More Debates Coming

There will be yet another presidential debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton -- in Pennsylvania before the primary.

There may even be one more, in North Carolina. Obama has agreed and Hillary has not yet responded.

< Obama's 2006 Earmarks | The Justice Dept. IG's Report in Simple English >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    the more the better (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Turkana on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:29:47 PM EST
    and i hope more like the l.a. debate. and i hope sitting next to each other more often elevates both of them from the negativity in which they've both recently been mired.

    Not me. I want them standing apart, and (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:43:04 PM EST
    I want to see Obama turn purple because he can't handle Hillary's attacks, and sputter helplessly into the camera.

    Hillary does't attack with grace (none / 0) (#12)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:46:21 PM EST
    Its like watching an execution...I think she does better in the lovefest debates personally (she "wins" both btw) because she is more approachable and down to earth....

    Oh she's pretty good when she's not (none / 0) (#13)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:47:35 PM EST
    using someone else's stupid one-liners.

    Maybe so (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:52:35 PM EST
    but I just don't think she does them with subtlety...her attacks make a big messy blood bath, when she'd get the same result if she stuck the knife in an twisted...in fact, so long as Obama understands he's getting "stuck" he'll make himself look worse by overreacting or lashing out and looking like the aggressor...its really simply a battle of appearances...be the assassin not the barbarian...(sounds like a 1980s business motivation book title, I know...I am deeply deeply sorry)

    I think her attacks on health care really drew (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:55:39 PM EST
    blood, in at least two debates. Also, she made Obama furious when she mentioned the lobbyist on his team.

    I disagree (none / 0) (#26)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:09:18 PM EST
    While many of us understand and see the contrasts, I think Obama succeeded in muddying the waters more on  health care, and Hillary never corrected him on his continued statements alluding that his plan is "universal"...Obama was let off the hook by HRC and the moderators, and he just obfuscated the issue...albeit for 16 minutes

    I think the problem with the attacks (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:55:59 PM EST
    is she always pulls back at the last minute.  Whether this is because he's a dem, or because she mentored him at one point, or because she knows how it will be spun the next day (most likely) so that she looks like a "monster"--who knows?

    I really get the sense from watching her that she is very aware that the super d's are out there somewhere judging.  Heck, everybody is judging.  I just do not see how in the heck she does it.  I would be opening up a can of whoop*ss all over the man.

    It seems from past performances that what she does is plants seeds, or gets him to admit things, that she can later spin into a thoughtful narrative.  Pinning him down on not calling any committee meetings was brilliant, and he walked right into it.


    Right and under a slightly more favorable (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:13:46 PM EST
    media situation, her "green thumb" plan might take root for her...but it just hasn't...

    She needs to drop the hammer with a quiet force...

    Of course, I think there is definately a level of sexism in this requirement...I am not blind to that by any means...but the game is the game...men don't like to watch women play blood-sports...and men REALLY don't like it when the woman they are watching (remember they don't WANT to watch this woman) is better than they are at it...so what do men do? we tear them down, we add asterisks...we make poop up...we handicap her opponent, we stand firm behind our male competitor...etc...its sexism...


    You are right (none / 0) (#31)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:16:47 PM EST
    I just cannot see what she can lose by dropping the hammer.  They said before one debate that she needed to show her soft side, and then they said she didn't show soft enough.  Then, they said she needed to attack, and then that she didn't attack hard enough.

    It's no win.  She might as well give the ladies glued to their sets, rooting her on, something to cheer about, right?


    Right (none / 0) (#35)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:21:16 PM EST
    I'm with you (except for the being a lady part, I was not so endowed...I am, how shall I put it, one X too few, and one Y to many)

    woops-sorry! (none / 0) (#54)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:25:05 PM EST
    Goes both ways (none / 0) (#99)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:10:24 AM EST
    By the same token Obama can't really attack hr head on or it looks like a Black guy attacking a white woman, heck even without the racial subtext it destroyed Lazio when he went after her.

    Oh but he has (none / 0) (#112)
    by Virginian on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:43:32 AM EST
    "when Hillary is feeling a little down"

    You're sweeping under the rug...if a surrogate or an idiot on the campaign staff or a supporters said it...I'd give Obama a pass...but he said those things...


    One-liners make excellent ... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:32:08 PM EST
    mnemonics.  I bet you can quote verbatim almost everyone of them.  And with that memory comes the issue raised.

    Even someone ridiculing the joke, gets the issue out again.

    Since the "change you can xerox line," people aren't arguing that Obama is the change candidate much anymore.  


    Not true (none / 0) (#113)
    by Virginian on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:44:29 AM EST
    Game show (none / 0) (#71)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:23:10 PM EST
    format.  They stand with barriers and have to write down their answers... and the question is?

    Obama and Clinton (none / 0) (#74)
    by 1jane on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:27:02 PM EST
    Obama welcomes debates because he is the clear front runner. The FL and Michigan deals are stalled. Clinton has to come out hitting him with all she's got. The blow back is she may be seen as too negative again. In the Dem Headquarters where I work more and more volunteers are moving over to Obama. That started when the Clinton campaign floated the bonehead idea of suggesting Obama be her VP. David Broader wrote in his column today that serving as VP with both Clintons would be cruel and unusual punishment.

    Brong on the debates. All Obama has to say is, "There you go again."


    Which Dem HQ's volunteers have moved to Obama? (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:54:08 PM EST
    In the Dem Headquarters where I work more and more volunteers are moving over to Obama.

    Where is it, what's it set up for and what reasons are the volunteers giving? (I'd be curious to hear their reasons why.)

    If they're not already sommenting somewhere, they should post post a diary at KOS -- less mojo req'd to write one -- and you can direct people there. (I still browse it occasionally for front pagers I still like, but am not a regular visitor anymore.)


    So when he refused to do debates before (none / 0) (#81)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:58:18 PM EST
    he was not the frontrunner?  He said he was.

    And see, that's the way it's done, 1jane -- the frontrunner does NOT do debates.  And especially not when the opponent is good at them.

    I read from this that Obama is worried about some upcoming primaries.  Probably because they are primaries and not caucuses anymore.


    In the last debate (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:23:54 PM EST
    Obama claimed he was "in the midst of" a "high stakes" U.S. Senate race when he gave his speech in 2003 when he didn't declare until January 2003.

    So, I welcome more debates.

    his speech in 2003 -> his speech in 2002 (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:24:47 PM EST
    Preview is my friend...

    That is pretty much what all of his (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:34:22 PM EST
    supporters say, btw.
    I don't know why they get away with it.

    Worse, the lie is right on his website (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:41:16 PM EST
    The ones that his supporters keep telling us to look at. You know, whenever we want detail.

    He knew he was going to run (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Korha on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:14:04 PM EST
    It's essentially equivalent to Hillary Clinton thinking ahead to her future presidential run when she voted for the Iraq War Resolution, even though she didn't technically declare until January 2007. At least in this case the lead time was only a few months.

    By the way, the Clinton people are also trying to have it both ways. They want to claim that Obama's speech was political (i.e. it was positioning to get liberal votes for the upcoming Senate race) but also want to claim, as you do, that it had nothing to do with the upcoming Senate race. Either the speech was political or it was not. I think it was.


    Every speech (none / 0) (#53)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:24:43 PM EST
    every politician makes is with an eye on politics. Clinton does it, too.  

    Obama knew what he was setting himself up for.  He also knew that he was preaching to the choir.  His district was firmly anti-war at the time.  The only risk he took was wearing the wrong tie.


    Right (none / 0) (#64)
    by Korha on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:12:12 PM EST
    I'm saying it was political. If Obama had not made that speech, he may not have been able to win the 2003 senate primary. And, of course, it has paid off very handsomely in this presidential primary.

    What's really interesting to me is Clinton's equivalent political calculation on Iraq, which she completely screwed up. If Clinton had voted against the AUMF, there is basically no question that she would have easily cruised to the democratic nomination. I think she really thought the Iraq War would have worked and would have been a success, at least politically. It was a gross political misjudgment.


    I disagree in that I don't think the Iraq vote (none / 0) (#69)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:18:55 PM EST
    was solely a political calculation, though I'm sure it always plays a part.  I've come to believe what she says in that she thinks it was the right thing to do in giving the president authority.  I don't think she really thought Bush would use it like he did, which puts her in with the majority.

    The classic tension between politics and idealogy (none / 0) (#73)
    by Korha on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:26:38 PM EST
    Of course often political calculations align with genuine ideology as well. In this case I think Clinton thought it was both politically smart AND also the substantively right thing to do. Unfortunately, she miscalculated on both counts.

    Obama's opposition to the Iraq War Resolution is sort of the opposite scenario. He thought it was politically smart AND also the substantively right thing to do. On both those counts, he calculated correctly.  


    Well, no. He didn't campaign on the speech. (none / 0) (#82)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:00:31 PM EST
    He practically disavowed it in 2003.
    He gave an anti-war speech once, in 2002, to a friendly audience. BFD.

    No (none / 0) (#98)
    by Korha on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:06:54 AM EST
    I definitely think the case could be made that Obama would not have won the senate primary if he had not opposed the war in Iraq, since he was the only candidate in that race to do so. He got a lot of mileage from that speech.

    Bottom line though is that Clinton screwed up on Iraq substantively and politically. For whatever reason, Obama did not.


    Sure (none / 0) (#100)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:13:09 AM EST
    Right, she thought that, Kerry thought that, Edwards thought that, funny how none of the 22 Dem. who voted against it never declared for President, huh go figure.

    But if Clinton is so calculating (none / 0) (#106)
    by Manuel on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:22:13 AM EST
    why didn't she repudiate her AUMF vote long ago as Edwards did?  It has been obvious for a long time that this was the politically smart thing to do.  It is possible it could be arrogance.  I give her credit for sticking by her vote which was not unreasonable despite the current revisionism.

    Hillary should decline (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:32:55 PM EST
    the NBC debate until the network apologizes for Olbermann's smear attack -- oh and fires Olbermann.

    No is right (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by dissenter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:37:24 PM EST
    I wouldn't reward that network for anything and it isn't like a "NO" is going to make their coverage of her any worse. I don't think you can get below the gutter.

    I'm ready for his (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by white n az on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:31:17 PM EST
    'Special Comment' about Jeremiah Wright

    Keith Obamann will never use a single standard (none / 0) (#86)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:14:08 PM EST
    He was getting into Lou Dobbs' country for barking madness, but I still have hope KO's not totally lost to the world of reason.

    He eventually did expand his obsession with staggering high, incoherent 20-something blondes to include Chris Matthews. (Older! Blonder! Dumber, and with way bigger tata's!)


    Jeremiah Wright (none / 0) (#107)
    by facta non verba on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:46:05 AM EST
    is all over the airwaves. Lead story on Morning Joe and Fox News. Joe Scarborough doesn't know how Obama can survive this. I have held that if Obama were to be the nominee it wouldn't be a swiftboat this year but rather a swiftchurch. I just can't see how Obama survives this. And he is blaming the Clinton camp for unearthing the videos when they are available for sale. I think he is done. But I've been wrong before.

    Agreed (none / 0) (#75)
    by Oje on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:28:16 PM EST
    She cannot very well appear on a network that is categorically on record accusing her campaign as exhibiting a "pattern" of racist codes. It is just not acceptable discourse by a major media outlet. It  may suit a daily blogger who begins and ends each day with tantrum about Clinton losing, but the air and cable networks must maintain a standard of civil public discourse.

    But... (none / 0) (#84)
    by Oje on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:01:29 PM EST
    What NBC debate? I only see ABC and CBS...

    I only want a debate (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by sara seattle on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:49:24 PM EST
    if they can ask each other questions

    I do not want any moderators

    Just let them have at each other - get the questions asked they want -- and continue asking the same damn question until they are satisfied with the answer!!

    So - people - what do you say??

    Good idea (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Korha on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:13:42 PM EST
    That's a debate I would watch.

    Not only would I watch (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:09:56 PM EST
    I'd pay good money darnit! Pay per view! Give dollars to get rid of the self important moderators! :)

    Please yes. no moderator (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:15:51 PM EST
    ask each other questions and get to it.  otherwise, i've really got debate fatigue.

    I'm all for it! (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:16:37 PM EST
    It's the only way to guarantee that Sen. Clinton doesn't always have to answer first followed by the Obama "me-too".

    I also think each should be GUARANTEED an equal amount of time, with an actual bar graph at the bottom of the screen, updated at regular intervals.

    Otherwise, no more debates.  I really can't stand to watch those folks hand Obama a pillow and Hillary a bed of nails.


    absolutely. (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:01:28 PM EST
    Can you imagine it? Clinton would ask a question, and then Obama would say "I'll ask Hillary the same question", over and over.

    Unless it was on ethics (none / 0) (#101)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:14:57 AM EST
    Then she'd call  her pollster see if it was popular and then get back to us with an answer (like she did on torture, or Iraq).

    Bill Moyers and Kath. H. Jamieson should moderate (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:27:21 PM EST

    Instead of Tweety, Pumkinhead, Blow-Dry? (none / 0) (#104)
    by catfish on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:38:42 AM EST
    In our dreams!

    NBC Debate: (4.66 / 3) (#44)
    by NJDem on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:44:03 PM EST
    What is that delicious cologne you're wearing, Senator Obama?

    Who is the Prime Minister of Madagascar, Senator Clinton?

    See, they were fair and asked Obama the first question! :)

    I saw that (none / 0) (#2)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:30:31 PM EST
    Obama wanting a second one.  Interesting.

    He wants it in NC (none / 0) (#8)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:41:57 PM EST
    I believe he thinks he'll have the same sort of crowd support he had in SC. He may be right...we'll see

    Heck, why not have another MSM tongue-bath (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:11:42 PM EST
    TeamO needs this during the weeks of Slowmentum before PA.

    I still hold that the excitement over the new kid on the block is seriously stalled if not out of gas. He needs a new fuel source for PA or he shows up there not riding a crest of wild promises, but schlumpfing in like any other politician.

    And he's overdue for scrutiny from everyone that's been giving him a pass or the benefit of the doubt till now. (I was one of them, willing to set aside concerns about experience and dealing with the RW to see if he could ride and lead with guts, integrity and intelligence. To be blunt: No. He. Can't.)

    The ping ponging of excitement that's been ringing bells and setting off whistles has been between good footage of new followers in the fold, a bored MSM seeing some movement in horse race crap that interests them, and the fervent hope of a few nostalgic fossils to re-hate the Clintons. (Sweatin' to the oldies, anyone?)

    You can't fuel a bandwagon on that, attract new followers on that, or beat the newly annointed media darling St. John McCain with that.

    (Crunching beans in a primary revote isn't inspiring even to Dems. It's boring and annoying.)


    Wha? (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:18:47 PM EST
    And he's overdue for scrutiny from everyone that's been giving him a pass or the benefit of the doubt till now.

    He got 2 or 3 days of it leading up to Ohio and Texas...and even had to take eight questions...give the guy a rest man...he's just been through the wringer...what do you expect? 4 days of scrutiny...I think you're asking way too much...


    LOL n/t (none / 0) (#38)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:29:12 PM EST
    huh? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:30:33 PM EST
    I read earlier that she had accepted in PA but he had not.  Will look for link.

    ABC = Clinton, NBC/CBS = Obama (none / 0) (#7)
    by gmo on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:40:38 PM EST
    He accepted PA (hosted by ABC News which is more favorable to Clinton), and raised her NC (hosted by NBC & CBS, more favorable to him).  

    Could the pandering to MSM be any more shamefully partisan?


    If I were her, I would NEVER agree (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:44:09 PM EST
    to another NBC debate...they have been atrocious to her...beyond the pale.

    Albeit, they are supporting someone on "our side" I can't stomach US having a Fox news...i'd rather get unfavorable truths then favorable (or unfavorable in HRC's case) falsehoods any day


    you are right (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:52:08 PM EST
    my brain had a small melt down earlier over all of this and it's taking time to reboot.  I can't keep anything straight anymore.

    I dunno that a debate will help either of them this time around.  It's curious that they are calling for more.  I will be interested to see how the spin about the fact that there are going to be more debates is presented, because last time around, it was all "sigh, another debate!"  Now that Obama wants them, I'm sure they will be presented as fresh and new.

    I just cannot believe the remarkable handicap Clinton has in all of this.  As a woman, I should know it, but I dunno...I thought it would be different.  Just call me stupid.


    Yes "sigh" for me too (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:56:40 PM EST
    Hillary does well in debates, for sure...

    But I see it as just another excuse for MSNBC to railroad Hillary...I almost dread primary nights now too (even when she wins)...I can only stand CNN because I feel Blitzer and King are palatable...and I have a deep masochistic sympathy for Paul Begala...

    But again...another debate is just an excuse for the MSNBC to go further into the gutter (less than 6 months ago, I actually preferred them too)


    to some extent (none / 0) (#49)
    by white n az on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:12:58 PM EST
    it worked to her favor since those that actually had an open mind could see that NBC and the main stream media is not an objective party to the process.

    Perhaps it will again.

    Let's not forget that the last MSNBC debate also had awful questions of Obama about Farrakan.

    In general, NBC should be avoided.


    Yes, that Hillary took the blame for (none / 0) (#52)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:18:22 PM EST
    Do we really need (none / 0) (#4)
    by gmo on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:37:03 PM EST
    two debates, three days apart? Seriously?

    Its for PA and NC (none / 0) (#102)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:16:47 AM EST
    The two major states remaining, Obama needs to win PA, and Hillary needs to win NC (last chance for either to prove they can take the others base).

    Hosts (none / 0) (#5)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:37:15 PM EST
    Couric and Schieffer.  Couric doesn't care for Clinton.  How's Schieffer?  It would be nice to have someone neutral.  I would delete what I just typed, but really, what's the point.

    Katie Couric? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:43:21 PM EST
    Groan...I suppose we can look forward to her gushing and flirting with Obama for 90 minutes, while asking Clinton why it is that she was known as the Ice Queen in high school -  SNL will have a field day with it.

    That could be the upside (none / 0) (#58)
    by sumac on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:45:21 PM EST
    SNL's take has been far more intuitive than MSM's.

    Schieffer is close to ... (none / 0) (#57)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:34:14 PM EST
    a number of officials in the Bush administration.

    Schieffer's (none / 0) (#62)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:09:02 PM EST
    brother, a Fort Worth investor, is the guy who brought Bush into the Texas Rangers deal.  Then later was one of his first big backers for governor and president.

    Well... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:39:49 PM EST
    how interesting...

    It was like pulling teeth to get Obama to agree to two more before Ohio and Texas, and Obama played that one as Hillary being oh-so-desperate.  She was losing and had to do something.  And so, he more or less condescended to accommodate her, and the media played along, doing everything they could to deliver a death blow.

    I am so going to enjoy this.

    The interviewers are so reprehensive (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by hairspray on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:48:07 PM EST
    why do we care?  The "lost boys" of NBC getting one more chance to try to humiliate/chastise Hillary? Please stop.  I wish Hillary would demand the League of Women Voters as interviewers.  Wouldn't that be a stroke of genius?

    If I were asking questions at the next debate, (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:52:56 PM EST
    I would ask Obama is he favors singing "God Damn America".

    to your original point (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:31:20 PM EST
    * Obama's 2006 Tax Form. It is shown on page 21 of 23 of the pdf file. The amount is $22,500 to Trinity United Church of Christ.

    That is a heckuva lotta money to give to a guy he doesn't really believe in.



    Years (none / 0) (#72)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:25:44 PM EST
    17 years at the church isn't much of a commitment either.

    "present" (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:54:33 PM EST
    When you donate to a church (none / 0) (#108)
    by independent voter on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 07:44:57 AM EST
    you are not giving to the pastor. It is for the church. Get real, I have spent plenty of time in church and I do not agree with everything the minister says by any means.

    those videos are going everywhere (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:11:44 PM EST
    how many 1000s of time do you think we'll get to see those lovely sermons, interspersed with Obama's image, during the fall campaign if he's the nominee.

    Could be a real deal breaker.


    Feh (second notice) (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:17:54 PM EST
    America doesn't care about religion!

    we don't? that's religion? (none / 0) (#70)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:21:24 PM EST
    that's (I can't say it here).

    Ralph! Joke! Joke! (none / 0) (#79)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:54:18 PM EST
    Sorry, I knew that (none / 0) (#88)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:23:01 PM EST
    I should have ended with   :-)

    ABC News (none / 0) (#105)
    by facta non verba on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 02:57:22 AM EST
    ran a story on The Reverend Jeremiah Wright tonight. It already has over 34,000 views on YouTube. The YouTube server is down. When it is up, search "ABC News Jeremiah Wright." The story is from March 13th.

    Anderson Cooper picked it up. Devoted 15 minutes to it tonight. It's brutal.

    In a Fox News clip the Reverend Jeremiah Wright actually said: "Hillary ain't ever been called the n- word." Probably not. How about the c- word? If I had to bet who has been called the n- word or the c- more, my guess is Hillary. Whoopi Goldberg once said, "Ain't no one more misogynistic than an old black man." He actually said: "Hillary ain't ever have to work twice as hard just to get accepted . . ." No, the fact that she has to now is not self-evident. Nor across the length of her career even when she was on top.


    The video is from Fox News. That tells me that they have set their sights on Obama. We're finished.

    I am pretty despondent tonight. I think I want to cry. I doubt either Obama nor Clinton can win. It's over. Better that Obama win the nomination so he can be the sacrifice in November. I doubt the Democrats would look to him in 2012.  He will lose in a landslide.  Obama is un-electable. Maybe the economy will crash. Whoo-hoo!

    More debates? Fine by me. Question is who is listening. I am not voting for Obama and I am sure many Obama supporters feel the same way about Clinton. We're tone deaf at this point.


    More seriously, I'd ask if he agrees that the US (none / 0) (#18)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:53:57 PM EST
    brought on the 9/11 attacks, as his pastor argues.

    My jaw hit the floor when I saw that (none / 0) (#22)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:57:07 PM EST
    on Good Morning America--mostly because it was on GMA.

    I think she'd be crazy to bring it up during the debate.  I think you're being facetious about it anyway, though--right?


    No no.. I don't mean Hillary should (none / 0) (#23)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:58:19 PM EST
    bring it up---the moderators should.

    Feh (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:18:41 PM EST
    They won't bring up anything of the sort unless it's to help him.  "Senator Obama, you said that you don't agree with some of the more inflammatory comments of your pastor.  Why do you think Senator Clinton keeps bringing it up?  It's, like, eight times now.  How do you keep yourself from just smacking her?  And, on as an aside note, might I add that you are a very handsome man."

    That's (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Lena on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:51:38 PM EST
    Pretty funny (and all too true, unfortunately).

    You could write another debate skit for SNL!


    NBC moderators (none / 0) (#24)
    by Nasarius on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:59:13 PM EST
    I suggest Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough. At least it would be amusing.

    And Pat Buchannan (none / 0) (#48)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:12:10 PM EST
    The starting lineup of' tje76 Philadelphia Flyers! (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:56:11 PM EST
    Talk about meanies! (I love that Simpsons' gag that puts them in a jury of evil when the devil demands to be judged by his peers.)

    Buchanan? (none / 0) (#103)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:19:18 AM EST
    He'd be all : Obama why should we believe you don't deal crack? The man's a David Duke-type GOper seriously, look at some of the stuff he's written.

    they simply could not do worse (none / 0) (#87)
    by white n az on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:15:34 PM EST
    than Brian Williams and Tim Russert did in the last debate.

    Why not Scarborough and Carlson? They might actually ask better questions.


    Or my new PAC: Divisive Monster Women for HRC (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:42:01 PM EST
    Isn't it clever how it doesn't even spell out the C-word or even use an oblique, like See You Next Tuesday?

    They should bring it up--this man (none / 0) (#25)
    by NJDem on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:09:01 PM EST
    was his self-described mentor--the Farrakhan connection was bad enough, but those videos are a different story.    

    Also, will the moderators really have the &*%$# to ask her all the questions first?  

    All I can think is, SNL is happy!

    I don't think they should bring it up. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:18:51 PM EST
    Somehow, someway it will come back to bite Hillary in the ass.

    Tina Fey and Stephen Colbert (none / 0) (#27)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:09:27 PM EST
    would be amusing.

    The rest of them...not so much.

    Is it time to cue the declarations (none / 0) (#29)
    by blogtopus on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:13:16 PM EST
    that Obama is 'desperate' by asking for the NC debate? Seemed that was the word bandied about town for Hillary after Super Tuesday when she was calling for more debates.

    Clintons' tax returns... (none / 0) (#45)
    by mike in dc on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:52:45 PM EST
    ..."on or around April 15".

    2 debates.  One on 4/16.  The other on 4/19.  Safe to say there will be a question about her returns.

    It appears Obama's no longer avoiding additional debates.  

    I do think the Armisen impression of Obama is not very good, verisimilitude-wise, and the last couple were vaguely insulting instead of simply caricature.  

    No more debates, good god (none / 0) (#46)
    by Korha on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:09:17 PM EST
    Well, I mean they can have more debates if they want, I'm just not going to watch them anymore :)

    Judging by the last two, they also did precisely nothing in terms of political momentum.

    The debates get huge ratings (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:11:45 PM EST
    I love watching them.  Hillary really shines.

    Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Korha on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:17:01 PM EST
    I'm sort of a freak, I watched every single debate of the democratic primary so far (yes, I really did, all of them). At this point I know what Obama and Clinton are going to say even before they open their mouths.

    But I am a freak. For someone who's not very familiar with the candidates or hasn't followed the race closely, I imagine the debates could be very enlightening.


    more debates (none / 0) (#76)
    by white n az on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:29:54 PM EST
    undoubtedly sponsored by "Clean Coal" so that there won't be any questions about Global Climate Change or other serious topics so that a network gets to play their hand once again at gotcha politics.

    on a related note, Brad at SadlyNo writes a 'Serious Question' about TalkLeft and his take that TL is endlessly shilling for HRC.

    Who will be the debate moderators? (none / 0) (#89)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:23:47 PM EST
    Because if it's the usual suspects -- the Russerts, the Gibsons, the Williams, the Blitzers -- it will be another sham.

    Too bad the parties ruined the presidential debate process for eternity back in 1988. The LWV pulled out of sponsorship, saying it wouldn't participate in a "fraud" on the voting public, and it's been downhill ever since.

    For a change (none / 0) (#91)
    by NJDem on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:35:47 PM EST
    (and there's a lot I'd like e to see), I really want them to discuss such new/unspoken issues as the environment, education, monetary policy (the lessening value of the dollar), FP (beyond Iraq), and their requirements for the Supreme Court.  

    If I lived in a dream world there'd be no moderator and they'd ask themselves questions, but that hasn't happened since Donahue did it in 1992, so I'm not holding my breath.    

    Real issue? (none / 0) (#93)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:44:19 PM EST
    In a presidential debate, what?  Wouldn't that make a refreshing change?  No moderator, real issues, ahh...

    Is Cronkite available? (none / 0) (#92)
    by NJDem on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:38:11 PM EST

    Mike Gravel (none / 0) (#94)
    by mg7505 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:48:42 PM EST
    needs to be in this debate as a moderator or, better yet, a contender since he's still in the running. Dropouts like Edwards, Kucinich, Biden and Dodd would also make interesting moderators. Undecided SD's would be cool too. Or maybe Samantha Power and Gerry Ferraro? That would bring balance AND entertainment.

    Left out one group (none / 0) (#95)
    by mg7505 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:50:07 PM EST
    and that is just letting ordinary citizens ask questions, town-hall style, maybe with some organization or the candidates pick people/questions beforehand. Could be an interesting twist on the 'asking each other questions.'

    You guys have got 40 more days (none / 0) (#96)
    by Joike on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:52:48 PM EST
    of back and forth sniping on two good candidates before the Penn primary.

    To help pass the time, try playing the delegate game.

    Estimate how many delegates both candidates will get in each of the remaining elections to see how close to the magic number they can get.

    For added fun and difficulty, try including Florida and Michigan.

    Because it's highly unlikely that either candidate can reach that number with their pledged delegates and announced Super-delegates, figure out what percentage of the remaining Super-delegates they each need.

    I gave Clinton a big win in Penn and Florida and split Michigan.  The rest were split pretty evenly between the two though I did give Clinton about 75% of Puerto Rico's delegates.

    After all that, I estimated that Obama only had to win 30% of the outstanding S-Ds to get over 50% meaning Clinton would have to get 70%.

    My math could be wrong and you can play around with the pledged delegate estimates, but it shows the daunting real-world delegate math that Clinton faces.

    Regardless of what happens in the remaining contests and what happens with Florida and Michigan, Clinton cannot win unless she can convince an overwhelming number of uncommitted S-Ds that Obama is unsuitable to be the Party's nominee.

    That reality will dictate her tactics as the nomination process plods through March, April and May into June leading up to the convention in August.

    We can all cry about how one candidate is being mean or sneaky and how the other candidate is being deceptive or unfair, but if she really wants to win (and I'm sure she does), she has no choice but to tear into Obama with abandon.

    Enjoy the process, but save your strength because it is going to be a long time before this ride is over.

    The issue is NOT who wins MI and FL delegates (none / 0) (#97)
    by shoephone on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:02:23 AM EST
    The issue is: what is the fairest, most legitimate process for the voters?

    Whichever candidate is seen as purposely disenfranchising voters is going to catch hell, whether it's now or in November.


    In the next debate Obama has to be asked (none / 0) (#109)
    by DemBillC on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:14:15 AM EST
    about his relationship with the Racist Rev. Jeremiah Wright. This guy married him baptised his children is his spiritual advisor and close friend
    and his clearly one of the biggest racist's in America. He says blacks should not sing "God Bless America" but "God damn America." In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda's attacks because of its own terrorism.
    This guy is as Racist as they come.
    You cannot pick your family but you can pick
    your preacher. Wright slammed Hllary repeatedly from the pulpit, one of the reasons the IRS is investigating him, turning blacks away from her.
    He said "Hillary does not know what it is like to be a "N*gg*r" That has no place in a sermon and Barack should have called him on it.

    Obama has agreed (none / 0) (#110)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:53:19 AM EST
    and Hillary has not yet responded.


    that could say something interesting about where the candidates think the race is now couldnt it?

    Can we invite.... (none / 0) (#111)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:40:31 AM EST
    Nader, Kubby, and Jesse the Body to this one?

    Ya know, so there are some people on the stage who aren't crooked.