Texas Debate: The Morning After

Now for the post-mortem. Will Hillary see a bounce in Texas and Ohio? Was her final statement of pride in being with Obama a signal that if she loses Texas and Ohio, she'll gracefully step aside? Will Texas and Ohio bring it home for her so she can stay in through Pennsylvania and keep her superdelegates happy?

I have no answers, all I can tell you is the TV pundits don't either. Most of them watched a different debate than I did.

The debate transcript is here. This will be our fourth and final thread on the Texas debate.

< Late Night: Post Debate Thread II | Number Crunching the WaPo Texas-Ohio Poll >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Morning in Germany (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:11:19 AM EST
    Trying to keep track of things from the other side of the pond.   Got a giggle with the Xerox line, I wanted to scream at Hillary, she should have said:  "copy and paste" instead of Xerox.  The creative class does not xerox, they copy and paste.  What will we do with this generation.  

    Hillary was speaking to us old folks! (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by ding7777 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:35:55 AM EST
    A talking parrot (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by glennmcgahee on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:56:01 AM EST
    Was I the only person that kept hearing Hillary's answers to questions being repeated by Obama? Some of the issues she touched on were then parroted by Obama in his answers.
    As for the Generation that is saying that the Clinton's are finished and its time to let a "new" generation take over. I hope this new, next generation is ready for a little dose of reality. They're gonna be very surprised when this campaign gets down and dirty if Obama becomes the nominee. They're gonna freak that his "inspirational sermons" become fodder for jokes and ridicule. I wonder if they are ready for a taste of their own medicine. After all, they were what, 11 or 12 years old last time we had a real presidential contest.

    They might also want to be careful (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:27:51 AM EST
    with all the "new" generation crap and suggesting that the rest of us, that are the "old" generation are somehow irrelevant. Tends to make us testy older generation types ever testier. But if anyone thinks that insulting and dismissing a significant portion of the voting population is a good campaign strategy for the general election should they win, keep it up. Dumb isn't only for Republicans ya know.

    Thanks kenoshaMarge (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by kmblue on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:39:53 AM EST
    You made me lol for the first time this morning.
    I like your style.

    Newsweek had something on this very thing (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:06:06 AM EST
    Obama was quoted doing his usual "let's put the old folks in the home so the young folks can run the world and we'll all get puppies" shtick against McCain and Newsweek's response was, "He's older.  We get it.  Move on."

    I have to say (4.90 / 11) (#2)
    by frankly0 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:33:42 AM EST
    I can't remember a segment in any Presidential debate that I found anywhere near as powerful and evocative as Hillary's closing answer.

    It was really magical, and totally out of the blue. She was, as usual, extremely sharp before that.  But the way in which she put together an answer and a narrative pretty much on the spot into such a coherent and compelling speech was just remarkable. I suspect that even she was surprised; the audience was clearly stunned by it; I've never seen a more spontaneous standing ovation.

    People talk about how humdrum much of her speechifying is, but this was the purest of eloquence.

    She has a lot of passion (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by splashy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:37:53 AM EST
    For her subjects. She controls it a lot, to compensate for the "emotional female" reaction that some people will have if a woman shows strong emotion about something.

    She has to, or she would have given up long ago.


    By subjects I mean issues (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by splashy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:39:14 AM EST
    In case someone thinks I mean citizens, as though she is royalty.

    Just to avoid flames or other razzing from my choice of words. :-)


    Unfair (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:49:57 AM EST
    Yeah, its a a double standard, in a way its a lot like how Obama has to be friendly and non-confrontational, simply because a confrontational black man would be a non-starter.

    Ohh i can (1.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Jgarza on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 09:58:36 AM EST
    I remember when John Edwards said that.  So Hillary has inspiration you can xerox.

    Who borrowed it from.... (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by ivs814 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:08:14 AM EST
    Bill Clinton.  You can defend Patrick Deval and Obama sharing an empty suit and the same Axelrod drivel, but it is bad form to borrow from your husband!!  Sounds like sour grapes to me.  You just cannot abide Hillary getting any credit.  

    I guess you cannot help yourself, after all you mimic the candidate you support; blame democrats and the Clintons first so you can kumbaya with Republicans.  


    I see (none / 0) (#96)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:10:38 AM EST
    So it isn't plagiarism if your husband is the original source?  Gotcha.

    I have no problem giving Hillary credit. But stop with the double standard.

    And constantly attacking Obama supporters isn't going to achieve anything.


    No, it isn't plagiarism if it's this common: (5.00 / 0) (#112)
    by echinopsia on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:05:00 PM EST
        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]


    Don't be dismissive of someone's moment (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:12:56 AM EST
    Really. It doesn't ring very real, seems just like a partisan jab. It was a moment into her personal strength. There is no reason to knock it done, specially if the candidate you prefer has tons to spare.

    I disagree (none / 0) (#67)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:30:48 AM EST
    not that it was powerful, but that it was spontaneous. As for her closing line, Edwards said it better.

    I won't pretend to know (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by frankly0 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 09:28:57 AM EST
    how much of her final segment she may have rehearsed or spoken before. I'd guess that if it were a staple of her stump speech, that we would definitely have heard about it from the Obama camp. But the reality is that it was in answer to a question that she could not possibly have known was going to be the last question of the debate, and her answer -- including the gracious acknowledgment of Obama -- was clearly exactly what fit the moment of the end of the debate. It's hard to see how all that could have been rehearsed.

    Even looking at it in retrospect, I continue to be pretty amazed at her performance. At the time, I literally got goosebumps, both because of the power and surprise of her speech and because I realized that I was present at moment of real history in Presidential debates.

    And I continue to be impressed by the audience reaction as well: they virtually erupted out of their seats, as if it were a completely involuntary response. I can't think of any political speech or debate I have seen that produced such a powerful and spontaneous reaction -- certainly including any of Obama's.


    It's not about plagiarism ... (4.85 / 7) (#41)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:15:38 AM EST
    I think the thing Obama supporters are missing is that the underlying theme in the plagiarism story is that Obama is not a "once in a lifetime" candidate.  

    He's just another one of Axelrod's prepackaged candidates.  There have even been news reports in which the campaign refers to Obama as "the talent."

    Americans may like a "once in a lifetime canididate," but they don't like a prepackaged one.

    Even Obama doesn't as evidenced by this quote:

    A government that truly represents these Americans-that truly serves these Americans-will require a different kind of politics. That politics will need to reflect our lives as they are actually lived. It won't be pre-packaged, ready to pull off the shelf.

    The Xerox line emphasizes the assembly line nature of Axelrod's candidates, and the inherent flaw in the Obama candidacy.    

    Axelrod and Lakoff (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:50:04 AM EST
    Just got this email from Lakoff and the Rockridge Institute taking credit read this for Obama.  Add a bit the new age language of miracles, hope and religiosity and you get the product line.  It works.  Sad to say.  

    Theories abound to explain the stunning success of the Obama campaign. Winning-He Listens to George Lakoff.

    According to Pensito:

    "The Obama Souffle continues to rise.

    Why that is has befuddled many Democrats, particularly Clinton followers. How can Obama score so many wins by offering so little -- just hope -- and yet everything -- hope?

    I can answer that question. It's because Obama gets it. He's been reading the George Lakoff and Rockridge Institute playbook, Thinking Points and skillfully applying it. Lakoff and Rockridge rewrote the progressive strategy with the concept of framing. Had my guy, John Edwards, followed their advice and like Obama, gone lighter on the policies and heavier on the values, he might be where Obama is today. Dennis Kucinich would have won a primary or two. John Kerry might be president now. Al Gore would not have needed the Supreme Court in 2000."

    Pensito goes on to quote extensively from the "Lakoff and Rockridge Institute playbook." What is that playbook? None other than Rockridge's own Thinking Points.

    Now Rockridge does not work with or endorse Obama or any other candidate. And our "playbook" has been on bookstore shelves and on our website for more than a year. But isn't it great that a candidate who is intimately familiar with our work is so transparently demonstrating the strength of our thinking?

    This isn't just Obama's success or just an Institute success. The emphasis on progressive values as a context for action and ideas works because you and thousands of people like you are actively engaged.

    And without you, there can be no Rockridge Institute. Make your mark today and help us change the political discourse in the United States and abroad. Your recurring gift -- which will be doubled by an anonymous donor -- will let us know our community is with us.

    At a time when candidates are raising record sums, isn't it time to support the foundational thinking that is essential for progressive ascendance?

    Really fascinating. I wonder (none / 0) (#80)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 09:00:40 AM EST
    who the anonymous donor is?

    no clue (none / 0) (#118)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:19:45 PM EST
    Lakoff (none / 0) (#88)
    by wasabi on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 09:41:30 AM EST
    I read his book about the importance of Democrats in framing issues and to NOT using RW talking points, but Obama has excelled at just that.  
    Lakoff's support for Obama is curious.  

    its not about plagiarism? (none / 0) (#42)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:24:30 AM EST
    gee, then why did she make the charge?

    Its about the evil Axelrod conspiracy, marching out these robots off the assembly line!

    Wow, you really got a convincing argument there.


    You may not be convinced, but ... (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by cymro on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:00:53 AM EST
    ... I suspect that the Clinton campaign actually does know what they are doing. It does not really matter whether people call it plagiarism or Xerox'ing, there are plenty of voters who do not demand the degree of precision that you seem to desire but who will nevertheless get the point. And that's what matters.

    at this stage in the game... (none / 0) (#52)
    by jor on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:46:37 AM EST
    ... the argument that Mark Penn knows what he is doing is an utter joke.

    Who knows (none / 0) (#56)
    by diplomatic on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:59:09 AM EST
    Maybe Hillary Clinton is doing better than she would have if it wasn't for him.  Obama has had tremendous media hype and hardly no critical coverage and despite all that she has hung in there pretty well.

    Despite all that I still think she is at her best when she is just herself and doesn't do her corporate, focus-tested "solutions" talk.


    Penn (none / 0) (#117)
    by jor on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:13:57 PM EST
    Despite all that I still think she is at her best when she is just herself and doesn't do her corporate, focus-tested "solutions" talk.

    This seems to be what everyone thinks (I agree as well). Who do you think is pushing the corporate, focus-tested solutions on to her?


    Reports out there indicate... (none / 0) (#119)
    by diplomatic on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 12:29:21 AM EST
    that it was Mark Penn who wanted Hillary to be more aggressive and negative against Obama but she was being held back by other advisers.  He wanted her to fight.  I think the article I read appeared in the NYT though (credibility deficient lately)

    The Rove Tactic (none / 0) (#70)
    by myed2x on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:42:07 AM EST
    She made the charge simply to try the Rove tactic, when you're on the ropes attack their greatest strength, repeat it enough and it'll stick, unfortunately for HRC it didn't.

    Rove used lies (none / 0) (#89)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 09:43:17 AM EST
    Obama clearly is prepackaged candidate who follows a script.  In fact the first response to this thread reinforces it.

    And you use the term "plagiarism" because it's a story the MSM knows how to cover.  They can easily slot the facts into a template they've used before.

    It begins the discussion which you can then expand on.  Don't assume this strategy has failed yet.

    And the other leg of the stool to collapse is when you look at Deval Patrick's record in Massachusetts.  It's been scandal after scandal and his approval rating is plummeting.

    Finally the best evidence that I've grabbed onto something is the Obama supporters quick attempts to deny it.


    Did Obama lie to John King? (4.75 / 4) (#4)
    by texas hostage on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:37:05 AM EST
    In the debate, John King attempted to call Obama out on his hiding his earmarks. Obama told King he was wrong, that he had released "all of his earmarks" and that he would gladly get the info to King. Basically saying that King was an ill informed journalist, which some A list bloggers have reitierated. Well according to Lynn Sweet at the Chicago Times, it seems that Obama was being too cute by half.
    Thursday's Washington Post ran a front-page story about Clinton, Obama, McCain and their earmarks. The story noted that Obama "since last year" does disclose his earmark requests "but has not released those submitted to the [Appropriations] committee in 2005 and 2006."

    How much do you want to bet that some of those earmarks from '05 and '06 are to lobbyist clients who donated to him. Maybe even a Rezko related business or two? Do you think John King and his fiancee Dana Bash are going to call him out tomorrow?

    John King is right now (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:42:31 AM EST
    looking for the evidence for that story.

    Maybe Hillary should ask the question...


    Well Obama promised to get the info to John King (none / 0) (#12)
    by texas hostage on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:46:52 AM EST
    and I am confident that when Obama says something, it's not just words.

    let King do it (none / 0) (#68)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:36:42 AM EST
    He was pretty much humiliated on that point and looked unprepared.  As we have learned, reporters stick together.  I don't think Obama was gentle when he pointed out...well, what he wanted to point out.

    I think Clinton probably knew at the time when Obama was saying it that it was a half-truth, but she can't attack him openly because then she looks like the bad guy.

    It's just amazing.  McCain isn't going to mind being painted as a bulldog--it's what he is famous for, and he has already humiliated Obama once. He's probably bouncing on his toes for another chance.


    I've read HRC is the champ (none / 0) (#81)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 09:03:22 AM EST
    re earmarks for NY; so she was prudent to let that pass.

    I had the same reaction as you did. I bet the (none / 0) (#18)
    by LatinoVoter on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:09:40 AM EST
    press doesn't even bother to follow up on it. He lied in NH too when he said his Co-Chair was not a lobbyist and it turned out he was. I kept hoping Hillary would point out '05 & '06 for Mr. Transparency in Government. And like you I have the feeling his Rezko bodies are buried in those earmarks.

    Pleas, please God let the press look into it.


    hard to turn the issue around when the #'s are... (none / 0) (#51)
    by jor on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:44:39 AM EST
    350 million in earmarks to 90 million.

    The border and immigration... (4.75 / 4) (#7)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:39:34 AM EST
    I thought hillary handled that question exceptionally well...got a great response from the audience.

    Her opening was far superior to Obama's and she won handily the first half of the debate.

    A little rockier in the second half/last third for her but she also got the final word and was sent off with a standing ovation.

    I think Barack was startled that it was over...no wrap up and he looked pretty annoyed...at himself for missing the opportunity she took at the last question.

    On balance, she won on both style and substance.  She's a fighter...and it showed.

    Let's hope the Texans get it...if not, we're doomed.

    I viewed it differently. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by texas hostage on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:43:40 AM EST
    Eventhough her opening was far and away superior, I thought the first 45 minutes were a draw, mainly due to the fact that she wasnt allowed to respond. I thought she finished strong with healthcare and the closing was dynamite.

    I thought Hillary did very well (4.40 / 5) (#3)
    by splashy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:34:50 AM EST
    She was so patient with them allowing Obama go on and on. It seemed they cut her off several times.

    She was concise and to the point, and made sure her point about health care was made even though they cut her off.

    I loved the end, and hope that this will help her.

    By every measure (3.50 / 2) (#23)
    by 1jane on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:47:55 AM EST
    Clinton didn't go after Obama in this debate because she realized she is truely losing. She went soft to save the Democratic Party. It is finally over. Her gracious evening was the end for her. Every blog save this loyal blog says she lost tonight. Time to grow up and and support the next president of the US States. Time is up. Let's win back our country. So long Clintons. Time to fade away.. the next generation is ready and able to bring change to a country truely in pain.

    Speak for yourself. I'm in no pain (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by LatinoVoter on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:52:05 AM EST
    and I certainly don't think you or Obama could change any pain you think I may have. Get a grip.

    Heh (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:59:32 AM EST
    "Time to grow up."  More unity talk.

    I do note Ben Masel has (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:53:58 AM EST
    changed his signature block.  The handwriting is on the wall.

    Your Comment (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:04:08 AM EST
    Turns me off Obama in the General Election.

    I'll never support a Republican.

    But my support for Obama still needs to be earned.


    can I be honest (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by diplomatic on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:00:37 AM EST
    that was a very obnoxious comment.  It does nothing to convince people to embrace Obama, in my opinion.

    We all know there is still one more debate to go and nothing will be decided until at least March 4th.


    Hand me the pills, honey... (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Camorrista on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:27:54 AM EST
    Time to fade away.. the next generation is ready and able to bring change to a country truely in pain.

    As one of those doddering oldsters who spent time in Vietnam and got jailed for protesting it, and who took part in the Mississippi Summer Project, and who worked first for Gene McCarthy and then for Robert Kennedy, let me reach around my oxygen tent to type some words of welcome for the Next Generation.

    First, I won't bore you with anecdotes illustrating how much mind- and body-numbing labor is necessary to force even the tiniest change in the system.

    Second, I'll try not imply that a generation which (a) wasn't subject to conscription, (b) seems to regard student debt as an unfair inconvenience, (c) believes copyrighted music, books and movies can be stolen at will, (d) wants to eliminate Social Security because it resents paying for its grandparents, and (e) thinks that catastrophe will strike if a cellphone can't play music or take pictures might not be the most dependable group of people to perform that never-ending labor.

    If inspiring speeches were enough, if rallies were enough, if concerts were enough, if music videos were enough, if chain letters were enough, there'd be no famine in Africa, the rain forest would be intact, nuclear weapons would be rust, and Bono would be president of the galaxy.

    I don't know what the next generation is capable of--maybe miracles--but until it has helped stop a war and helped bring the vote to the disenfranchised (and helped women to control their own bodies) a bit less arrogance wouldn't hurt.

    My generation was arrogant too--'never trust anyone over 30'--which is why we screwed up as often as we succeeded.  But we were never so arrogant to think we didn't have to do the work; we were never lazy; we were never so smug to assume that if we just announced how wonderful we were, things would turn out fine.


    Wow!! As an activist for many years (none / 0) (#120)
    by hairspray on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 01:46:49 AM EST
    who has spent the better part of 30 years, working for change, I can tell you that it isn't easy, as you say. In addition, I recall how students fought hard to end the Vietnam war, and this group "hardly thinks about it" from a recent quote in a NYT piece in the last year. This Obama stuff is about cell phones, rock star and excitement and that worries me. Not that I don't think Obama is a decent and dedicated person, just not ready for the mess ahead.

    Says you! (none / 0) (#65)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:24:29 AM EST
    Really? (none / 0) (#103)
    by americanincanada on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:34:09 AM EST
    I have seen many blogs who have differing opinions to that one.

    Local report in Houston (this paper is pro-Obama) (none / 0) (#1)
    by Baal on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:22:24 AM EST
    Few sparks fly in Austin at Democratic debate

    Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau

    AUSTIN -- The Democratic presidential debate between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama offered few surprises Thursday as they tangled over universal health care and who would be best able to serve as president on the first day in office.

    Clinton tried to portray Obama as a candidate lacking in experience to handle the office, but he described her as a candidate embedded in a type of politics that has resulted in gridlock in Washington.

    Though the debate in Texas was ahead of the March 4 primary, there were very few issues discussed that were Texas-specific. But that did not stop either from invoking the name of former U.S. Rep. Barbara Jordan as an inspiration or from drawing on Texans they have met as examples of the need for health care or to end the war in Iraq.

    The Houston Chronicle is a conservative rag. (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by texas hostage on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:40:20 AM EST
    They have a columnist who ran a story last week blaming the housing bust/sub prime mortgage mess on Osama Bin Laden.

    funny (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Nasarius on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:56:42 AM EST
    Sounds like it was written before the debate even happened.
    Clinton tried to portray Obama as a candidate lacking in experience to handle the office, but he described her as a candidate embedded in a type of politics that has resulted in gridlock in Washington.
    I'm pretty sure neither of those claims were explicitly made, or if they were, it was a very small part of the debate.

    Also, no Texas-specific issues? Did they miss the numerous immigration questions?

    Fine performance for Clinton, but (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:42:13 AM EST
    it's already October, Primary season's over.

    Get a new calendar, kiddo... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:53:24 AM EST
    What do you say we actually let people vote and run out the clock?  And hey...let's even count those votes before we pop the champagne corks, hmm?

    Inevitability...hmmm.  Not an original idea...and not a good one, either.

    Let's all keep in mind that whatever delegates are won or claimed in these caucuses and primaries, nothing is final until those votes are cast at a convention...months and months away.

    If Obama is the presumptive nominee after PA, I hope he can stand up to the McCain/R wurlitzer and last til the convention...not to mention the media's likely attention to the Rezko trial which will be ongoing.


    oldpro (none / 0) (#72)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:52:12 AM EST
    Are you envisioning a scenario where there is a stalemate between the two going into the convention, and in the ensuing time between the last primary election, there might be some kind of gaffe or scandal that swings the convention the other way?

    Yes. (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:38:26 AM EST
    That is a possibility along with buyers' remorse.  It's already setting in with some people.

    Anyway...it ain't over 'til it's over and the fat lady sings...and she's not even in her dressing room yet.


    Ben has a new candidate, apparently (none / 0) (#82)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 09:05:46 AM EST
    Gravel's not the nominee. Neither is Clinton. (none / 0) (#101)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:26:38 AM EST
    Some, apparently, are having a harder time than I adjusting.

    You surprised me. WI (none / 0) (#102)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:29:57 AM EST
    turned the tide for you.

    irrational exuberance (none / 0) (#58)
    by diplomatic on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:02:28 AM EST
    that's pretty much the definition of it.

    Obama should get a bounce (none / 0) (#17)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:03:55 AM EST
    I thought her opening was much better than his, but that he did better through most of the substantive questions. OF course, it is hard to filter out the factor of who you agree with to begin with when trying to evaluate overall performance (and I do think many here have that problem), but I found his answers everybit as substantive as hers, and he did a better job putting the details into context. I found him to have a very presidential attitude. I think she did very well in this regard, but he got that attitude and the substance just right.

    She really blew the CiC question - supposedly a major theme of hers these days. They even directly asked her to explain how she would be a better CiC than him, and she ended up giving a long answer that never even touched on any issue having to do with the CiC duy - ie commanding the military. I found that stunning. His answer was on point and substantive.

    I really got angry at her mindless Xerox comment - I still shake my head at the sight of all these Clinton supporters, who want us all to believe what a substantive person she is, supporting her use of this. Silly indeed. And dumb to boot, given all the hypocrisy charges that will grow out of it.

    The closing was fine from her, but it really did strike me as almost concessionary.

    His mission was to demonstrate substance, and he did that in a big way - even handling the "delusional followers" question just right. If there were people who went in attracted to this guy, liking him, but having reservations about whether he could really do the job, I imagine they were well satisfied.

    She did perfectly fine herself, except for the plagiarism stuff, but not quite as well as him. But she really needed to either knock him down, or put herself on a much higher level than him, in order to change the mo, and that she did not do.

    Halperin had it for Obama B+ to B. Maybe A- to B+ in my book.

    What Hypocrisy? (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:26:12 AM EST
    Obama repeated a speach given by someone else verbatim.

    At the very least other politicians will talk about the same themes, ideas, even convey the same meanings of words without resorting to repeating the actual words..... in cadence,.... in order.


    that is absurd (none / 0) (#22)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:37:26 AM EST
    he did not repeat a speech verbatim. He used, for a short time, a riff on a certain subject. Hillary, even tonite, used whole sentences from Bill's speeches, and lines from Edwards. And there is nothing wrong with that.

    Where do you get this nonsense from? This is not a term paper. These are speeches in which you try to make a point. What percentage of the points that any politician makes are original with them, i.e. that they dreamed up the idea themselves.

    Deval Patrick is a co-chair of his committe and a good friend and gave him the line. His speechwrites, and Hillary's speechwriters are parts of their campaign and feed the candidate lines. Is that plagiarism, if the writer is not credited? This is a complete joke, and Hillary is making a laughingstock of herself by pushing it.


    I Have to Try to be respectful (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:09:42 AM EST
    But you do understand why using the same chords as another song is not considered copying and why using the same chords AND melody is?

    I expect the likes of Keith Olberman and many in the MSM will support your position though.

    Here is Case study 1:

    Candidate A:  I think we should tax the rich.

    Candidate B:  I think we should tax the rich.


    Here is case study 2:

    Candidate A:  "I am not asking anybody to take a chance on me. I'm asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations."

    Candidate B:  I'm not just asking you to take a chance on me. I'm also asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations."

    I have no doubt that Obama supporters will refuse to see any difference at all between case study 1 and 2.

    You expressed some negative feelings about Clinton supporters above.

    I would like to express some as well about Obama supporters within the context of the point I just made with the two case studies above.

    Do you know what chords are?

    Do you know what melody is?

    Did you know a judge isn't going to let them sue you if you use the same chords?

    Did you know a judage has to let them sue you if you use the same chords AND melody?


    The same melody? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:18:16 AM EST
    You mean they are both young black guys with similar speech patterns? Or are you just referring to the length of the sentences?

    And the same chords?

    How about these?

    "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."

    One is Hillary, tonite. The other is Joe Klein in Primary Colors. Thats copywrited.


    It's just painful (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:38:22 AM EST
    Talking to you people.

    You know. Obama himself admits he took the line from his buddy Patrick, but says it's OK cause they're friends.

    You seem to be saying he didn't take the line.

    That it was just "similiar speech patterns."

    But you know.  I can't interact with you people.

    It's just impossible.  I have to stop.  

    This is just too depressing.  I can't respect it.

    From your point of view, Biden never plagiarized that brit all those years ago.  


    What? Where do you get that? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:47:21 AM EST
    Where did I say he didnt take the line?

    How much more clear need I be? He got the line from his friend. Who is denying that?

    What on earth are you talking about.


    That is a really poor deflection (none / 0) (#91)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:02:04 AM EST
    Tano did not, in any way, suggest that Obama did not take the line from Patrick.  You are creating your own argument in order to avoid the fact that Hillary Clinton did the EXACT SAME THING last night.

    Perhaps the reason you can't interact with "us people" is because you are unwilling to challenge your personal narratives.

    Don't worry though.  Your "how can I possibly reason with these people" schtick will resonate with a certain segment of this crowd.  They'll latch on to it and help you evade dealing with basic reality.


    and of course you do ignore (none / 0) (#29)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:24:23 AM EST
    the fact that is ain't plagiarism if the original author gives you the lines and urges you to use them.
    You do understand that, right?

    The Point Is (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:39:03 AM EST
    The words are supposed to be Obama's.  Not someone else's.

    Given to him or not.


    Pffft (none / 0) (#33)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:44:11 AM EST
    from a speechwrite would be ok, but not from his co-chair. Is that the rule?

    You have no idea (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:50:01 AM EST
    How many times Obama folks told me with straight faces that Obama writes every word in all his speeches.

    I told them they were wrong.

    I guess I was right.


    there ya go (none / 0) (#36)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:51:06 AM EST
    Yes. When you told them that, you were right.

    Just Checking (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:54:22 AM EST
    Is it possible that you might also see that while Clinton will take the same thought expressed by others and put them in her own words, that's different than taking the same words and repeating them?

    sure (none / 0) (#38)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:59:12 AM EST
    given it was copywrited lines, that was smart of her. Given that his speechwriter (oops, co-chair) gave him effective lines, he would have been dumb to change them.

    I sincerely can't believe we are having this conversation.


    Obama (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:01:05 AM EST
    Could have expressed the same thought expressed by Patrick....

    in his own words.


    misses the point entirely (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by frankly0 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:24:09 AM EST
    Look, the lines in Primary Colors are in any case themselves derived from lines Bill Clinton used, so the ultimate origin is Bill Clinton -- Hillary's husband, in case you forgot.

    And what you can't seem to get through your skull is that there really is a difference between copying a portion of a sentence, and copying an entire passage.

    Is this distinction just too hard for you to grasp? Can you show us some sign that you get the distinction?

    And it also doesn't matter if Deval Patrick gave Obama "permission". The fact is that because Patrick had himself already used those very words, Obama was absolutely obliged to tell his audience that he was using the words of someone else; it's the audience who is being defrauded when a speaker like Obama acts as if the material he copied from someone else is his own. It no more matters that Obama had "permission" to use the material than it matters, when a student copies from another student's paper, and turns that paper in as his own, that the other student gave him "permission".

    And it's one thing to compose, as a speechwriter, material that is used by a politician, so long as that material has never before been used publicly. But once that material is used publicly, it must be properly attributed. Everybody knows that that's how it works. Even if Kennedy didn't himself compose the words "Ask not...etc.", they are effectively owned by him forever after he has uttered them. They can't be passed off by someone as their own words, no matter what; it's defrauding your audience to pretend that they are yours after that.


    Please explain (none / 0) (#93)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:05:00 AM EST
    And what you can't seem to get through your skull is that there really is a difference between copying a portion of a sentence, and copying an entire passage.

    Can you tell me what the substantive difference is between lifting a passage and lifting a sentence is?  Just trying to get a clear understanding of this new definition of plagiarism is.


    as I said, (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by frankly0 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:24:10 AM EST
    a portion of a sentence.

    Really, are you going to make the claim that, from your point of view, whether you copy a portion of a sentence or copy, say, an entire speech, it's all one and the same? Why then was it that Biden was once upon a time forced out of the running for Democratic nominee for plagiarizing a portion of a speech from someone else? Since politicians (and others) frequently copy small bits of language -- including portions of a sentence -- all the time, why, if they are the same offense as Biden's, are they not run out of politics as well?

    Look, there just are differences here. The degree to which you copy is a definite index to whether your offense is non-existent, small, large, or fatal. There's this thing called proportionality. Try to understand it.

    I wouldn't call Obama's offense fatal, as was Biden's. But it was most definitely large. And yet he pretends that it was no offense at all.


    Misquoting (none / 0) (#98)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:14:05 AM EST
    poster, who said a portion of a sentence.

    Can't believe it either, since (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:16:07 AM EST
    it has been clearly stated, again and again, that permission is not relevant in the definition of plagiarism.  Permission is relevant in copyright law -- but still requires attribution to the source.

    I am having trouble with this copyright (none / 0) (#122)
    by hairspray on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 01:59:01 AM EST
    argument. There are thousands of words in thousands of books.  We repeat all of the words from  books in one form or another every day. If someone uses a similar combination of words,  common in the English language, to illustrate a point, that is called copyright infringement?

    Ok, but does that mean he is authentic? (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:53:11 AM EST
    If he has speechwriters, if he copies from friends where is his voice?  If Lakoff and all the others helped him frame everything he ays, if Axelrod is his media voice, where is his voice, or more, what is he?

    Bottom, line he is not authentic.  


    oh gimme a break (none / 0) (#47)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:13:31 AM EST
    why do you bother with this stuff?
    Every politician has spokespeople, speechwriters etc. Is Hillary inauthentic?
    Is she just a vehicle for Wolfson's ideas?

    I think you know perfectly well what a reputation for scriptedness and inauthenticity Hillary has, and you just want to play the same game that has become so popular with you folks. She may be bad, but he is the same - so its actually worse because you might have thought he was better.

    When are you going to catch on that this stuff ain't convincing anyone? You want to ride this stuff until the bitter end? Try to make a positive case for your candidate, and if it doesn't convince enough people, then accept that gracefully.


    Simple (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:43:59 AM EST
    He is inauthentic and overscripted.  Hillary is not.  It's not over. So if he wins we will not be permitted by the Obama police to ever voice criticism.  Just don't feel compelled to read if you think it's not valid and certainly don't respond.  Bush did not shut me up and neither will Obama or you.  

    gee Stellaaa (none / 0) (#55)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:58:58 AM EST
    I just asked you why you say the things you do, and offered you a more constructive strategy.

    It was you who just told me not to respond, ie. to shut up.


    "constructive strategy"? (none / 0) (#59)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:39:12 AM EST
    I say what I say...you say what you say.  If you do not like it...move on.  

    You're morphing into BTD! (none / 0) (#110)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:50:48 AM EST
    So it isn't plagiarism (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by frankly0 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:08:05 AM EST
    if a student copies from another student's paper and pretends it's his own, so long as the other student "gives him permission"?

    You do understand that's what you're saying, right?


    actually (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:23:26 AM EST
    I think that's called cheating.

    hmmm (none / 0) (#71)
    by myed2x on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:51:20 AM EST
    I remember specifically from uni particularly all those bloody poli sci essays to use your OWN ideas as well, reformatting concepts and using different words was unacceptable and tantamount to cheating/plagiarizing....you say tomato I say...

    How many times does it take (none / 0) (#113)
    by echinopsia on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:10:31 PM EST
    before you understand? In plagiarism it isn't permission that matters. It's attribution.

    the fact that is ain't plagiarism if the original author gives you the lines and urges you to use them.
    You do understand that, right?

    get current talking points... (none / 0) (#53)
    by jor on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:48:12 AM EST
    ... after being booed about the xerox line, this whole plagarism argument is going to die. We aren't going to hear about it again. I'll put $$ on it if you want. :P

    You really think that you won't hear (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by frankly0 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:05:55 AM EST
    about plagiarism again?

    I'm sorry, but if Obama wins the nomination, do you really imagine that the Republicans will not bring this up?

    Yes, you can make sure that The Protected One suffers no real attacks from a fellow Democrat by booing and hissing every time something critical comes his way, but do you really believe that's going to deter Republicans?

    Come the general, the Republicans are going to tear his wings off.


    am I the only one (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:59:50 AM EST
    who thinks that the booing by Obama supporters is juvenile and rude?  I would feel the same way if it came from the Clinton camp.  Extremely disrespectful and uncalled for.  It started in SC.  Can you imagine what would happen if Clinton folks booed Obama?  There would be outrage.

    You know that really struck me... (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by frankly0 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:09:05 AM EST
    All the commentators after the debate remarked on how Hillary was booed by the audience after she made her remark.

    What not one of them observed was the obvious fact that it was surely the Obama supporters who did this. It's as if they were all pretending that the entire audience was composed of neutral observers.


    twenty folks booing (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:19:13 PM EST
    apparently beats five hundred folks rushing to their feet to cheer her on.

    well this morning on the radio in texas (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by demschmem on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:51:13 AM EST
    during the short news break, the one takeaway line from the debate was the 'xerox'.  presented in a straight, perky sort of way.  as much as i cringed last night at the awkward rehearsed sound of it, it played great this morning.

    From Austin... (none / 0) (#20)
    by sumac on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:21:46 AM EST
    It was my best friend's 40th birthday today, so I had to record the debate (and then because it ran long had to search for YouTube videos of Hillary's final remarks that were getting so much buzz). I digress.

    Overall, I thought she had the best performance. She definitely had the best opening and closing speeches. And she is clearly knowledgeable about the issues. I didn't mind the Xerox comment, and from what I am reading here, it may have more benefits than drawbacks. She could have been stronger when talking about Iraq. She let Barack define her position and she should have clarified it as well as his non-vote.

    In fairness to Obama, I thought he performed well, much stronger than in the past, despite his cold, and the audience really seemed to like him. He needs to embrace brevity in some cases...

    Anyway, if I can say anything encouraging about the debate (and not a specific debater) is that because I was downtown tonight, I was able to see in bar after bar and restaurant after restaurant, packed houses of patrons tuned into the debate. So there was great interest, maybe not enough to keep people away from their favorite watering holes, but enough to keep them tuned in.

    Oh and in a side note/anecdote, I have already voiced my frustration about our open primary/caucus system here in TX, but I heard a new one. At the dinner table, my friend's 68-yr-old mother slapped the table and declared "I voted for Hillary!" I was ready to respond how great that was when she continued...

    Friend's Mom: Do you know why?
    Me (thought, not said): No, I have never met you before
    Friend's Mom: 'Cause I HATE Hillary!!!

    As confusing as I find this logic, I sure hope my friend's mother has suggested this strategy amongst all of her friends, the members of her church, the Junior League...

    Crossover voters. (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:58:11 AM EST
    Similar startling event at the workout center my next door neighbor attends.  A local Republican confided to him that he'd voted in the R primary because it counted and then attended the Democratic caucus to vote for Obama because 'he'll be the easiest for us to beat.'  He allowed as how other local Rs had agreed to do the same.

    Hard to say how widespead this sort of thing is but it happens every election.


    To answer Jeralyn's question (none / 0) (#27)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:12:27 AM EST
    I thought Bill has already sent the signal that if she doesn't win both it will be over. And basic math and common sense would seem to make that certain. Her closing certainly seemed to me to signal that she was positioning herself in case that eventuality arose.

    I think they both did well... (none / 0) (#30)
    by Meurs on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:33:48 AM EST
    Thought Hillary bumbled with the Xerox line. It was rehearsed and canned and undermined the whole thrust of her point. Not sure if her "honored to be with Barack" line was a way to backtrack on that or if it was planned outright.

    Her ending was superb, as many have noted. The post-debate plagiarism rebuttal from the Obama campaign was ill-advised.  No need to keep the stupid thing going, unless the idea was to reduce it all to a muddled silliness. It came across as Ye Politics of Olde that his campaign was supposedly above.  The one niggling feeling you get from Hill's "home run" finish, though, was the fact that the wounded soldiers she referenced got their injuries in Iraq...

    In retrospect, I think she would've benefited more from a purely positive approach that would tap into the "buyer's remorse" phenomenon.  Her refrain could've been "and that's what I'm offering to the voters."

    She did not say ... (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by cymro on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:52:52 AM EST
     that she was "honored to be with Barack" as you claim, what she said was "I am honored to be here with Barack Obama".

    There's an important difference in emphasis, which undermines your argument, and shows that this was nothing to do with "backtracking".

    Earlier in the same answer, she spoke of having been honored to be invited to the veterans center in San Antonio with McCain as one of the only two elected representatives to be so invited. The later statement was a reprise of the earlier logical construction and phrasing. That is, she was honored to be one of the final two Democratic candidates for the Presidency. It's pretty clear when you read (or listen to) the full answer.

    It was a very cleverly constructed answer, especially if it was impromptu.


    oxymoron (none / 0) (#74)
    by myed2x on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:54:52 AM EST
    "It was a very cleverly constructed answer, especially if it was impromptu. "

    wow, constructed and impromptu, was unaware that was possible.


    Not really (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by echinopsia on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:20:03 PM EST
    Excellent debaters - which Hillary certainly is - can construct an impromptu response in a matter of seconds.

    It's called being able to think on your feet - even when you're sitting down.

    Not impossible - just very impressive.


    Meanwhile, Obama got great press (none / 0) (#83)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 09:15:01 AM EST
    for visiting football complex in TX, receiving game jerseys for himself and his kids and some honcho noting how very important football is to Texans.  

    Obama's initial answer on health care... (none / 0) (#46)
    by cygnus on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:01:54 AM EST
    was one of the worst I have ever heard anyone give on anything.  She had him so rattled by her Xerox comment that he couldn't think straight.  Of course, it doesn't help him that his plan is so weak it takes him five minutes to explain how it covers everybody.  She needs to hammer him on this 24/7.

    I think (none / 0) (#84)
    by Claw on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 09:22:12 AM EST
    Obama (sadly) won the healthcare debate by hammering home the meme that people will be FORCED to buy, that the government will TAKE YOUR WAGES, that people who don't get healthcare WILL BE SUBJECT TO HUGE FINES!!!!
    Texans don't like to be forced to do anything...and I think the taking wages line is very savvy.  

    Yeah (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 09:36:57 AM EST
    We can change the country, we can reinvent the government, we can bring about an entirely different kind of politics, but we can't possibly persuade people to accept health insurance being paid for out of their paychecks.  That's the Obama message on health care.  "No we can't."

    Just so we're clear (none / 0) (#106)
    by Claw on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:57:15 AM EST
    I wrote in all caps to emphasize that these were kind of fear-mongering talking points.  I also think they'll work very well.  We're agreeing, right?
    And anyone who thinks that Obama will somehow revolutionize politics is nuts...just as nuts as someone who thinks that his healthcare plan won't be miles better than Mac's.

    We are clear (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:51:39 PM EST
    And I want to be clear that there is no liberal initiative worth fighting for that will not be a potential target for Republican fearmongering and demagoguery.  If it weren't so, we'd have gotten those things passed already.

    The question is whether Obama will fight for things that might be politically tough, or whether he'll take the easy route of conciliation and compromise.  His health care plan is not promising on this score: no one will be forced to do anything they don't want to do, but everything will magically get much cheaper!  Gosh, no wonder it's an easier sale than Hillary's plan, since it promises everyone something for nothing.

    My point is to ridicule Obama's rhetoric which suggests that we can build a coalition to do all these amazing things, but when it comes to actually persuading people on a real issue, suddenly we're totally helpless and have to accept that the public will never buy our position.  "No we can't."


    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 01:58:32 AM EST
    The question is whether Obama will fight for things that might be politically tough, or whether he'll take the easy route of conciliation and compromise.  His

    You fear it on health care. I fear it on criminal justice issues and on judges. He's a compromiser. And he's too new to have the clout to get a progressive agenda through Congress.


    And I fear it on Nuclear Power (none / 0) (#123)
    by hairspray on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:11:11 AM EST
    Spinorific (none / 0) (#73)
    by dutchfox on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:54:00 AM EST
    Little O/T (none / 0) (#107)
    by Claw on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:01:29 AM EST
    There's been a lot of research done showing that most people vote with their hearts (one reason I think Obama is more electable).  I also don't buy for a second that HC will scrub anything clean.  I don't think Obama will either.