blame on the GOP for it) has got to stop.  It's killing us.  Obama's right in that all the good candidates have 10-point plans.  The question is: will the plans die in Washington?

    Like I said: I'm not trying to convince you.  And I'm not even asking you to agree with me.  But I guess I do kinda hope you can at least say, "OK, I can hear what you're saying."  


    Great analysis DC Wonk. That's some of (none / 0) (#198)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:42:52 AM EST
    the stuff I tell myself. Kind of giving the power to us to force our Republican rep's to go along because we are demanding that they do. I'm just scared that there aren't too many persuadable Republicans in Congress right now. If he wins big enough, it could work!

    Some great things happened in the 60's along with the sadness, didn't they? I don't remember any of it but I do know that some great Democratic programs came to be then.

    I do hear what you are saying and you say it much more effectively than anyone else does.


    Preparatins -- didn't she say that first? (nt) (none / 0) (#48)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:52:27 PM EST
    Preparation H? (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:54:59 PM EST
    before negotiations  :-)  Think I'd prefer preconditions.

    You probably missed the sam thing (none / 0) (#66)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:00:11 PM EST
    I missed, the phony distinction between their positions on diplomacy.

    I just quoted you -- and anyone can go see (none / 0) (#99)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:18:40 PM EST
    that.  I'm glad to know these are not Obama's stands on Social Security and Medicare.  

    But I'm puzzled as to how they can be your stands -- unless you're not a Dem?  Maybe an Independent who hasn't read the Dem platform and principles and thinks they're not Obama's platform and principles?

    Start with those policies.  They're crucial, they define the party, they define who is a Dem.  


    Or maybe those are Obama's stands . . . (none / 0) (#101)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:19:59 PM EST
    from Prabhata's and Kathy's comments below.  If you can clarify that they are your stands and not his, fine.  Or I'm going to have to head to his website again, but it takes so long to get through it. . . .

    "People like me" get Dems labeled (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:07:30 AM EST
    as Socialists?  Actually, where I come from, that's the party that led my area to our best decades, and for almost five decades that didn't end so long ago.

    But you apparently don't understand American Socialism and are making more clear with every missive that you may not understand what the Dem Party stands for, either.  So I repeat:  Have you ever read the Dem party platform and statement of principles?  Are you sure you're a Dem?  


    Universal health care is (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:44:17 AM EST
    "socialized medicine" to you.  That puts you in interesting company -- several of your comments are so close to those on The Hillary Project site. . . .

    OM - You are a chatterer and now limited (none / 0) (#209)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:01:22 AM EST
    to 4 comments a day. I've overlooked your shilling for Obama for weeks but warned you about it. Now you are insulting. Some of your comments have been deleted. If you don't abide by the limit, you will be banned and every comment you have made on this site will be deleted.

    You are in the wrong party (none / 0) (#128)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:35:55 PM EST
    or have read one too many press releases from the American Enterprise Institute.

    honestly, you are over the top. (none / 0) (#208)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:58:06 AM EST
    i cannot believe how rude and insulting you are. please refrain from calling fellow posters names. i suggest you go and study hillary's proposals and then come back. clearly you haven't done that. guess what? there is a boomer generation and we aren't going to die to please youl.

    It's the number one concern in Texas and (none / 0) (#104)
    by Teresa on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:21:38 PM EST
    in the top two of every exit poll.

    Do you think the American people like the idea of adding another entitlement program the size of UHC to their already overburdened tax bill?

    In that Iran vote, Obama is a hypocrite. If he really thought that gave George Bush permission to go to war with Iran, why did he go on his campaign trip the morning after notification of all Senators that the vote would be held the next day. Why didn't he mention it in the debate that very night? Biden and Dodd did. He didn't because he knew he made a bad decision and he only decided he would captialize on her vote when he realized the media would let him.


    who wrote that poll? (none / 0) (#159)
    by notableabsence on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:00:30 AM EST
    Yeesh.  Talk about a push poll..."entitlement program" and "already OVERBURDENED tax bill?"

    Right on Day ! gimmie a break (none / 0) (#171)
    by Dcrpfs9668 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:09:52 AM EST
    He says he will be right on day 1...how about day 2?...Or day 3? Will he be right, every day, for the rest of his life? Is he just smarter than us? He hasn't always been right in the past! Cocaine doesn't sound right to me...Unless you went to the George Bush school of Politics... You can't always be right, but you can be ready. She is.

    you're on the wrong site (none / 0) (#199)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:42:54 AM EST
    if you want to criticize him for acknowledging using cocaine. Please don't do it again.

    and we know HRC (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by NJDem on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:58:11 PM EST
    most of us have "known" her for 16 years.  

    So his closing statement, which was really all about him, doesn't really resonate.  

    But when she said that we all know that she's been through crisis, we all were right there with her.  And she got a huge applause, which to me was s sign of compassion and support.    

    crap (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:12:46 PM EST
    now I gotta go to bed with 'ice-ice-baby' in my head.  Couldn't they do Milli Vanilli?  At least I don't get my weird David Bowie with a knife juggling monkey dreams.


    The Obama/Patrick cases are clear-cut, apples for apples, lifting of whole phrases and lines.  Ya know, in college, we learned that you can use someone's intent so long as you restructure the comments to make them your own.  I remember zillions of 3x5 cards I made with exact quotes I'd copied from books that I kept by my side at all times to make CERTAIN I did not somehow plagiarize someone else's words.

    Thus, "The apple trees are lovely when the breeze rustles through the leaves" became: "The wind shook the apple tree."

    The above is not plagiarism, and how what Clinton said at the end tonight is plagiarism is just as thin an argument.  Actually, it reminds me of our McCain discussion here on TL today, where I said then (as I believe now) that the way the story was reported is serving to muddy the real issue of the letters written on the woman's behalf.

    The "plagiarism" charge here is meant to muddy the fact that Clinton, as usual, knocked it out of the park.

    Check out Digby's 2 posts (none / 0) (#94)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:16:13 PM EST
    today on McCain matter.

    I'm really not into this Obama and Clinton camp... (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by tsteels2 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:17:47 PM EST
    ...stuff simply because I think both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton looked very presidential.  I was impressed with both of them and refuse to bash either one.

    As far as some of the comments about Senator Obama looking mean, etc...  He looks like that a lot.  He has a serious demeanor.  Reminds me of a college professor I had.  Nothing wrong with a serious demeanor.

    And every man in my family pulls chairs out for women to sit (myself included) as a sign of respect.  It's the mark of a gentleman.  And Senator Clinton doesn't object and she DOES NOT look weak in accepting the gesture.

    They just look more presidential than John McCain.

    universal health care (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by joei on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:29:18 PM EST

    why is this not a big issue?

    it did not hit me until hillary made a reference to social security.

    i think there is big difference between hillary and obama, it is the whole philosophy and approach.

    Debates are funny (none / 0) (#4)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:24:49 PM EST
    Peoples impressions of debates always amuses me.  Whether it's a primary or GE debate, a candidate's supporter always sincerely feels their person won.

    It's totally subjective (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by vj on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:44:54 PM EST
    81% of people at dailykos think Obama won.

    I thought Hillary won, but not by a whole lot.  Not enough to change the dynamics of the race.


    The CNN focus group thought Clinton did (none / 0) (#36)
    by diplomatic on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:47:14 PM EST
    The last impression counts for a lot, I think.  All people are talking about is what Hillary said tonight -- can hardly remember anything Obama said.

    Hmm, are we going to get (none / 0) (#90)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:14:12 PM EST
    another video of that legislator in Texas, the one who couldn't recall any of Obama's accomplishments, now being asked what he can recall of what Obama said tonight?  That video was so priceless -- and made me feel better about a lot of my legislators, who also ought never be allowed in front of a camera.

    Obama's debate performance (none / 0) (#103)
    by diplomatic on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:21:35 PM EST
    ...wasn't it inspirational?  awww I'm filled with hope... but wait, what did he say?  BLANK STARE.

    That legislator is my state senator (none / 0) (#108)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:24:26 PM EST
    here in TX.  He really came off as a complete goofball but is really a sharp guy.  If he couldn't think of any accomplishments, it tells me there aren't any that he thought were worthwhile.

    supporters making a wedge (none / 0) (#80)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:08:02 PM EST
    And 76% over here thought Clinton won.

    I'm not surprised.  Many Clinton supporters don't feel welcome there, and have left.  Similarly, many Obama supporters don't feel welcome here, and have left.


    You can't be serious (none / 0) (#109)
    by herb the verb on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:24:38 PM EST
    Are you seriously comparing the relative civility on these two blogs?

    Whoops (none / 0) (#183)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:24:03 AM EST
    no.  Clearly the civility is better here (but still too harsh for my tastes).  But I think that's in large part due to the moderators' deleting of comments, etc.  There's too many comments over at Kos (I don't bother even tying to read them) -- it's too much like the Wild West over there.

    Except for the Iraq part, I really do believe (none / 0) (#12)
    by Teresa on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:32:55 PM EST
    she won the debate. I don't think she won the war though. He just needed to hold his own and not make mistakes and I think he did that. He always seems to finish much stronger than he starts out.

    so do most human beings that succeed in life (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by diplomatic on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:23:04 PM EST
    it's a great trait to have.  Closers, clutch performers... Hillary Clinton has this quality in even greater amplitude than Obama.  That is why she's stil in this race.

    Anyone else would have been blown away by the Obama media wave long ago.


    Polls (none / 0) (#7)
    by Saul on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:28:11 PM EST
    Any body now the Gallup Polls right now.  Also what is the poll right now in Texas and Ohio+

    Gallup tracking poll -- the trendline to watch (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:38:38 PM EST
    rather than the single-day snapshot -- had her up today by a point over him, and that was the first time she has been ahead for several days.  The explanation with it simply couldn't figure out why.  I think it started to show the impact of the Obama comment on lack of pride in county, the plagiarism, etc.  But we will see.

    Connection here is MO's comment. (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:42:18 PM EST
    Did you see Robin Abcarian's piece on MO?



    amazing (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Nasarius on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:56:53 PM EST
    Sorry for getting pretty far off-topic, but it's amazing that this quote wasn't picked up:
    At Glori Glori, a hair salon in Florence, S.C., she said she'd bumped into a young man earlier in the day who said he'd voted for Clinton. "Who on Earth will help you?" she said she told the young man. "If Hillary Clinton gets into office, I can envision what's gonna happen, and you can too!"
    It's laughable that Hillary and Bill get accused of unfairly attacking when Michelle Obama can make such a nasty, divisive remark and not get called on it. This, the "can't keep your own home in order" comment, and Barack's "feeling down" comment are far more negative and personal than anything from the Clintons in this election.

    Yikes. And that didn't even (none / 0) (#79)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:07:06 PM EST
    go back to the beginning of the campaign, her "ain't no black people in Iowa" comment.

    She has been in politics a long time, with the Daley machine.  She has been on major corporate boards.  She holds a significant job as the face of a major hospital.  Can she have talked like that in all those positions?  I don't see how, so this must be a new MO (or the old MO, according to other accounts) told to speak her mind -- or his mind, the things he can't say with his "unity" message.


    Did you notice that infamous interviewer (none / 0) (#82)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:09:30 PM EST
    of MO is now working for the Obama campaign?

    Another odd thing (none / 0) (#14)
    by Lena on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:33:38 PM EST
    from the debate that just occurred to me. It seems like in several of these events, whenever the network goes to a break, Obama whips out of his seat as fast as he can and is already loping off the stage as the camera pans the room.

    It's given me the feeling more than once that Obama can't bear to even sit next to HRC.

    Also, he has a way of looking annoyed whenever she gets applause, especially enthusiastic applause. I thought he looked particularly galled when she got the standing o.

    Ha, If I wrote the first thing that came to my (none / 0) (#23)
    by Teresa on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:38:46 PM EST
    mind when I read your post, Jeralyn would justifiably ban me. :)

    John King said that they stood apart for a long time before the debate started backstage and Hillary finally went over and hugged him and they had a very friendly conversation about silly stuff. If only the supporters could do that.

    (Seriously, I think he has such a cold, he probably needed some nasal spray or cough syrup or just to blow his nose during the breaks.)


    I had to read my post (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Lena on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:58:14 PM EST
    a couple of times to find out what I said that would provoke a bannable response... now I see. Well, had Obama done that, it certainly would have overshadowed the xerox quip and HRC's closing comment...

    Having a cold is an understandable reason to get up during the breaks and get a kleenex, but I really think I recall him doing the exact same thing in past debates. Unless his health is very fragile, it's kind of fishy.


    Maybe he didn't really (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:04:34 PM EST
    quit smoking.  I've heard that rumor.  Supposedly Michelle sd., yes, you may run for President, but only if you quit smoking.  If its that easy, I'll suggest my adult daughter throw her hat in the ring next time.

    hey (none / 0) (#164)
    by Dcrpfs9668 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:04:23 AM EST
    i know this will sound rude in print...but i mean it only in jest...Maybe Mrs. Obama is finally proud that her country got her husband to stop smoking!

    Ha. (none / 0) (#181)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:18:55 AM EST
    At the end (none / 0) (#37)
    by zyx on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:47:17 PM EST
    She just blew him--it--away with how she handled that last question.  Totally worked it just right, and then there everyone BOUNCED to their feet with the standing ovation, and I'm afraid Obama did not look like he was enjoying that part at all.  She really had a great moment right there at the right moment.  

    She seems pretty gracious at debates but he looks a little sulky--or more than a little--if it's not going so well for him.


    My spouse (none / 0) (#67)
    by Lena on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:00:13 PM EST
    (who is a much more objective observer than I am of such things) said that he thought the crowd was more enthusiastic about Hillary than they were about Barack, pretty much from the beginning.

    I didn't see the whole thing (none / 0) (#87)
    by zyx on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:12:56 PM EST
    but the crowd DID seem very pro-Clinton, and I thought that was a little odd for Austin, which is Hipsville.  I would have thought it would have a big Obama crowd.

    Obama the great orator (none / 0) (#20)
    by Prabhata on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:38:16 PM EST
    It strikes me odd that someone who gives great speeches can be so flat without the teleprompter.  Reagan was excellent with the teleprompter, but he was also good in debates.  In each debate Obama has come across as unprepared and rambling.  This last debate in TX was his worst.

    Obama "has acted a lot" (none / 0) (#34)
    by diplomatic on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:46:05 PM EST
    He answered that for the last 20 years he has acted a lot.   That gave me a little chuckle.

    This disparity between giving great speeches and normal talk that Obama has resembles the problem a lot of actors in Hollywood have when they are horrible at giving interviews but can give Academy Award performances "in character"


    Yes your objective (none / 0) (#194)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:35:07 AM EST
    He was as good or better than her in this debate, she came off as wonk and without vision.

    you have to see this (none / 0) (#25)
    by nycvoter on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:41:32 PM EST

    young voices in Clinton corner

    "Change you can Xerox" (none / 0) (#30)
    by diplomatic on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:44:04 PM EST
    Interesting thing about that line, it appears that the CNN audience meter showed a slight uptick for Hillary after she said it.  It was at worst a neutral response and not at all a bad thing.

    The people booing were most likely Obama partisans who felt that line stung their guy.

    Democrats love a fighter and Mark Penn put that line in there for Clinton so that the plagiarism issue would be sure to be on every newspaper tommorrow morning next to that quote.

    Genius really.

    Until (none / 0) (#49)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:53:26 PM EST
    Genius until she plagiarized at the end of the debate.

    what do you think about it? (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by diplomatic on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:03:15 PM EST
    So is plagiarism an important issue?  Is this your admission that Obama doing it was bad on his part?  If you do then I'll consider that Clinton lifting parts of Edwards speeches was hypocritical, unless uh... uh... she got his permission and he will be endorsing her soon!  Deval gives permission and its ok so we just have to wait and see if Edwards gave her permission, lol.

    Great reply, thanks! Gave me (none / 0) (#84)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:10:55 PM EST
    a good laugh -- and there already are so many apologias here worth a chuckle.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#57)
    by muffie on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:56:38 PM EST
    I was watching online, and they showed this during the break.  It went noticably down. People don't like the overtly negative stuff.  That doesn't mean it isn't effective.

    I viewed your link, interesting -- but (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:49:44 PM EST
    it doesn't do anything about the focus group being measured.  Another link available that does so?

    Sorry (none / 0) (#184)
    by muffie on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:25:25 AM EST
    I think I recall them saying something like "a group of independents and Democrats who hadn't yet decided, but planned to vote Democratic."  But I'm not 100% sure.

    Thanks -- I'll listen again (none / 0) (#189)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:32:03 AM EST
    (I like Bill Schneider's analyses, but I'm just whispering that between us, because he seems to not be as interesting to some others here. :-)

    It went down before she said the line (none / 0) (#65)
    by diplomatic on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:59:27 PM EST
    For some reason the dip happened when the topic came up at all, but then stayed fairly neutral before and after she said the xerox part.

    I agree with you that we won't know how effective it was until a couple of days.


    Moot. The General began last Wednesday. (none / 0) (#58)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:56:50 PM EST
    I didn't bother to watch.

    Hoping you are over-confident. (none / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:06:28 PM EST
    No. McCain will be tough. (none / 0) (#88)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:13:25 PM EST
    How did your projections turn (none / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:17:24 PM EST
    out re delegates in WI?  I forgot to check back.

    In detail (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:34:31 PM EST
    Sensenbrenner's I'd called for Clinton, wrong.
    Moore's I'd called Obama but 3-3, he got 4.
    Kind's I'd called 50% 4-2 Obama, just short.
    Obey's I'd called 60% 4-2 Obama, not as close.
    Baldwin's I'd called just shy of 6-2, perfect.
    Petri's I'd called narrow Obama, not so narrow.
    Kagen's I called "too close," Obama won handily.
    Ryan's I called Obama 3-3, correct, but bigger gap than I'd figured.

    Overall, I underestimated Obama's suburban strength.

    Giordano, once again, had the best record, getting only Kagen's wrong, and predicting Kind's closer to 4-2 than Obey's.

    In my County predictions, I had 3 wrong, of 15 I'd mentioned. 2 I'd picked for Obama went Clinton (Douglas in the far NW and tiny Trempeleau.) For the Republican stronghold of Waukesha, I'd incorrectly called a pro-choice R wiomen's crossover carrying for Clinton (the Sensenbrenner prediction.)


    Pretty good. So the Repub. women (none / 0) (#143)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:45:28 PM EST
    crossovers didn't crossover, or they voted for Obama?

    No hard data. (none / 0) (#156)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:59:24 PM EST
    but if they did, it wasn't enough. I haven't seen data on how much their kids turned out, separated from the Statewide totals. Could be the R women went to Hillary but the Grand Theft Auto kids overwhelmed them. The winger talk hosts in the area were also calling for crossovers for Hillary, that clearly didn't happen.

    The most Republican county (none / 0) (#178)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:15:03 AM EST
    aka SUV country, where there is not a Dem who has won office in eons, went 2 to 1 for Dems -- and mostly for Obama.  As one of the most populated counties, and always with high turnout, that accounted for a significant share of his margin.  

    Analyses are at jsonline.com today, and especially see Waukesha County columnist Laurel Walker.  She knows the county, she knows the women, and I don't know quite how she still can survive out there.  (She gets a lot of hate mail, too, btw.)


    And overall, oculus (none / 0) (#139)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:43:08 PM EST
    the state Dems reported the pledged delegate allocation from the primary in Wisconsin as 42 for Obama, 32 for Clinton.  (I think she may have gotten one more than the percentages of primary votes would suggest, but that could be because her counties included several really rural counties up north --  they still hold disproportionate sway in the state.)

    That'd be the Kind and Baldwin district delegates (none / 0) (#160)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:01:44 AM EST
    she barely held. Move 1,000 of Obama's voters from either district to the other, and it shifts.

    No, see the map on the JS site (none / 0) (#180)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:16:16 AM EST
    -- they're way up in the far northwest and far northeast.  You're talking about the central counties she won, it seems?

    Nope. (none / 0) (#211)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:05:28 AM EST
    Obama almost won 4-2 in Kind's, and almost won 6-2 in Baldwin's. If 1,000 more Madison hippes move to the Kickapoo to grow weed, Obama gets 4-2 in Kinds.

    If 1,000 LaCrosse kids move to Madison to get their band together, it's Obama 6-2 here.


    uhh (none / 0) (#78)
    by diplomatic on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:06:52 PM EST
    So much can happen between now and the convention.  Especially when one of the major candidates hasn't come close to being vetted or had to face any serious adversity.

    Even something as simple as illness or accident could change it all.  Remember that even Bill Clinton had a heart scare a few years ago.  Even after someone has been nominated it is never too late.


    Nice classy final answer from Hillary (none / 0) (#68)
    by diplomatic on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:00:48 PM EST
    That was the real Hillary.

    If she can just be herself from now until March 4th, I think she can hang in there.

    If you think she actually won (none / 0) (#85)
    by Jgarza on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:12:09 PM EST
    the debate why are you trying to explain why he was bad, and way are you trying to play the Duval Patrick line?

    I think he dominated.  

    She had several big mistakes. Including the fact that she stole her best line.  She said she would debate McCain, about economics on the fact that he supported Iraq, and that Iraq wasn't good for fiscal discipline.  Problem being she supported the war too.

    here's why? (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:25:10 PM EST
    Obama is now criticizing her for using Edwards' words at the end of the debate. So he's making it an issue.

    He can't have it both ways. And the Vanilla Ice insertion is priceless.


    where/when (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:33:09 PM EST
    did Obama criticize her for that?  Do you have a cite?

    FWIW, others are using it to show either the inconsistency of the criticism charge, or the flimsiness of it.

    My own view:

    Iraq, economy, health care . . . this plagiarism stuff is small stuff and I think people get turned off by it.

    But, for those who are really into it, this is an interesting find by TPM:

    Bill Clinton, 92: "The hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits the people of this state and this country have been taking for a long time."

    Hillary Clinton, tonight: "You know, the hits I've taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country."

    I don't think the above is a big deal, and I don't think the Obama/Patrick stuff is a big deal.

    Let's focus on some real issues -- like Iraq, or FISA, or health care, or beating McCain.


    And "Just words?" was his line (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:38:58 PM EST
    that was plagiarized.  The irony is so marvelous -- that Obama was saying words matter and mean a lot about the speaker, himself.

    It's just too funny.  Trying to turn it to hit back at Clinton, whose claim to fame isn't as an orator, just doesn't work the same.  Obama loses on this one, no matter what, everytime media play that "Just words?" line.


    Let it go, it's October. (3.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:03:13 AM EST
    Clinton's closing line... (none / 0) (#93)
    by Ramo on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:15:49 PM EST
    ...the one that was probably stronger than any statement all night, was a "plagiary" off Bill and Edwards by her own standards.  That xerox cheap shot, by itself, turned a very strong performance into a parody.  That's going to be the story coming out of the debate.

    That small line is NOT what made her (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Teresa on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:27:58 PM EST
    closing important or effective. It was her being proud to be up there with Barack Obama and it was her comparison of their lives with those of the veterans and others who are less fortunate. That's why she continues to fight for them, etc. etc.

    This crap on her stealing lines tonight it is silly as the kindergarten stuff was. You guys are totally reaching to not get the point.


    Your right Teresa (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by tsteels2 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:36:29 PM EST
    I think Senator Obama and Senator Clinton genuinely like and respect each other (unlike their respective supporters).  Her final statement seemed like a healing balm due to all the divisiveness in the campaign.

    I think a sizable number of Clinton and Obama supporters have gone batty.  The "empty suit" angle is empty now (Senator Obama answers everything fully).  The "ugly and mean Clinton" angle is stupid (Senator Clinton has been classy throughout the campaign).  Look at the nonsense between McCain and Romney.  Do you want to see that with Clinton and Obama?  You never will.  They respect each other too much.


    The charge isn't that she stole lines. (none / 0) (#127)
    by Ramo on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:35:42 PM EST
    It's hypocrisy.  She did exactly what she accused Obama of doing a mere half hour earlier (a cheap shot, incidentally, that the audience emphatically did not appreciate).  And she did it in what would otherwise have been the strongest answer all night.  Pure schadenfreude.

    Interpetation (none / 0) (#196)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:41:55 AM EST
    The worry, I would have if I was backing Clinton, and indeed the worry the HRC campaign apparently has (Wolfson's already spinning it) is that her close could come off as a concession speech.

    Mark Penn scores (none / 0) (#113)
    by diplomatic on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:25:32 PM EST
    "that's going to be the story coming out of the debate."

    Ooh, you mean plagiarism will be the topic for the next few days?  Bring it on.  Do you think Obama would like to continue talking about this?


    Plagiary won't be the topic. (none / 0) (#130)
    by Ramo on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:36:32 PM EST
    Hypocrisy might be, though.

    McCain's the topic now. (none / 0) (#214)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:08:58 AM EST
    There are already videos showing Hillary\'s (none / 0) (#107)
    by LiberallyDebunked on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:23:09 PM EST
    plagiarism of Edwards and her husband on the net. Bad idea to push that again.

    You mean like these people (5.00 / 4) (#188)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:30:20 AM EST
    plagiarized Edwards?  Note the dates on these quotes predate Edwards run.

    Here are a few examples of just how widespread the phrase is:

    Laura Bush: 'Whatever happens will be fine' [El Paso Times, 5/19/00]

    NBA Star Shaquille O'Neal: `We'll be fine, no matter what happens.' [AP, 10/8/03]

    Actress Lindsay Lohan: `No matter what happens, we're going to be fine.' [AP, 4/19/07]

    Former Redskin Dexter Manley: 'Whatever happens, I'm going to be fine.' [Washington Post, 7/26/98]

    Former Redskin Gus Frerotte: 'I look forward to whatever happens. We're going to be fine.' [Washington Times, 12/22/98]

    Notre Dame football player Tom Zbikowski: 'Whatever happens, we're going to be fine back there.' [Notre Dame football player Tom Zbikowski, 4/22/07]

    Angels GM Bill Stoneman: 'Whatever happens, I'm going to be fine.' [Los Angeles Times, 2/22/03]

    Former Giant Christian Peter: 'And whatever happens, I'm going to be fine.' [Asbury Park Press, 1/29/01]

    Chicago Cub Larry Rothschild: 'I'm not worried about that. Whatever happens, I'm going to be fine.' [St. Petersburg Times, 4/1/01]

    Diamondback Edgar Gonzalez: 'Whatever happens, I'll be fine because I'm in the big leagues.' [Edgar Gonzalez, Diamondbacks, 5/2/07]

    Hockey player Richard Hamula: 'Whatever happens I'll be fine with but hopefully I can still stick around here.' [Richard Hamula, hockey player, 9/20/02]

    Leonard Hamm, interim commissioner for the Baltimore City Police Department: `Whatever happens, I'm going to be fine.' [Baltimore Afro-American, 11/19/04]


    Marvelous. Or let me put it this way: (none / 0) (#191)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:33:31 AM EST
    I'm fine with all that.  Too.

    Clinton wins that debate, do you not see why? (none / 0) (#118)
    by diplomatic on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:29:03 PM EST
    Obama's campaign hallmark is his oratory and speechmaking.  He is supposed to be "special" because of this.  Clinton is wonkish and poll driven who says focus tested lines...

    People already expect down to Earth politican Hillary to do some of this, but did people expect "once in a lifetime" JFK/MLK sound-a-like Obama to lift entire passages without giving credit?

    Oh boy, let this talk of plagiarism continue... I want Clinton to make a comeback.


    It won't work (none / 0) (#122)
    by Korha on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:32:56 PM EST
    It just makes the Clinton campaign look obviously foolish. Obama very obviously did not "plagiarize" anything. People can be stupid, but they're not that stupid.

    hypocritical to adults. But I guess only time will tell.

    yea too early to know the effects (none / 0) (#137)
    by diplomatic on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:41:17 PM EST
    We won't know how this plays out and regardless there is another debate on Tuesday which could make this all a mute point anyway.

    why not? (none / 0) (#144)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:45:46 PM EST
    Are you not aware of the lines that MLK borrowed in the "I have a dream" speech? You should look it up.

    This stuff is just so mindless, its an embarrasment. Especially the "Theft is ok if I do it, because I am a lousy speaker" line.


    words matter (none / 0) (#149)
    by diplomatic on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:50:05 PM EST
    I guess this whole discussion is proving Obama's point.  For better or worse.

    Let's see what happens in the next debate.  I suspect this plagiarism narrative will go away by then and a new one will emerge.


    She won, but Obama didn't lose. (none / 0) (#213)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:08:07 AM EST
    Welcome to October.

    hmm... (none / 0) (#117)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:28:42 PM EST
    not sure why I got deleted the first time.

    But seriously... if we are going to take these videos seriously as being a problem, then we should also talk about Hillary "stealing" Obama's lines and themese (change, "Yes we will", etc.), "borrowing" her Husband's/Edwards' lines, and not even writing her own book, yet never gave acknowledgment to the the ghost writer.

    FWIW... I don't have a problem with Obama borrowing lines.  And I don't have a problem with Clinton borrowing lines.  

    But I do have a problem when people are not consistent.

    who knows, maybe she lifted it on purpose (none / 0) (#121)
    by diplomatic on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:30:48 PM EST
    The Clinton camp probably knew the Obama supporters would keep the story going by pointing out she has done it too!  And this way the story doesn't die.  By the time it's all over everyone will know that Obama is just like any other politician after all though.  People already knew that about Hillary.

    Ah. What a tangled web. (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:48:01 PM EST
    Vanilla Ice makes an appearance (none / 0) (#133)
    by diplomatic on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:38:15 PM EST
    this election season has jumped the shark!

    Is this what you guys mean (none / 0) (#138)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:43:03 PM EST
    by plagiarism?

    "The hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits the people of this state and this country have been taking for a long time."

    "You know, the hits I've taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country."

    Is it just that they are married that make it ok?

    for the record: I find nothing wrong with this. This whole plagiarism thing is an embarrassment to all thinking people.

    I just ask the Clinton folks here this - imagine if the Deval-Barack thing had never happened. No word of plagiarism ever heard in this campaign.

    But after tonite, the Obama camp had highlighted these quotes and made the charge. Your opinion of him would probably approximate my opinon of her right now.

    Oh, but let me gues. This is different.... heh

    I missed the debate (none / 0) (#140)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:43:42 PM EST
    I am in California this week and missed the debate.  

    I do have it Tivo'd so I will watch when I get home.

    MSNBC is saying that the Xerox comment was a dud but Hillary really finished strong.  

    you missed a good one! (none / 0) (#158)
    by Dcrpfs9668 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:00:14 AM EST
    Hillary proved why she could be one of the greatest presidents ever. The Xerox line wasn't received as well in TV Pundit land, but it was well placed, and a lot of people on their couches laughed. I know i did. It's true. Some of the more hyper Obama fans don't know why they're part of a movement, or where it's going...They haven't asked any tough questions of their leader. It reminds me of the elementary school bridge jumping lesson..."Just because your friends are doing it, doesn't mean it's a good idea!"

    guess Korha missed the memo (none / 0) (#141)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:44:29 PM EST
    about no personal attacks. I'm deleting his/her comment.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#161)
    by Korha on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:01:59 AM EST
    Guess I'll be more careful next time...

    Some people above made my point for me already, anyway.


    Just curious (none / 0) (#155)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:58:51 PM EST
    As I said I missed the debate but can someone explain how Hillary Clinton can criticize Obama for his comments and then essentially pull her closing arguments from a John Edwards speech in December?

    It wasn't like that flyerhawk. You'll see when you (none / 0) (#163)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:03:52 AM EST
    watch it. That one line was a lead in to the important part of what she said. She started it by reaching out to Obama and said how proud she was to be there with him. She sounded very genuine and even fond of him.

    Obama has a bad cold and started kind of slow but then really picked it up. He did pretty good and I was picturing McCain being beside him and I think he'll do fine.


    I'm catching the clips now (none / 0) (#176)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:14:14 AM EST
    Good close.  Honestly I think that is the sort of person that Hillary could have won with but, for whatever reason, she simply wasn't willing to embrace that public persona.   I really think that she does herself a great disservice with that.

    From what I am reading and hearing it sounds like the debate was a push overall.  As such that equates to a win for Obama.

    Assuming that Obama gets the nomination, I really would like to see her become the Senate Majority Leader.  I think that would be a better role for her than VP.


    I agree with all of your points. (none / 0) (#190)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:32:08 AM EST
    She really messed up by not letting her guard down. Except for blogs, I think she has impressed a lot of people and would be a really good senate majority leader. (If the media doesn't blackball everything she tries to do.)

    She needed a knockout punch tonight but he didn't make any mistakes. He may complain about the "19 debates" but they have really been helpful to him for later on. He is much better. Especially in the one on one debates like he'll have with McCain.

    I hope Obama will utilize her somehow in the healthcare debate. Maybe she can help him push one though the Senate that will be good for all of us. I don't want her to be the VP candidate. I think too many of her supporters will see that as kind of beneath her unless it was a very forceful and visible VP role. She'd probably work her butt off and be a good one but I just don't see it happening.


    And I agree with all of *your* points (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:45:25 AM EST
    Especially about the debates.  While I still think Hillary is better at it, Obama has come light years in just the last couple of months.  You're absolutely right -- whoever the nominee is, s/he will be much better off because of all these debates.

    And your comment about HRC's role in the Senate -- great ideas.  (And she'd be a whole lot better than Harry Reid!)


    I agree again! (none / 0) (#206)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:53:09 AM EST
    Good night to you and flyerhawk. You've both made me feel better about where we are headed. I wish we could clone both of you as Obama supporters. We need you guys to get us ready to work for this if things end up the way they are headed. I really do feel better.

    Now, can we work on the media?


    I can really picture (none / 0) (#197)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:42:02 AM EST
    an Obama, Clinton, Pelosi leadership being extremely effective and pushing an effective Progressive agenda.

    An Obama/Clinton 1-2 punch could wield considerable force in the Senate.


    Me too. If the supporters from both sides will (none / 0) (#202)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:45:30 AM EST
    come together with all of this passion and energy, we could get a lot of things done. You're making me feel better!

    Have a safe trip.


    I see her more as (none / 0) (#204)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:46:21 AM EST
    Secretary of Defense if she's not President.

    I've said this before (none / 0) (#217)
    by phat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:18:41 AM EST
    If Hillary Clinton is not president, I like the sound of "Supreme Court Justice, Hillary Rodham Clinton."

    She's probably got 20 years of public service ahead of her and 20 years of her on the Supreme Court would likely be very, very good.

    The weeping and wailing from the right-wing about her having a lifetime appointment would be absolutely worth it.

    If she is not the next president of the United States, that could very well be my favorite outcome. And, as I've said, she's never been my first choice for president.

    Now she is my choice for president and I say that without any reservations.



    I agree that plagairsm (none / 0) (#165)
    by NJDem on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:04:36 AM EST
    is not good for BO.  

    And, HRC clearly did not the exact same words. BO did. Verbatim.  That is different.

    Obama's comment about his plan? (none / 0) (#167)
    by lily15 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:05:22 AM EST
    Did anyone hear Obama admit his plan was better before it got worse?

    health care plan (none / 0) (#168)
    by lily15 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:06:20 AM EST
    is what i'm referring to.

    She came off classy...

    Wow, I didn't think MSNBC could get any (none / 0) (#175)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:14:00 AM EST
    worse. I'm watching replays of Hardball and Countdown from after the debate and they are down right snide toward HC. Just disgusting. Would it kill them and CNN to have one Clinton supporter or even one even-handed analyst?

    They are just making fun of her. I hope she refuses to ever go on either of those shows again. I can understand why some people want to take a gun and shoot the TV.

    NYT account of the debate (none / 0) (#182)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:21:23 AM EST
    is not particularly favorable to HRC.  Says she explained her economic program for the "umpety ump" time.  

    Bottom line is (none / 0) (#212)
    by Baal on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:06:19 AM EST
    these are the two most progressive candidates we are likely to see in a long time, and while they may not be as progressive as we would like all the time, they are a lot better than anyone might have expected a few years back.  

    The entire plagiarism thing is overblown. Obama's reaction is politically skillful.

    Here is something I can tell you.  Here in Houston the Obama organization of volunteers on the ground is truly remarkable, and you can expect an African American turnout -- and young people -- like you've never seen before.  Hillary's organization?  Pretty much invisible.  Maybe they are writing off this city.

    Comments Closing here (none / 0) (#215)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:16:39 AM EST
    new (and final) debate thread is here.

    No. (none / 0) (#218)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:31:01 AM EST
    There is no code for 'cave to Republicans.'

    A very silly question.

    A program as big and broad as SS needs buy-in from more than just 'the Democrats' or the solution/adjustments won't stick.  (That's a technical term, FWIW).