This time, it’s personal. The Democratic debate in South Carolina Monday night was brutal and nasty and riveting to watch.
Chuck Norris should have been the moderator.
I think Barack Obama had his strong and weak moments, but overall accomplished what he clearly set out to do: Stand up and confront Hillary Clinton and her high-profile surrogate, former president Bill, for a string of misleading statements.
He increased his stature by taking them on successfully and showing he’s willing to fight.
Clinton again showed herself to be the best debater on the stage, disciplined in hammering home points and counterpunching. She never misses an opportunity to reinforce her message in passionate, clear terms, as in stressing that universal health coverage is a core Democratic principle that she would “go to the mat†to defend.
But she also reinforced her negatives, coming off as too willing to say anything to take Obama down, at one point accusing Obama of working for a Chicago “slumlord.â€
She actually was booed at one point.
John Edwards might have come off looking the most presidential, when he intervened at one point, asking, “This kind of squabbling — how many children is this going to get health care? How many people are going to get education because of this? How many kids are going to get to go to college because of this?â€
What did bloggers think?
100 Comments
It was much better then Professional Wrasling!
And Edwards had to be laughing inside as Clinton Obama flopped on the mat together!
I think it’s good to see passion from both sides, and it was good for Obama to stand up and fight. Personally, I think it makes both of them seem more human, and it was nice for a change for them to bring up actual policies in this debate as well. And I would love to see a Clinton/Obama ticket. To me that would be the best of both worlds.
So much for the earlier comment on this blog about the dems all being cooperative and “on message”. Guess they are human and not perfect after all?
What did blogger think?
You mean me Phil?
I think we have 3 candidates far superior to any on the right.
But I think Edwards and Obama came off as, just a LITTLE, whiny.
Obama did not, and CANNOT defend his defense and laurels he heaps on Ronald Reagan and Republicans. He only further strengthened my resolve against him.
At times, Edwards did not even seem to be THERE.
As much as I hate the dynasty thing. As much as I disliked BILL Clinton. My vote is stronger than ever for the candidate who can take the fight to those rat bastard Republicans. Go HILLARY!
The American National Anthem in 2009 will be changed to the following:
(Sung to the theme of the Canadian National Anthem)
O Hilareee!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide,
O Hilareee, we stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Hilareee, we stand on guard for thee.
O Hilareee, we stand on guard for thee.
I think that Obama did a good job of defending himself; he had to show the truth and point out that HIllary will do anything to get elected. I think he stayed strong throughout the debate and had some of the most realistic plans. While Universal healthcare might be a great idea, his plan is most realistic and easy to implement.
Econ101
Posted January 22, 2008 at 10:57 am | Permalink
Bill Clinton invested in Dubai to pay for his sexual harassment lawsuits:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120097424021905843.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
—————————————————————————————————-
I didn’t hear them debate this last night, did I miss it?
$20 Million dollar return by Bill Clinton for investing in Dubai!
That’s no SMALL change!
Gotta be better then the Cattle Futures market even!
I wonder how much money the Clintons made out of their Presidency?
It would interesting to compare their Net Worth in 1992, to 2007.
How did they ACQUIRE that much money?
Hmmmm….
I might be talked into voting for Edwards. Hillary, no way.. Obama, doubtful.. it would depend on the Republican nominee. I may just have to go Independent. Not that anyone cares.. LOL!
Obama, go after Clinton’s for their Dubai investments:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120097424021905843.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Run RALPH RUN!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080121/pl_nm/usa_politics_nader_dc
Nader’s whole-hearted support of Bush has burned all his bridges. He will not get the support he had in the past.
It reinforces what we know about Hillary: she will do whatever it takes to win. Because Hillary’s about Hillary and power, bless here black little statist heart.
If that means summoning up tears on command, so be it. If it means sending out the surrogates (Bill and others) to do the dirty work, so be it; don’t think for a minute that those surrogates do anything not authorized by Her Most Deserving Highness. Nothing she does – ever – isn’t considered for it’s political impact and advantage.
We NEED a thread about the upcoming Kansas caucus.
Since it may actually matter this time you know.
I will caucus for Kucinich. Then I will listen to the supporters of Clinton, Edwards, and Obama to make my final choice.
Editors? Caucus thread and info! Please!
Yeah Ben.
Ralph Nader is a great man. But I lost a lot of respect for him when his ego got so big he handed george bush the Presidency.
Kucinich tried to prosecute a guy for taking a video camera into his taxpayer financed Congressional office, to prove that Kucinich was not spending any time in Ohio, but was campaigning, instead.
You hypocrite liberals gave Brownback a hard time for being on the campaign trail, too much.
I don’t recall Brownback trying to prosecute anyone, in Federal Court, for making political points against Brownback!
Kucinich, the true Fascist, using the power of the State to punish his Democrat political opponent:
http://www.myfoxcleveland.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=5511897&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1
From http://www.crooksandliars.com –
CNN’s post-debate coverage from last night’s Democratic presidential debate included a focus group of undecided South Carolina voters. The group was asked to rate the candidates throughout the debate and gauge what worked and what didn’t work, and who was the group’s favorite.
In the final analysis, the undecideds thought John Edwards did the best job of the three candidates — but that some 50% said that if they voted with their heads instead of their hearts, they would vote for Obama because they felt he has the best chance to win. Edwards’ scolding of Obama and Clinton after their first heated exchange scored well, but there was another point that I took from this segment that all the candidates should give notice to. The group’s favorable response dropped significantly when the candidates attacked each other, but rose sharply when Clinton went after President Bush and his failed policies. Remember him?
Kucinich!
Two-Headed Kucinich! (Not two faced, two heads!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0qQza8LGMg
(Big Rally with 12 people, not counting both of Kuciniche’s heads)
Kucinich! Yeah right!
Two-Headed Kucinich! (Not two faced, two heads!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0qQza8LGMg
(Big Rally with 12 people, not counting both of Kuciniche’s heads)
Vote with your Heads, not your Hearts!
Vote for the Kuciniches!
Well,
I don’t like Democratic infighting.
But whoever we nominate will be going up against the smear machine run by the slimiest of humanity. Our nominee will HAVE to be able to take a hit AND deliver 3 in return. Anything ours dig up on each other you can BET the GOP has already mined.
I am voting against Clinton.
I do not want someone in the White House who is going to defend for a spouse that she should had divorced.
Besides aren’t any of you tired of the Bush-Clinton dynasty?
” smear machine ”
NO ONE runs a smear machine like the Clintons. They are the world’s champions in that regard, and still manage to play the victim (remember that “vast right wing conspiracy”!?)
Frankly, however, go back over American history and you’ll find that nothing has really changed. Politics is no more dirty, no more divisive than it has been, often, before, and the Republic survives.
Try a little perspective before proclaiming that sky falling. Again.
Actually, infighting is a Democratic Party tradition. We’re used to it. We’re good at it. We expect it. We can handle it.
Every democrat — EVERY Democrat — I’ve talked to during this election cycle is please as punch with any of the top three candidates in the race. Yeah, it gets pretty bloody sometimes, but as Abraham Lincoln noted, “When you hear cats fight you’re sure they’re killing themselves. But there are always more kittens.”
Part of the institutional Democratic Party’s support for Senator Clinton is the eight years of peace and prosperity of President Clinton’s leadership… and packing the party with his pals. Some of these people are old political warhorses who fear the “Mayor Bradley Effect” at the polls in November, should Obama be at the top of the ticket. It’s not pleasant for us idealists to grudgingly admit that Washington D.C. works differently than any other city or government on the planet, but it’s true. And there’s a case to be made for Clinton-esque experience, expertise, and experience of veteran Democratics.
Barack Obama appeals to our democratic (small “d”) ideals; why we became Democrats in the first place. His is such a quantum leap of politics-as-usual there are many Democrats who both hope he’ll embody the inspiration of JFK, or the micro-management honest of Jimmy Carter. As Carter inherited the economic and foreign policy fiascos created by Nixon/Ford, a President Obama would be thrust into the morass created by the incompetence of George WMD Bush. Maybe vision and hope are enough to rally Americans to work together; it worked for FDR. But even Democrats are reluctant to expect another Roosevelt.
I’m getting signs that John Edwards’ message of economic reform might meld with the unnatural disaster that Bush-onmics has created. Just as Edwards said in the Myrtle Beach debate, “How’s all this squabbling gonna get more jobs, build more schools and hospitals…?” he sounded like the grown-up on the stage.
A lot of the issues Edwards has run on for the past year are coming true and he’s sounding almost psychic… perhaps because he gets it.
There’s no reason to continue any policy that’s originated with the George WMD Bush administration. None what-so-ever.
ANY issue the eventual Republic Party candidate runs on that continues with the politics of Shrub will be a loser: Iraq, tax-cuts, the quest for a King James Version of the Constitution of the United States, making America a wholy-owned subsidiary of Halliburtion… every one and any one will be a losing issue for the Republic Party nominee.
Evangelicals sat on their hands in 1996 and refused to vote for Bob Dole because they thought Bob Dole was “too liberal.” Bob Dole!
Paleo-Cons such as Bob Novak can’t stand the thought of a Huckster candidacy. Neo-Cons — those wonderful people who brought you Ruddy 9iu11iani and Mittens Romney and Fredrick of Hollywood — have a tin ear as to what kind of Republic Party candidate might steal yet another election.
John McPain’s promise of turning Shrub’s little Iraqi Adventure into a hundred years war just might not be a winning issue in November 2008.
The Democrats’ squabbles — like Lincoln’s “cat fights” — will only create more kittens. The Republic Party’s circular firing squad is destined to make the GOP just like Ronald Reagan: dead and it the ground.
Very true MH – whoever comes out of the primary process will be supported overwhelmingly by rank-and-file Democrats.
Question, MH:
Is there a point to your consistent “Republic” party spelling – or can you simply not spell?
Great words as ever MH
This just in.
Fred Thompson’s out.
“GMC70″ –
Thank you for your (for you) thoughful, in depth analysis of my post.
If Republic Party partisans can refer to the “Democrat” Party, fair’s fair.
And by the way GMC – the use of the ’shortened’ term comes right from the top – George WMD Buch himself.
MH –
Ever the smartass, I see. I attempted no “in depth analysis” of your post; I’ve little interest in the Democratic catfight, aside from seeing Hillary’s inevitability disappear. Here’s to a brokered convention, on both sides!!
As to the second, I’m not sure what “partisans” you speak of; I know of no one who makes a regular practice of leaving ‘ic’ off of Democratic party name. Even if so, it appears, then to be on exactly the same “you did it first” level of a 4 year old. And it’s meaningless.
In both cases, typical.
Was Thompson ever actually in it, really?
GMC – an example:
“Econ101
Posted January 22, 2008 at 1:36 pm | Permalink
Juvenile
What, exactly, have ANY of the Democrat candidates done, or said, concering illegal immigration?”
And, of course, Bush himself.
It’s Dimacrats. Can’t you people get this right?
That only applies to REPUKES masquerading as Democrats.
“GMC70″ –
Given your track record of feigned (or real) ignorance, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised when you write:
“I know of no one who makes a regular practice of leaving ‘ic’ off of Democratic party name.”
And, okay, I’ll accept that you…
“…attempted no ‘in depth analysis’ of your post….”
But with you, it’s hard to tell the difference.
MH – Ever the 4 year old.
Ralph Nader has endorsed Edwards.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7647.html
That, of course, would be this Ralph Nader:
“This (George W. Bush’s) administration is not sympathetic to corporations, it is indentured to corporations. ” So it’s not much of a surprise.
As some people tend to get heated and irrational when discussing the man (Nader), I’ll leave it at that.
I, for one, loved the debate. If the candidates had acted civily for the whole thing, I would have been disgusted. This is the most powerful post in the world they are stomping for. I sure as hell don’t want some wimp in office. If they can’t take the heat, . . . !
GMC – While I often find a lot of agreement with you I have noticed that you are silent when GOP supporting posters use Democrat, Dimacrat, Hildabeast, etc. But let someone use Republic or (heaven forbid) Repuke and you are all over it. Why the double standard?
Ben
I use Democrat rather than Democratic because that is what YOUR party calls itself.
There are Democrats and Republicans.
When not using the plural, and speaking of only one person, we have either a Democrat or a Republican.
It is also shorter than saying “Democratic Candidate so and so”
Democrat Paul Morrison said —
Republican Tod Tiahrt said —
It flows that way.
Hey did everybody find their caucus location?
They were in Sunday’s paper.
Mine is at a school on north Oliver. Maybe I’ll say hi to any fellow bloggers there.
Ben –
I have. And frankly, the level of victriol on this blog flows overwhelmingly one way.
Liberal “tolerance,” indeed. Liberals generally tolerate nearly anything except someone who disagrees with them.
Ben – and I should note, overwhemingly, but certainly not entirely, one way.
Paul – please note the adjective useage:
“the Democratic Party ”
http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html
As compared to:
Democrat Party is a political epithet used in the United States by some conservative commentators and by some members of the Republican Party in speeches and press releases instead of the name (or more precisely, the proper noun) Democratic Party.
The White House since 2001 has often used the noun-as-adjective when referring to the opposition party, and President Bush has used it almost exclusively.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(phrase)
GMC – you will note the use by the current Republic President.
Liberal “tolerance,” indeed. Liberals generally tolerate nearly anything except someone who disagrees with them.
Most liberals I know have no issue with arguing freely and vehemently, so long as it’s a discussion worth having (and sometimes even when it’s not! :) ).
But conservatives have this annoying tendency of codifying their personal prejudices into law. And–before you say it–to the extent pseudo-liberal “PC” creatures do the same, bad on them too!
Ben,
I think you are missing Econ’s point.
I don’t see the majority of Republicans here purposefully trying to insult the Democrats ( Did I use it correctly or should I say Democratics ) by saying Democrat.
It is not an intentional misuse.
Randy’s daily Clinton bash.
Slow news day?
Ben –
Fair enough. I should have known this was something from the nutroots of the DemUnderground, etc. It seems that MH has gotten his marching orders, and is following like a good nutroot.
And Bush apparantly seems to use it, whether out of intent or just his noriously bad speaking; it’s almost worth it just to tighten the panties of the like of MH.
And as Nathan has noted, it is a usage almost entirely absent here. Frankly, it’s not something I care about a great deal; I asked MH a question; it’s his panties stuck between his cheeks, not mine.
Nathan – the fact that your president, the titular head of the Republic party, uses it tells me it is not accidental. Talk radio also uses it extensively – and much worse I might add.
When GMC said that Hillary’s over-riding concern is Hillary’s career, I agree.
He’s right. She doesn’t have to worry about the “flip flop” label because she’s never taken a principled stand on anything.
Edwards, I like because of his populist message. Obama, I like because he’s talking about America working together.
Hillary, I don’t like. Period.
Remember, Bill dropped taxes on the rich more than Bush did.
As an unwavering left-wing partisan, I am not convinced that Hillary is better than McCain for instance.
At this point, I’d like to see an Obama/Edwards ticket. Or maybe a brokered convention with President-in-Exile Al Gore returning for a Democratic draft.
Ben,
Lets look at it with common sense.
There is only one way to say Republican. It is Republican. Period.
You want it plural? Say Republicans.
For Democrats, you have Democrats and Democratic Party.
It doesn’t make sense to call you a Democratic does it?
Do you want to be called a Democratic or are you a Democrat?
So when I, or someone else, only use Democrats or Democrat it is not an intentional fling of poo in your face.
But if you insist on being so stupid, as to use the term Republic, fine, be stupid.
Thanks to MH’s example, I also call them Republics.
Although usually I write “RepubliCONs” or just the snappy “RePUKES.”
Democrat is a noun. Democratic is an adjective. When the RepubliCONs talk about the “Democrat Party,” they’re saying something equivalent to “a fail president” instead of “a failed president” or a “despot president” instead of “despotic president.”
Nathan – so what’s your point? Do you support the use of the phrase “Democrat Party”?
No, Nathan, I am not being stupid. Unless, of course, you claim that following the example of your CiC is being stupid.
A member of the DemocratIC Party is a Democrat. However, the useage “Democrat Party” is STUPID!
Nathan – I will offer a deal: I will use the term “Republican” as both adjectice and noun if Republicans will properly use the terms Democrat (n) and Democratic (adj). And I expect that to start at the top with Bush.
Fair?
Ah, the smell of Democratic infighting. I am so old that I can remember Bobby – Gene – Lyndon going at it, until Lyndon dropped out, Bobby was killed and somehow we ended up with a hopeless loser like Hubert as the nominee.
I have to say that I am more than just a little bit put off by Hillary and Bill’s attacks on Barack Obama. At times, Hillary acts as if she has EARNED the heir apparent title.
We need a freakin’ change.
The heir apparent role has usually ended up a loser, for both Republics and Democrats.
Nixon, Part I. Humphrey. McGovern. Ford. Gore (although he didn’t really lose.) The only heir that didn’t lose was George the Smarter, and that was because Dukakis looked like an idiot in a tank, and George did lose in the second go-around.
Hillary is the only Democratic candidate that could lose in November. Both Edwards and Obama would kick the tail of any Republic candidate.
God forbid that we should end up with McCain (Reagan Lite) or Romney (Bush with Better Hair.)
We need a freakin’ change.
Ben,
No, I use the term Democratic Party.
If you are fighting for us to use the term properly, as I believe I have done, then how is not using Republican properly going to aid in your goal?
You are not going to change anyone here by slapping us in the face with an equally stupid saying are you?
On top of that, both GMC70 and I, are trying to be reasonable and yet you still keep saying Republic instead of Republican.
The shortened-noun version–e.g. “Democrat party” was designed to avoid associating Democrats with democracy.
It was silly. It’s still silly.
As is this discussion.
Ben,
Is Bush a part of this Blog?
Placing an expectation on Bush, which is out of anyones control here, in how you will dialogue with those of us here is unrealistic and not fair.
I prefer:
DumocRat
Does it hurt your feelings or something, Nathan? I laugh at both truncations.
AFter the past 25 years, I regard “Republican” as enough of an epithet by itself.
How about Donkeys and Elephants?
“GMC70″ provides comic relief with –
“I should have known this was something from the nutroots….”
And,
“…MH has gotten his marching orders, and is following like a good nutroot.”
And,
“…worth it just to tighten the panties of the like of MH.”
And,
“…it’s his panties stuck between his cheeks, not mine.”
Let’s do the math: two “nutroots” and two “panties” references and I’m the one who “argues like a 4-year-old?!”
Dunno if you’ve been paying attention here, “GMC70,” but I’ve posted my share of issue-related and researched-based commentaries in this forum. A lot of it doesn’t get commented on because the Cons got nothin’ to refute it.
I’m human. I’m weak sometimes and get involved, maybe, in some of the “Kansas/Kahn/Regular/et al…”-generated flame wars, but I really really try to avoid personal pissing matches. Your comment on my locution of “Republic Party” came with a snide little (4-year-old-worthy, btw) snip about my “inability to spell.” It wasn’t a “simple question.” It was ignorance at best, sophistry at worst.
“Dimacrat
Posted January 22, 2008 at 3:18 pm | Permalink
I prefer:
DumocRat”
Nathan – how about that one?
Y’all can’t find ANYTHING better to freakin fight about?
Good points MH. I too perhaps react too much to snide comments by people like George Bush and reply in kind.
Interesting to see the double standard of Nathan and GMC in regards to their own on this issue.
As to ‘real’ truncating I often use ‘Dem’ and ‘Rep’ but i do that equally on both sides – shorthand.
Ben,
I pay no attention to an obvious troll who calls himself a dimacrat.
If you want to base how you discuss things with someone like me, who posts his real name on the blog, and whom you have met, off of how a troll posts then we will never get anywhere.
It is obvious why he posted here and giving whomever it is any attention will only serve his purpose.
Valid point Nathan – and you are correct that we should not react to trolls like him. And, it is too bad that Bush and talk radio have participated in this so much. 15 years of “Hildabeast” etc tends to provoke reaction.
“I have. And frankly, the level of victriol on this blog flows overwhelmingly one way.”
Bullsh*t counselor. And I have to suspect that you know that you claim is bullsh*t in a blog where we have “Dimocrat/Dummocrat” the inept troll (inept because it is generally and justifiably ignored), and a number of posters who use terminology such as “libs”, “socialists”, “dims”, “nitwit”, etc. to describe those arguing a “left” side to an issue.
Look at the difference in the number of fire breathing commentators on the right verses the left (I can think of several of the likes of Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Michael Savage, and Robert Novak to every one of someone like Al Franken).
I would agree that it gets heated here from both sides, and that both sides engage in name calling etc. on this blog, but to claim that it comes overwhelmingly from one side simply reveals the identification bias of the person issuing the claim.
Your inability to percieve this reflects badly on you, counselor.
Also a valid point – we who are real with real name and real faces should attempt to stay away from this sort of thing – at least among ourselves.
Haven’t seen your dad here today – what’s he up to?
Hildabeast.
Her Thighness.
Breck Girl.
Barack the Happy Negro.
And the Republics complain about the truncation of their party’s name?
The list of Republics that use the “Democrat Party” label is endless – even your very own Paul F. Rossell uses the term.
It amazes me that the Republics SCREAM about the Democrats using the very same tactics that they do.
Whoops! I am sorry, we are all supposed to be BI-PARTISAN now that the Democrats are calling the shots.
My bad. Sorry.
“Ben,
“I pay no attention to an obvious troll who calls himself a dimacrat.”
And to be fair, people here generally are good about ignoring this troll. Also the occasional individual who posts under name such as “Bush sucks” and “Repuke”.
Also, just to be clear for myself. I do not in any way consider the labels of “conservative” and “troll” to be equivalent. When I do post detailed and sometimes I admit harsh rebuttals to what a person posted, I do it because I consider what I am responding to to be an honest representation of what the other party thinks.
A Democrat by any other name, would smell as bad.
A Democrat by any other name, would smell the same.
kfg, did you see where Obama had made the statement that the black community was turning their backs on their gay brothers and sisters and that it had to stop?
I was very pleased to hear him say that.
Will SOMEONE offer to help me figure out the problem with this damn laptop? It’s jumping around when I try to type…highlighting stuff…it’s nearly impossible to make a post. Email o_serenity_now@yahoo.com. I know it has something to do with the touchpad.
“A Democrat by any other name, would smell the same.”
And that would be a Hell of a lot better than any Republic – they smell like corruption and hatred of their fellow man.
Bill lied under Oath, that ruins his chance at a White House job.
Isn’t that a dream for the White House where lying doesn’t happen. Bush lied about reasons for the Iraq war. Had Colin Powell lie to the U.N. Stood under a Banner that said Mission Accomplished thousands of soldiers injured and dead ago.
Lying under Oath, Bill would fail a background check with those court records.
Debating between Hillary, Obama and Edwards is one thing. Bill is another topic of discussion.
The Clintons have pardoned enough of their friends and suppporters.
The world has experienced Clinton’s diplomacy and they will look at America wondering why we’re repeating political families in the White House.
They want America to move forward and get better. Create a new image of this country with a different President.
We have had the partisan years and gridlock in Congress. We need Bills to pass. Supreme Court needs moderate Justices.
Someone in the White House has to bring Democrats, Independents and Republicans together.
Voters need that kind of candidate, so its easier to cross over.
Define Hillary as a partisan and not focus on her obvious gender. She’s dragging Bill back into the White House is bad luck for her.
Women who say Bill is her advantage are wrong.
ECon 101, you shameless whore. Wasn’t it bush who tried to sell our ports to dubai.
ah, Twisty
And, how is the Dubai ports deal an issue, if Bill and Hillary Clinton are $20 Million DEEP in Dubai investment funds?
Ho hum
by the way, it was me who first called the Republican party “Pukes.” So you have me to thank.
ksagnostic:
If you think the victriol on this blog does not primarily flow from from the left toward the right (but not entirely- yes, there’s nastiness on both sides), you’re obviously not paying attention; thus, the rest is of dubious credibility.
And I like this little bit of BS from MH: “but I really really try to avoid personal pissing matches.” Uh-huh. You LIVE for “personal pissing matches.” Like Hillary, you throw the mud and then play the victim; will I be hearing about a “vast right-wing conspiracy” soon?
But enough already. I, too, try to write on issues, and avoid the regular flame wars. I think you’ll find my writing is largely lacking in the kind of pejoratives we’ve been discussing, and I will endeavor to continue to stick to issues and avoid name-calling.
Happy now?
BTW – Mrage, given that the Congress is likely to stay in Democratic (acceptable name?) hands, I’ll probably vote for the Republican just in the hopes to keep the branches divided. I see gridlock as a good thing; in most cases, the best thing government can do is nothing.
“The Clintons have pardoned enough of their friends and suppporters.”
Any discussion of presidential pardons HAS to begin with the Christmas Eve 1992 surprise of George H W Bush’s pardons of Cappy and his five Iran/Contra defendants – before trial.
Any pardons that Bill Clinton may have issued are trivial in comparison to Papa Bush’s obstruction of justice.
Weinberg and Company committed treason – Clinton just pardoned Marc Rich.
“$20 Million DEEP in Dubai investment funds?”
I thought you Republics were all about making money – that is what Bill and Hill are doing.
It is another thing to turn our ports over to an Arab country.
Clark,
Don’t forget about the comuting of Libby’s sentence. W. will ultimately pardon him at the last minute, I am betting. If you’re a friend the Bush family, being a criminal does not matter…
GMC,
I’m hoping for White House bipartisan hiring! Let the arguing happen there and some bill comes out that Congress, regardless of Majority can pass.
Congress can’t pass legislation with a too partisan White House.
It’s your right to vote Republican looking for balance. We saw the Republican majority in Congress and White House was a spectacularly failed experience.
I’m betting McCain barely is chosen over Romney at the Convention and GOP forces Jeb Bush to be his Vice President choice.
McCain is offering only one term as President. The Bush family and their oil industry supporters what a Bush in the White House.
Bush name fatigue doesn’t exist if a Clinton is the Democratic nominee!
We have to fear the Bush’s! Choose wisely as a Republican to not elect any of them again!
The only thing worse than a Democrat on the campaign trail is a Republican in office.
Don’t let it happen – vote for the party of reason – the Democrats.
From: Washington Post
Offstage Action at Dem. Debate?
By Shailagh Murray
The nasty spat between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama last night sure created fireworks, but after the debate attention turned to an offstage encounter, between Clinton and former senator John Edwards.
According to eyewitnesses, they both walked out of their green rooms after the debate and agreed to talk, then went behind closed doors in Edwards’s green room.
Clinton left 20 minutes later. No word on the subject matter, but as Edwards struggles in the polls with no wins to date, his post-campaign strategy is surely in the air.
“They were catching up, as they tend to do at the events, and probably discussing the evenhanded media coverage of the race,” quipped Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz.
—-
Some posters are saying John Edwards wants to be Attorney General in Hillary’s administration.
This one says;
I am a RABID Edwards supporter, and I can tell you that there is NO WAY that he would endorse Clinton. He’s in this for the long haul, and if he decides to endorse anyone, should it come to that, I believe that it would be Obama. I mean, seriously, the one candidate who refuses to take money from lobbyists is going to partner up with the one candidate who takes the most money from lobbyists. Thanks for the laugh this morning!
Posted by: skpedersen
I liked the debate. I don’t think Obama has a chance against Hillary. I would like to see Hillary and Edwards ticket. Frankly, Obama has faded. He cannot explain himself, instead he cries foul when things get tough. Does he really believe he has faced real hardballs. Bill and Hillary have been nice to him. I assume he was ‘present’ at the debate.
Wow! You guys posted over twenty posts talking about what you want to call yourselves.
I think Dumbercrats is appropriate, upon review of this thread.
To quote George W Bush, who cares what you think, Herron?
For the record?
I think it was fat mouth Rush who started dropping “ic” from Democratic.
I just call the other side “cons”
Most of their radio flacks drone on about how they are conservatives and NOT Republics.
So I just shorten it a bit and call ‘em cons.
It’s fitting.
All you Obama fans? Take a look around and show me the con that wants to hold hands and sing kumbya. You can’t. Democrats and moderates shouldn’t either. We have the chance to bury the other side way deep down where they belong for a good long time. Let’s not go squishy.
Sam,
Billary, no need to separate them any longer. He’s not talking about his role in the White House on purpose.
Lying under Oath disqualifies Bill from getting any job in the White House. Think the GOP is going not discuss that fact?
Billary “present” slam only reaffirms, Hillary wasn’t present with Bill in the White House or many other times.
Bill should have faded, but he didn’t want to. That is the reason Clinton’s are attracting more distaste everyday.
GOP has much to answer for, Obama past record to attack him can only go so far. Nothing Billary has said is completely truthful. Some hints of realism, but mostly just attack words.
GOP is a weak dog unless they battle against Billary where they gain strength.
America is risking a lot on the Democratic ticket, giving Bill too much value in Hillary’s campaign.
Hillary’s 35 years “experience” are nothing special in political ways. Obama, Edwards and her are equally capable Senators.
I liked John Edwards making a joke, he’s the white male candidate that suddenly may not win the Presidency. He’s not leading in the Democratic primaries. What happened? He was a V.P. Candidate that got 59 Million votes with John Kerry, few seem to remember!
We almost forgot about Bill in White House politics, charity work seemed to suit him. Now he wants the White House again, but will fail to pass a background check to get a job there.
Bill brought this on himself. His actions, he lied about. They weren’t lies someone else told about him. Lying under Oath has long term consequences.
Obama and Clinton have, with the help of the media, have done more to divide us along the lines of sex and race than anything else in this country since affirmative action. Look at the CNN piece about black women, who are supposedly have a crisis, do they vote sex or race? what a stunningly horrible and insulting question to pose in the name of the African-American women.
“”"Obama and Clinton have, with the help of the media, have done more to divide us along the lines of sex and race than anything else in this country since affirmative action. Look at the CNN piece about black women, who are supposedly have a crisis, do they vote sex or race? what a stunningly horrible and insulting question to pose in the name of the African-American women.”"”
This is what the Clintons set out to do and the media, being pansies for the Clintons, have helped them do just that. The Clintons were horrified at Iowa when Obama got all those white people to vote for him and they wanted to make Obama “the black candidate” and they have done so now meanning he will lose. But if Hillary thinks that is going to make people really want to get out and support her next November, she might find out that is not the case either.
Factcheck weighs in on the Democratic debate/
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/clinton-obama_slugfest.html
“”"Clinton again showed herself to be the best debater on the stage, disciplined in hammering home points and counterpunching. She never misses an opportunity to reinforce her message in passionate, clear terms, as in stressing that universal health coverage is a core Democratic principle that she would “go to the mat” to defend.”"”
As I recall she was given the job to design a health program during her husband’s presidency. And as soon as the corporate class told her to shut up, she dropped it like a hot potato.
I know, Kev. This whole thing between them smacks of divide and conquer. So much for One nation Under God. We’ve let these a$$hats convince us to segregate ourselves.
Meanwhile, all 3 of the Dem candidates are CFR members, who’s stated goal is to abolish all nation states to be replaced by a world government. what does that mean? That means that those who belong do not have the interest of the American people at heart, Instead the interest of domination of all the peoples of the world is what cranks them up and if you listen to any of them you can tell, they’ve been getting “cranked” up for years.
Makes sense, if you want to dominate a people, get them fighting and bickering over the inconsequential, so that their attention is diverted from the evil going on around them.
Hey yoall remember me,
I’m back and I’m not too happy at what the Clinton’s are doing in this race!
If Billary prevails in the primary, they’re going to turn around and see all the scorched ground and headless torso’s laying around and realize that they’ve just given the next 4 years to the republicans!
In my view (Clinton’s have only their staunch base (and it’s shrinking with every squirt of slime), no republicans, and few independents). A centrist, straight shooter and a generally decent fellow like McCain with a mobilized republican base (the Clinton’s gift that keeps on giving) etc…equals 4 more years of GOP and perhaps a reversal in the good fortune of dem gains in the senate.
5 Trackbacks
Nancy Odell…
Man i just love your blog, keep the cool posts comin…..
Criminal Records For Residents Of Michigan…
The State of Michigan keeps several different archives of information on criminal records. However, a minor problem is that majority of these sources of Michigan criminal records deal mostly with convictions….
Jack…
In this sense, during the dating process, people often explore each other through "dates" to discover whether or not they would…
guard dog 2…
I just came upon this website via the blogging baby website. Interesting post. This could have easily been written by me (with just a change or two). Funny to read another story that is so similar to my own….
Chubby Grannies Chubby Blonde Mature Chubby Mature Thumbs…
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view…