Gov. Bill Richardson Steps Down As Obama's Commerce Secretary Designate

This breaking news, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson annouced he was stepping down as President-Elect Barack Obama's Commerce Secretary Designate.  The reason given by the Washington Post is that in light of the matter of the Blagojevich Scandal, Richardson reconsidered the importance of an alledged "pay-to-play" investigation in New Mexico.  I learned the news from this email:

Richardson to withdraw as Commerce secretary
New Mexico governor cites pending investigation of business dealings
BREAKING NEWS
NBC News
updated 10:56 a.m. PT, Sun., Jan. 4, 2009
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, tapped in December by President-elect Barack Obama to serve as secretary of Commerce, has withdrawn his name for the position, citing a pending investigation into a company that has done business with his state.

"Let me say unequivocally that I and my Administration have acted properly in all matters and that this investigation will bear out that fact," he said Sunday in a report by NBC News' Andrea Mitchell. "But I have concluded that the ongoing investigation also would have forced an untenable delay in the confirmation process."

A federal grand jury is investigating how a California company that contributed to Richardson's political activities won a lucrative New Mexico state contract.

A person familiar with the proceedings has told The Associated Press that the grand jury is looking into possible "pay-to-play" dealings between CDR Financial Products and someone in a position to push the contract through with the state of New Mexico.

Richardson said he plans to continue in his role as governor. "I appreciate the confidence President-elect Obama has shown in me, and value our friendship and working partnership. I told him that I am eager to serve in the future in any way he deems useful. And like all Americans, I pray for his success and the success of our beloved country."

Obama said Sunday he accepted Richardson's decision to withdraw with 'deep regret.'

"Governor Richardson is an outstanding public servant and would have brought to the job of Commerce Secretary and our economic team great insights accumulated through an extraordinary career in federal and state office," Obama said.

Richardson, 61, was United Nations ambassador and energy secretary during the Clinton administration, and he is in his second term as New Mexico's governor. He also served seven terms in the House of Representatives.

If he had been confirmed by the Senate as secretary of Commerce, he would have taken over a sprawling department that oversees the National Weather Service, the Census Bureau, economic development programs and more.

One of the nation's most prominent Hispanic politicians, Richardson had pledged at the time of his nomination -- in English and Spanish -- to work to renew the economy.

Obama on Sunday gave no indication whom he might name to replace Richardson as the nominee but said "we must move quickly to fill the void left by Governor Richardson's decision."

My take is it's better this happened now rather than go forward into what could be an embarassing Senate confirmation battle.  Now, the question is who should Obama select to take Richardson's place.  I think that person should be more of an economic technocrat than a politician.  More later.  

National Journal Online -- Lost in Transition -- E-Government Ball Already Rolling At Commerce

National Journal Online -- Lost in Transition -- E-Government Ball Already Rolling At Commerce: “If Barack Obama wants to prioritize e-government, he might look to the Commerce Department, which has quietly gained a reputation for being one of the most Web-savvy departments in the federal government.
Commerce has long been viewed as a sprawling, almost ungovernable bureaucracy, but over the last few years it has seen significant advances in areas both small (online video) and large (the 2010 census).
"I think the Commerce Department has been aggressive and progressive," said Arnold Jackson, associate director for the 2010 census.”

Obama To Introduce Gov. Bill Richardson As Commerce Secretary Wednesday

According to Politico.com, President-Elect Barack Obama will introduce New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson as his Commerce Secretary Wednesday at 11:40 PM  EST.

Carville SLAMS Same NY Times Editorial Board Which Endorsed Clinton

Clinton supporter and CNN commentator James Carville is known for saying what's on his mind, regardless of the results. Recently he called New Mexico Governor and former presidential candidate Bill Richardson "Judas" for endorsing Barack Obama. But in this exchange with the same Governor Richardson this week on "Larry King Live", Carville stuck his foot in his mouth big time, when he said that the NY Times Editorial Board -- the same one that endorsed Senator Clinton for president -- didn't know politics.

Richardson didn't see the opening to call Carville on it, but I did. That was wreckless and certainly shows to what degree the Clinton supporters will go in expressing their anger for any perceived slight. So much so that people and groups once seen as allies are quickly painted as enemies whenever it suits them. If Carville's the poster child for Clinton negativity, he's also the picture of a page in the clipbook of Clinton's failed campaign strategy.

Gov Bill Richardson v. James Carville A Warning To Superdelegates

Gov. Bill Richardson v. James Carville A Warning To Superdelegates

In a timely op-ed in the Monday Washington Post, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson reveals that is call to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to report that he'd endorsed Senator Barack Obama for President was "heated" but did not give more details.

Richardson was writing to report his displeasure with the "personal" attacks Clinton supporter and CNN Commentator James Carville has exacted on him after Richardson endorsed Obama.

In words he did not back away from, Carville compared Richardson to Judas for the act of backing Obama. But in his op-ed, Richardson hit a home-run of a point: neither the Clintons nor their backers and supporters leveled such attacks on Richardson when he opposed Sen. Clinton in the Presidential campaign race.

In all, in my view, this episode has revealed the worst aspects of the Clinton campaign. While Carville says it's personal because of the jobs Richardson had done for President Clinton, the simple fact is that there are a number of elected officials who owe some "debt" to the Clintons. I don't know who has "paid their debt" but it's got to give any Superdelegate in that position pause to see how Richardson was treated by the Clinton Campaign.

This could cause more undeclared Superdelegates to go for Obama over the next few weeks.

Stay tuned.

Clinton Cries, Buys New Hampshire Votes - Obama Fights On

First congratulations to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on her New Hampshire Primary win. Second, congratulations to Senator Barack Obama for the best speech of the night.

In this video, I assert that Senator Clinton's crying peformance was just that, a performance.



And I say this is so because the Clinton Campaign has a track record of staging people in place at events to ask pre-determined questions. This was done - for example -- in Newton, Iowa, where according to the Grinnell College newspaper...

On Tuesday Nov. 6, the Clinton campaign stopped at a biodiesel plant in Newton as part of a weeklong series of events to introduce her new energy plan. The event was clearly intended to be as much about the press as the Iowa voters in attendance, as a large press core helped fill the small venue. Reporters from many major national news outlets came to the small Iowa town, from such media giants as The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press, and CNN.

After her speech, Clinton accepted questions. But according to Grinnell College student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff ’10, some of the questions from the audience were planned in advance. “They were canned,” she said. Before the event began, a Clinton staff member approached Gallo-Chasanoff to ask a specific question after Clinton’s speech. “One of the senior staffers told me what [to ask],” she said.

In my video and here, I contend that the person who asked Hillary Clinton the question of how she was doing was a plant, and that the whole deal was planned. And my second reason for why Clinton ran is even more interesting.

This is a developing story, but I believe that Senator Clinton's campaign trucked in volunteers to vote for her in New Hampshire. The NH primary has a very loose system where a person can just come in and on the day of the primary vote declare an intention to move into New Hampshire.

If one checks the NH Secretary of State's office, they will see this:

January 8, 2008 PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY ELECTION DAY - Unregistered voters may register
and vote on this day.

And this...

WHO CAN REGISTER
New Hampshire residents who will be 18 years of age or older on election day, and a United States Citizen, may register with the town or city clerk where they live up to 10 days before any election. You may also register on election day at the polling place. The town clerk's office can inform voters of what proof of qualification they should bring to register.

There is no minimum period of time you are required to have lived in the state before being allowed to register. You may register as soon as you move into your new community.

I also have it from a good New Hampshire-based source that a person can walk in and tell the town hall representative that they intend to move to New Hampshire, and still be allowed to vote.

It's also known and documented that the Clinton campaign called and paid for volunteers to show up at rallies. That's right, paid for them.

By contrast, the Obama campaign volunteers that did come in did so on their own dime.

The open question I ask is how many New Hampshire Primary voters actually live in New Hampshire? The margin of difference between Senator Clinton's voters and Senator Obama's voters is so small that this question becomes an important one. Especially since the Clinton Campaign was facing a cash crunch. Where did that money go? Some of it went to paid people living in nearby states to come into New Hampshire.

Meanwhile, Senator Barack Obama fights on and has just picked up the endorsement of the largest union in Nevada.

New News. New email asserts that the NH Primary Votes were miscounted! See below..

News Updates from Citizens for Legitimate Government
09 Jan 2008

http://www.legitgov.org/

http://www.legitgov.org/index.html#breaking_news
Where Paper Prevailed, Different Results By Lori Price 09 Jan 2008

2008 New Hampshire Democratic Primary Results --Total Democratic Votes: 286,139 - Machine vs Hand (RonRox.com) 09 Jan 2008

Hillary Clinton, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 39.618%
Clinton, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 34.908%
Barack Obama, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 36.309%
Obama, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 38.617%
Machine vs Hand:
Clinton: 4.709% (13,475 votes)
Obama: -2.308% (-6,604 votes)

2008 New Hampshire Republican Primary Results --Total Republican Votes: 236,378 Machine vs Hand (RonRox.com) 09 Jan 2008

Mitt Romney, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 33.075%
Romney, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 25.483%
Ron Paul, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 7.109%
Paul, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 9.221%
Machine vs Hand :
Romney: 7.592% (17,946 votes)
Paul: -2.112% (-4,991 votes)

NH: "First in the nation" (with corporate controlled secret vote counting) By Nancy Tobi 07 Jan 2008 81% of New Hampshire ballots are counted in secret by a private corporation named Diebold Election Systems (now known as "Premier"). The elections run on these machines are programmed by one company, LHS Associates, based in Methuen, MA. We know nothing about the people programming these machines, and we know even less about LHS Associates. We know even less about the secret vote counting software used to tabulate 81% of our ballots. [ See also CLG's Coup 2004 and Yes, Gore DID win!.]

Please forward this update to anyone you think might be interested. Those who'd like to be added to the Newsletter list can sign up: http://www.legitgov.org/#subscribe_clg.

Please write to: signup@legitgov.org for inquiries.

CLG Newsletter editor: Lori Price, Manager. Copyright © 2008, Citizens For Legitimate Government ® All rights reserved. CLG Founder and Chair is Michael Rectenwald, Ph.D.

CNN / WMUR / UNH NEW POLL: Obama Up 10 Over Clinton; Edwards At 16: New Data Has No Disclaimer

Just one day after releasing an unusual poll reporting Senator Barack Obama tied with Senator Hillary Clinton after his Iowa victory, but also as others released polls with Obama ahead by as much as 10 points, CNN / WMUR / UNH issued what CNN calls a "new" poll, this one reports Obama with 39 percent, Clinton at 29 percent, Senator Edwards at 16 percent, and Gov. Richardson at 7 percent.

What's interesting is this poll's data sheet does not include a disclaimer note, unlike the first poll.

I think CNN futher damaged the credibility of their polling by not reporting the second survey as an update, but a "new poll" when one look at the PDF file shows it really is an undate.

But it's good they corrected the obvious data problem in the first poll.

Dallas Morning News Endorses Barack Obama For President

U.S. Senator Barack Obama added another high-profile endorsement to his growing list of them, this one from the Dallas Morning News. Here's what the DMN wrote today:

We Recommend: Barack Obama
Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination
12:00 AM CST on Sunday, December 23, 2007

America is at a historic crossroads as a woman, a Hispanic and an African-American vie for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. Two of those candidates, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, were finalists for our recommendation – not because of ethnicity or gender but because they most closely aligned with our positions on major domestic and international issues.

Mr. Obama is our choice because of his consistently solid judgment, poise under pressure and ability to campaign effectively without resorting to the divisive politics of the past.

Race is not an overriding factor for us. But it is undeniable that America has failed to heal its racial wounds, including here in Dallas. We need a motivated leader capable of confronting the problem, and no candidate is better equipped than Mr. Obama. His message isn't about anger and retribution. It's about moving forward.

There's been lots of noise about his lack of experience. It is a legitimate concern, considering he's a 46-year-old first-term senator. But Mr. Obama's experience in elective office matches that of Abraham Lincoln before he became president. And he has served more time on Capitol Hill than four of the past five White House occupants.

If youthful inexperience were such a liability, it has failed to resonate despite his opponents' best efforts. Mrs. Clinton, by contrast, flip-flopped over a plan to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. Her campaign accepted donations from questionable sources. When Mr. Obama's support recently surged in early primary states, her campaign tried to smear him over drug use in his youth.

It's a tired ploy that has failed in four previous presidential elections. Bill Clinton twice won election after admitting he'd smoked (but not inhaled) marijuana. George W. Bush won despite an alcohol problem and drunken-driving conviction at age 30.

Mrs. Clinton called Mr. Obama "irresponsible" and "naive" for saying he would talk to leaders of rogue nations like Syria and Iran. Considering the current failed strategy of confrontation and diplomatic isolation, we think Mr. Obama is wise to include direct negotiations among his tools to reduce regional tensions.

Mr. Obama drew criticism for saying he would pursue terrorists, if necessary, by sending troops into Pakistan. The fact is, U.S. troops have been going into Pakistan for years in pursuit of terrorists. All Mr. Obama did, in effect, was to keep that option open for the future. To say otherwise is to declare Pakistan a sanctuary for America's enemies.

Mr. Obama, the son of a white American mother and black Kenyan father, spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country.

His life experience gives him a unique perspective and a greater ability to build diplomatic bridges.

We don't always agree with his positions, but we recognize his potential to unite disparate political factions and restore cooperation between the White House and Capitol Hill.

Americans are tired of divisive, hard-edged politics. Democrats would inspire a refreshingly new approach by choosing Mr. Obama as their 2008 candidate.

Iowan Garry Thomas Switches From Clinton To Obama, Then Tells The World

Going public and getting picked up by The Wash Post hurts Clinton's campaign, for sure.

Garry Thomas counted himself a Hillary Clinton supporter -- even signing up to be one of her 25 co-chairs in Iowa alongside with former Iowa First Lady Christie Vilsack.

But Thomas now says he felt obliged to switch sides in recent weeks. "I think the Clinton campaign went negative," Thomas said in a telephone interview on Thursday. He attributed his defection to the new tone Clinton took last weekend, describing it as divisive. Obama officials said Thomas committed to them this week.

Clinton officials said they lost touch with Thomas in October, and are skeptical of his claim that he left them because of her tone (she did not launch her offensive until this past Sunday).

But either way, Thomas is now with Sen. Barack Obama, putting him on a growing list of Iowans who have switched from one candidate to another heading toward the caucuses. ... More.

Barack Obama Wins Las Vegas Debate - Iowa Independent and CNN Polling Say So

33 percent of persons responding to a CNN-After-Debate Poll online reported that Senator Barack Obama was the winner of the CNN Las Vegas Democratic Debate.

Indeed, both CNN's poll and the Iowa Independent reported Obama as the winner as have other bloggers. Iowa's point of view is strongest as that state has the first major voter test in January. Here's what Douglas Burns of the Iowa Independent wrote:

Obama Exposes Regional Difference With Clinton As Debate Turns For Him
by: Douglas Burns
Thursday (11/15) at 23:12 PM

[Commentary] U.S. Sen. Barack Obama tonight turned in his strongest presidential debate performance and exposed a clear regional difference with front-runner Hillary Clinton.
Is $97,000 a lot of money? In most of Obama's Illinois and just about all of Iowa the answer to that is "yes," which makes Obama's position on the question of whether to raise or lift the cap on Social Security taxes more reasonable to Hawkeye State voters than the New York shape-shifting of Clinton.

As it stands, the first $97,500 of a person's annual income is subject to the Social Security tax. Obama supports lifting that to shore up the future of the system while Clinton went with the nostalgia card, suggesting that the she could resurrect the macroeconomic picture that prevailed under her husband and cause the Social Security problem to disappear without hard choices. She suggested that popping the cap would hurt middle-class Americans and argued that in some parts of the nation (namely high-priced New York City which she represents) $97,500 isn't a lot of money. It would be interesting to hear her make that argument in Audubon County, Iowa, where the average home is worth half that much, $49,000.

Douglas Burns :: Obama Exposes Regional Difference With Clinton As Debate Turns For Him


In the CNN Nevada debate on the University of Nevada Las Vegas campus, Obama said only 6 percent of Americans make more than $97,500 and added that Clinton's use of numbers amounted to a Republican-style manipulation.

"This is the kind of thing I would expect from Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani," Obama said in perhaps his sharpest frontal political assault on Clinton.

Obama joined U.S. Sen. Joe Biden, a longtime member of the Judiciary Committee, as having the most solid answers on a question related to appointments of judges. Biden showed a clear understanding of the process, and has the scars from decades of fighting the culture wars on center court -- Supreme Court justice hearings in the Senate.

But Obama's answer connected more. A former constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago, Obama said he wanted to look for candidates who aren't ivory towered academics but rather people who understand the vulnerable.

Obama also earned significant points with the Hispanic community for supporting drivers' licenses for illegal immigrants -- a controversial issue on which his chief rivals either disgree with him or have heavily nuanced positions.

After watching Obama, Clinton and former U.S. Sen. John Edwards dust each other up in top-tier skirmishing, Biden, the Delaware Democrat and venerable senator, appeared as the steady old hand, perhaps the man you'd give the ship's wheel to this instant.

"Who among us knows what they're doing?" Biden asked.

Well, you ...

Biden's answers had the usual thoroughness, touches of Senate-speak, to be sure. But he stopped himself short when the penchant for long-windedness seemed about to take hold. Obama had nearly double the amount of "talk time" as Biden so in a sense the comparison of the two senators in the debate format is fantastically unfair.

In the arena of international affairs, Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, exhibited his superior stature on the issues, noting that he had spoken recently with key figures in troubled Pakistan, even before President Bush. Biden also refused to pander on the issue of merit pay for teachers. Who decides whether a teacher is meriting? It makes more sense, said Biden, the husband of a teacher, to base increased pay on whether a teacher obtains advanced degrees.

North Carolinian Edwards barreled ahead with his populist message -- and people in Nevada, based on the crowd reaction, appeared to be in a buying mood. He ripped Clinton for being a defender of a "rigged" and "corrupt" system, and while acknowledging that he, too, has changed positions over time (such as on the aforementioned drivers' license question), he said Clinton seems to take seemingly two-faced positions in real time.

"There's a difference between that (changing one's mind) and saying two contrary things at the same time," Edwards said.

And thinking about key pockets of voters you have to give labor to Edwards tonight. Edwards noted that with Democrats controlling the White House and Congress in the 1990s, the working class saw health-care killed by big business but the passage of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Strong stuff from Edwards -- and we know labor is listening. You could almost call for the debate for him using this calculus alone.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson stylistically had a better-than-usual debate perfomance. But for Richardson this comes down to one answer. He said that in some siutations human rights are more important than American security interests -- perhaps a good turn of phrase for an ambassador to the United States but a major opening for Rudy or Republicans to run with in a general election -- and something Hillary Clinton may have to consider if she looks to Richardson as a running mate as is widely speculated. Even in the middle of western Iowa one could hear the wheels turning in the heads of conservative consultants on this one.

Richardson had a no-nonsense answer on drivers' licenses for immigration which came as he articulated a comprehensive immigration reform package. With federal policy failing, states have no choice to pick up the slack and attempt stopgap measures like the drivers' license proposal.

"My law enforcement people said it's a matter of public safety," Richardson said.

Clinton started the night with a misfire -- joking that her pantsuit was made of asbestos, presumably so she could handle the heat. Asbestos jokes aren't funny to Iowans over 30 who had to go to schools in run-down buildings.

Clinton's strongest moments came in explaining the role of gender in the campaign.

"People are not attacking me because I'm a woman," Clinton said. "They're attacking me because I'm ahead."

Clinton had a strong answer on how to handle tainted toys from China: have a third-party investigator go over there. But she was effectivley backed into a box on the question of potential war with Iran because of her vote to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Obama and Edwards continued to hammer her on that, and her nuanced explanation seemed lacking, giving rise to her opponents' strategy to postion her as the most hawkish of the leading candidates on the Democratic side. Clinton did offer a detailed answer on this in an interview a few weeks ago with Iowa Independent.

Where Chris Dodd is concerned my biggest thought on his performance is connected to something Dr. Steven Kraus of Carroll observed the other night at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner: Dodd, a U.S. senator from Connecticut, and Obama clearly have respect for each other.

Dodd is simply a classy senator who can answer questions with reliable competency. Conventional thinking is that the Southwest will determine the 2008 election and that a Richardson vice presidential nomination makes sense because of this. But Dodd is fluent in Spanish as I saw first hand when Lorena Lopez of La Prensa and I conducted a joint interview with him. If Obama gets the nomination Dodd complements him in a number of ways as a running mate -- including his ability to campaign in Spanish.

And yes, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, also stood on the stage.

Hillary Clinton Still Being Bashed For Poor Drexel Debate Performance

Being the supposed front runner has the one disadvantage of having everything you do or say analyzed and taken-apart. And in this digital world, the results of that work are spread far and wide rapidly. Senator Clinton's poor performance in this debate -- so bad that it may have cost her the nomination. I say may, because she's got another chance on November 15th with CNN.

NBC went on the attack, which places CNN in a bind. If they're too nice to Clinton, they could be seen as favoring her, rather than being good journalists.


Hillary Gets Poor Grades at Drexel Debate - ABC News

October 31, 2007 9:49 AM

For the first section of last night's Democratic debate -- during the entire section on that arcane Kyl-Lieberman amendment on Iran -- frontrunner Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, held her own just fine, I thought, and her reluctance to engage in the tit-for-tat bickering served her well.

But then something must have happened during that first commercial break.

Because when we came back, she seemed obfuscatory and less than forthright.

Take the question on whether or not she would allow the National Archives to open up more records of her husband's presidency -- a pertinent one given her declaration that her eight years as First Lady constitutes "experience," not to mention her husband's request that the National Archives keep their communications sealed until 2012.

"The Archives is moving as rapidly as the Archives moves," she said. 'There's about 20 million pieces of paper there. And they are move, and they are releasing as they do their process. And I am fully in favor of that."

She was pressed on her husbands request that any communication between the two of them not be made available to the public until 2012. "Would you lift that ban?" she was asked by moderator Tim Russert.

"Well, that's not my decision to make, and I don't believe that any president or first lady ever has. But, certainly, we're move as quickly as our circumstances and the processes of the
National Archives permits."

Said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois: "We have just gone through one of the most secretive administrations in our history. And not releasing, I think, these records at the same time, Hillary, that you're making the claim that this is the basis for your experience, I think, is a problem."

It went on like that.

Russert flatly accused her of being duplicitous on Social Security, saying to him and at an AARP-hosted debate that she would not increasing Social Security taxes, then telling a teacher -- and being overheard by an AP reporter -- that she would consider it. "Why do you have one public position and one private position?" Russert asked.

Clinton denied she did, saying -- when pressed on her private conversation with a teacher -- that "everybody knows what the possibilities are, Tim. Everybody knows that. But I do not advocate it. I do not support it."

Then came questions about the tax reform proposal offered by one of her biggest supporters, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-NY, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee. Campaigning with Rangel and his wife, former President Bill Clinton on Saturday said, "Charlie Rangel wants me to pay more taxes so you can pay less and I think that's a good idea."

Is that Sen. Clinton's view?

Clinton declared herself a "great admirer of Chairman Rangel." Then she said "I don't know all the details of what Charlie is recommending, but I certainly agree with the goal."

Then she sounded as if she was quite familiar with the details of what Rangel is recommending.

Then she said "I don't agree with all the details, but he's on the right track to say we've got to do something about" the Alternative Minimum Tax.

Her worst moment came at the end of the debate, (watch it HERE) when asked about a comment she gave to a New Hampshire newspaper that New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's controversial proposal to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants "makes a lot of sense."

"What Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform," she said. "We know in New York we have several million at any one time who are in New York illegally. They are undocumented workers. They are driving on our roads. The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds. It's probability. So what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum."

Then Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., took issue with Spitzer's proposal.

Clinton then interjected -- "Well, I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do…"

If you paid attention you might have felt hundreds of thousands of Americans go: HUH?

"No, no, no," Dodd said. "You said -- you said yes, you thought it made sense to do it."

"No, I didn't, Chris," said Clinton.

"Senator Clinton, I just want to make sure of what I heard," said Russert. "Do you, the New York senator, Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor's plan to give illegal immigrants a driver's license?
You told the New Hampshire paper that it made a lot of sense. Do you support his plan?"

Clinton got defensive. "You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays 'gotcha.' It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problems. We have failed. And George Bush has failed. Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation, trying to get a handle on this? Remember, in New York, we want to know who's in New York. We want people to come out of the shadows. He's making an honest effort to do it. We should have passed immigration reform."

It fed into the meme that Obama and former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, had been pushing all night -- that Clinton is calculating and less than honest.

So they, too, pounced.

"Unless I missed something, Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes just a few minutes ago," Edwards said. "And I think this is a real issue for the country. I mean, America is looking for a president who will say the same thing, who will be consistent, who will be straight with them. Because what we've had for seven years is double-talk from Bush and from Cheney, and I think America deserves us to be straight."

Added Obama: "Well, I was confused on Senator Clinton's answer. I can't tell whether she was for it or against it. And I do think that is important. One of the things that we have to do in this country is
to be honest about the challenges that we face."

Clinton is still the frontrunner, and has a commanding lead. But it was shaky performance, with the grand finale of the debate being a devastating punch delivered by … Clinton herself.

Thoughts?

-- jpt

October 31, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (86)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/433071/22916048

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hillary Gets Poor Grades at Drexel Debate:

User Comments

Here here James!

Posted by: southern_bell | Oct 31, 2007 7:08:35 PM

Smith, you wrote: "I'd rather a president, or whomever for that matter, change their stance and say "I was wrong", rather than let their pride override their better judgement." You want to impose your own ideals and judgment upon President Bush. But see that is where you have no clue.

President Bush strongly believes -- a true heartfelt conviction -- that the key to peace in the Middle East, and hopefully to the overall War on Terror, is two-fold: (1) Thriving democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq being role models for their neighbors. That eventually the populace of their neighbors will demand democracies in their own countries; (2) The two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Therefore, he will not waver from his conviction.

Now it is possible that democracy will never take hold in the Middle East. And if that is the case, then there will NEVER be peace in the Middle East. But President Bush will not give up on the Middle East. That is why he is so adamant in wanting to win the war in Iraq both from a military and a political standpoint.

A recent poll indicates that 19% of Democrats actually believe that the world would be a better place if the United States were to lose the War in Iraq; and another 20% of Democrats don't know whether the world would be better off or not. Overall, 11% of Americans believe the world would be better off if we lost the war; while 73% disagree. That's because many of you just do not believe that the terrorists are serious about wanting to end Western Civilization and destroying the United States. And you certainly refuse to believe that we ARE fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. But letting al Qaeda have a military victory in Iraq WILL OPEN the gates of Armageddon. And when that happens, losing nearly 3,000 citizens on 9/11 and losing 3,842+ members of the U. S. Armed Forces in Iraq the past 4 1/2 years, will pale in comparison.

Posted by: James Danley | Oct 31, 2007 6:24:44 PM

Millie - I'm sorry if you lost someone in the war but that doesn't make Bush a murderer.

all wars are absurd.

Posted by: southern_bell | Oct 31, 2007 5:45:10 PM

How about we issue the illegal immigrants driver licenses and when they come to pick them up deport them? You know, since they are, you know, illegal and all...

Posted by: southern_bell | Oct 31, 2007 5:22:39 PM

Jim Bob,

If your son or daugther had been killed in Iraq in this absurd war that only Bush and his cronies support, you would not hesitate to call the president a murderer. You do not need to do a lot of homework to verify this fact!! I can only ask, how can he sleep at night????

Posted by: Millie | Oct 31, 2007 5:18:15 PM

Alex - When you said, "A President - a leader - should not just do what the masses want, otherwise they'd just be a follower and not a leader." I disagree. A leader NEEDS to take into consideration what the people want. Isn't that what our country is based on? Politicians are supposed to represent their constituents' wishes. I'd rather a president, or whomever for that matter, change their stance and say "I was wrong", rather than let their pride override their better judgement. I also understand why candidates will ride the fence on some issues. It's so that they can appeal to more than just one group of people. I understand that we also need someone firm in their beliefs, but when everyone picks on every single word you say, it's hard not to waffle from time to time. Give it a rest, will ya! (And go ahead, pick on my posting too. I know you want to.)

Posted by: Smith | Oct 31, 2007 4:56:20 PM

Spock,

If you think Bush is interested in the welfare of America, please consider the close relationship between King George and the Saudi Royalty and the Bin Laden family. He is interested in the wealthy and the elite, not the US, not the US Constitution, not the US soldier, only the US military because his family makes money when the military uses ordinance. Go ahead and Google "Bush and bin Laden".

Posted by: BooMan | Oct 31, 2007 4:45:43 PM

correction - can not be that dumb

Posted by: spock | Oct 31, 2007 4:29:31 PM

Brenda - Jeff seems ideologically blinded by his hatred for Bush, See Pres Bush ran for the People of the US, not Foreign countries. Who cares if they like us or not.

Kerry did it, Gore did it, I just do not understand why they run for President here if France likes them.

President Bush can be that dumb he beat the Libs twice with the second time a record number of the popular vote, more then even Reagan.

Posted by: spock | Oct 31, 2007 4:28:21 PM

Hey Jake
I got to hand it to you, in one Blog your called a Hilary supporter, and then in this blog your called a Hilary Basher!

Got to wonder!

Posted by: spock | Oct 31, 2007 4:20:36 PM

UGOCHUKWU - Kerry served Honorable, um you forget the question purple hearts, the radio speeches in France, I guess thats honorable for you libs.

Gore? Are you kidding, anybody who Blames the US first can get a Noble Peace Prize! what in the world does his Propaganda Global Warming got to do with Peace, and it shows since they skipped giving it to that woman who saved thousands from the Nazis

Lets see your Clinton/Soros attack on a General who is a Hero

STOP READING LIBERAL PROPAGANDA!!

Posted by: spock | Oct 31, 2007 4:13:38 PM

UGOCHUKWU, I don't like Sen. Hillary Clinton. Not because she is a woman, but because she is a socialist (if not a communist). Back in May, Sen. Clinton said that what the Bush administration touts as an "ownership society" really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor. She also said: "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an "on your own" society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a "we're all in it together" society."

CONNECT THE DOTS! First she said that an "ownership society" is really an "on your own" society. Then she says it's time to reject an "on your own" society. Thus she says we should reject an "ownership society" and "replace it shared responsibility for shared prosperity." That is Marxist!

Posted by: James Danley | Oct 31, 2007 4:08:00 PM

This is hopeful and perhaps constructive criticism for I do not want to block or interfere with any one candidate at this time. I had been a “key” individual and for the public within the shadows of the U.S. government since the lost of the space shuttle Columbia, and then I became more to the forefront with my concerns over the safety issues within NASA and became a whistle blower, courtroom activist, jailed without trial, lost of family. I am a person who chose to go to Vietnam with the HAWK unit as a marine in 1965 and later became a computer scientist and if people talked with me between the years of 1986 to yesterday they would think of me as a rebel because they had not yet realized they had been so badly mislead and in a fog of marketing of professionals. Today I am very hopeful that our candidates are on both sides genuinely preparing their platform for the best interest of the United States and not for their personal agenda. I am in ill health, and have been since Vietnam, otherwise I would been much more active as a human within our social fabric, our national security is still weak, our environmental protection is much weaker, the national farmers associations will have critical problems, our health system are unfair and in disarray, the national school system is in a “Clear and Present” danger (from all classes and from birth many family‘s are disconnected with their children), etc, etc,. Currently our enemy is genuine and with terrorism, but very soon with the crisis of global environmental losses in food and resources there will be border conflicts, and foreign wars. I am very concerned over the recovery of the United States at this time in our evolutionary period, and who takes command of the U.S. Government. The world cannot function well without a functioning government within the United States, and I believe most of the world governments realize that to be true. I have combated terrorism in South Vietnam and their the street orphans constantly helped me in avoiding contact with the enemy when I was alone and vulnerable, I was under orders not to engage the enemy and not to be captured , but I was also constantly present amongst the civilians. Now decades later I am again in a deep and critical matter that requires attention by national leaders and they choose to abandon me, persecute me, and after it is determined that I am correct, they remain further in distance and only one comes forward with a recent hand shake. The next leader of this nation has a task of recovery of reuniting of rebuilding, and so far I have not seen that spirited platform appear within any of the parties. I hope my reflections and statements are of some use. Note: I use to sing and talk to my children from the day they were born, and I would talk to them about the clothing they wore, or at cafeterias I would let them pick their food even at the early age of 6 months, we had a ongoing open and friendly relationship.

Posted by: Williamwfh | Oct 31, 2007 4:04:10 PM

It is heartening to know that after all the ridicule President Reagan took from democrats for the movie, Bedtime for Bonzo, the frontrunner would only poll 46-48% against “any republican” prior to the debate and most likely only 43% against Bonzo after this debate.

Posted by: flyover | Oct 31, 2007 3:48:20 PM

ABC PULLED MY POST! Is it because I pointed out your bias?

Posted by: jim | Oct 31, 2007 3:46:15 PM

I want to ask if Jake Tapper is favors
one party 'cause every time I check on the comments,it is full of Mrs Clinton
bashers.I posted a comment at one time and went back to check but was not there
any more.I do observe that he has always
posted more of unfavorable comments about the Clinton and nobody else. WHAT IS GOING ON?

Posted by: UGOCHUKWU | Oct 31, 2007 3:45:17 PM

Why didn't she just say "sooner, rather than later," when she meant "never." It worked for the "most ethical administration" before.

Posted by: taxplan | Oct 31, 2007 3:28:54 PM

SHAME,SHAME,SHAME,there we go again folks,the right hate mongers have already started and it is not the general election yet. What are you guys
afraid of on Hillary Clinton? is 'cause
she is a woman? is it cause she is Bill's wife,is it cause you hate mongers
do not like women being in charge? what
is it cause it bugs me why some people
are so narrow minded. You guys last time
I checked went after AL Gore on many
issues like global warming ten years ago
and now he is a nobel peace prize winner
You guys went after John Kerry,a man who
served, I repeat served his country in
Vietnam,you went after former Georgia
senator Maxclelan,a disable vet who lost
both leggs and one ,calling him a liberal 'cause of his stands with the
Irag war. Where are your taugths. This
time you guys are going after her,fool
me once and the country but this time
It is not going to work. Brenda and others bashing,you out of touch right
winggers, get a life 'cause she is going
to be the next president of the united
states.

Posted by: UGOCHUKWU | Oct 31, 2007 3:27:16 PM

If Hilary were a male, this stupid sniping would disappear, and she would be considered according to her merits. Get over it, and I'm sorry... but I wanted so much to believe Obama would take the high road, but he's like a kid poking a dog with a stick. He has much less substance than I would have hoped.

BUT all of these issues are complicated. People are allowed to consider and change their minds - Geez, it shows that they THINK about things - this goes for all the candidates. We now have an administration that NEVER corrects it's views, and it' s HORRIBLE. Let's see what these folk have to offer, not who's the best at sniping.

Posted by: kcareymac | Oct 31, 2007 3:24:03 PM

This seems to be a classic example of the "good Hillary/bad Hillary" personae which, like Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde, the junior senator from New York often manifests. When Sen. Clinton doesn't respond to the political attacks and the baiting, she seems competent and presidential; when she triangulates her position and tries to be everything to everybody, she seems indecisive and calculating. The other candidates smelled her blood in the water and began to attack, most deservedly, when she seemingly expressed support for Gov. Spitzer without supporting him. It's obvious she's a follower of Lewis Carroll, but shouldn't be: "A word means exactly what I want it to mean, neither more nor less."

Posted by: chuck | Oct 31, 2007 3:21:13 PM

So everyone on all the campaigns are reading everything we (the real people) are saying and all their opionions will change tomorrow. Love this country, can't wait to read the news.

Posted by: ME | Oct 31, 2007 3:21:06 PM

I HEARD A COUPLE OF COMMENTS EARLIER SAYING THAT OBAMA AND CLINTON ANSWERED THE SAME REGARDING THE QUESTION OF ISSUING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT'S IDS TO DRIVE. OBAMA SAID THIS"I think that it is the right idea, and I disagree with Chris because there is a public safety concern. We can make sure that drivers who are illegal come out of the shadows, that they can be tracked, that they are properly trained, and that will make our roads safer.

That doesn't negate the need for us to reform illegal immigration.

UNLESS YOU WERE OUTSIDE TAKING A BREATHERLIZER TEST, WHAT DID THEY NOT UNDERSTAND REGARDING OBAMA'S ANSWER?

HERE IS SENATOR CLINTONS ANSWER:
Russert: Senator Clinton, I just want to make sure of what I heard. Do you, the New York senator, Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor's plan to give illegal immigrants a driver's license?

You told the New Hampshire paper that it made a lot of sense. Do you support his plan?

Clinton: You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays "gotcha." It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problems. We have failed. And George Bush has failed. Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation, trying to get a handle on this? Remember, in New York, we want to know who's in New York. We want people to come out of the shadows.

I WAS JUST AS CONFUSED AS OBAMA!



Posted by: James | Oct 31, 2007 3:17:06 PM

Apparently Hillary supporters are blindsided by the fact that its Bill they really want. Let's face it..after last night's debate, its apparent the woman is an idiot with little integrity. The woman cannot answer a question without blaming someone else thinking that's the answer to the question. Too evasive and non-committal to any issue. Bad for the country not to have answers for issues in our country during a campaign.

Posted by: cbeargal | Oct 31, 2007 3:16:42 PM

I would like someone to win that has actually RAN something. Perhaps been a Governer. Even Rudy with Mayor experience is a little better than a Senator. They are all under qualified to run this country. It would be good to have run a state, money, laws etc.
so they at least have a clue. I believe a vote for Hillary is a vote for Bill. He will be President she will be his puppet.

Posted by: ME | Oct 31, 2007 3:02:24 PM

STEVEN: What the h*ll was that? First, there is a key next to the "A" key on your keyboard...it's called the caps lock key. Push it once. Secondly, are you literate? There were more sentence fragments, run on sentences and spelling mistakes than I have even seen in one location at one time! I tried to read your posting and honestly I don't know what side you are on or what you were trying to say for that matter! YIKES!

Posted by: Julio | Oct 31, 2007 3:01:12 PM

This nation DOES NOT need any more family rule. If Clinton is elected it will have been decades that we have been under the leadership of only 2 families! I thought we broke away from this $%@&* long ago!

Posted by: RW | Oct 31, 2007 2:57:41 PM

The bottom line? As much as I'd like to vote for a woman, I just don't trust Hillary and I don't think she could win the general election. She should put personal ambition aside and do what's best for the party by withdrawing from the race.

Posted by: Bob | Oct 31, 2007 2:54:07 PM

Hey I do not mind them attacking President Bush! It shows their lack of respect for the office, and in doing that shows they do not deserve to take the office. And Also they show ignorance because the last time I read President Bush unfortunately can not run again.

They out right lie, which anybody with a unbrainwashed brian can find out for themselves,

1 - Cancer Death Rates that they said were up, there was a report that cancer Death rates have gone down

2 - Social Security under Clinton was to survive to 2055 but under Bush it went to 2042, well half lie again under Clinton it was to run out in 2037, Pres Bush went up to 2042

3 - Bush Lied - Well where were the facts???

Posted by: spock | Oct 31, 2007 2:53:10 PM

Interesting that when pushed to give a clear "yes" or "no" answer she still waffled all around--even later.
If she felt her answer was not clear then she would have insisted on clearing up the issue but she did not. That indicates that she really did not want to clear up the matter--probably as has been pointed out -- because she is afraid of alienating people who diagree with her.
The other candidates and possibly her final Republican opponent will be hitting her hard with continued references like "There you go again without explaining yourself". If she does not come up with a defensive tact to dela with it then it wil be BYE BYE Hillary.

Posted by: John | Oct 31, 2007 2:49:23 PM

They were all eating crow last night about campaign contributions as well. I looked at guys like Dodd and Kucinich, and I have more respect for them now, since they stick to their principals and true to their issues. What is everyone's opinion about Al Gore getting into the race? Does he have time? The true desire?

Posted by: Alex | Oct 31, 2007 2:45:20 PM

They are all weather vanes. Their people read what everyone is saying and jump on the lastest band wagon. So far like I said before, what are they going to do for US? So far nothing. We can bash Bush til we are blue in the face but the point is to replace him, move forward. What are these candidates going to do to make it better? That is what I want to hear. Not what has been done wrong what is going to be done right. Then stick to what they say. That is what I want. But hey I'm an American and it doesn't seem to matter what I want. I am beginning to feel like the minority in this country.

Posted by: ME | Oct 31, 2007 2:39:53 PM

Look at New York. You have all the Rangels, Sharptons, Clintons, Spitzers, etc. Then people want to know why we in the South still want to seceed.

Posted by: Alex | Oct 31, 2007 2:36:43 PM

Like I heard someone say: Hillary is a weather vane and not a compass. She will go any way the popular wind is blowing. A President - a leader - should not just do what the masses want, otherwise they'd just be a follower and not a leader.

Posted by: Mark | Oct 31, 2007 2:32:15 PM

Clinton had Vince Foster killed? Riiiiiiiight. But nonetheless, Hillary is not a good choice for the Democratic nominee. She, like McCain, is too power-hungry. She should remain a strong Senatorial Democrat and let someone much more qualified - like Al Gore - run for President.

Posted by: Mike F | Oct 31, 2007 2:32:14 PM

Hillay appears to say whatever will cover the widest swath of opinion. You want to hear yes? Well, thar ya go! But with a qualifier, for those who wanted to hear "no". Got it all covered that way. Defiantly against something? Well so is she, in principle anyway, leave the "in practice" part to her, for she's far more wiley than the commoners, and you'll just have to understand she would've done what you wanted, only she's smarter than you and had to do it her way ultimately. Got that? Good. I was being sarcastic, by the way.

Posted by: Jim | Oct 31, 2007 2:28:35 PM

It was funny and revealing of her lack of character, watching her waffle all last night blame everything on Bush and Cheney. Governor Spitzer will give illegals a drivers license and hillary is blaming it on Bush. Yet she and her fellow Senators are ultimately the body that fail to create effective immigrant legislation. Last night she even sidestepped a qustion about tax increases, and blamed it on Haliburton. Hillary Bush is a fake. Spitzer looks like he wears eyeliner...blame that on Bush as well.

Posted by: New Yorker | Oct 31, 2007 2:28:22 PM

The ONE and ONLY reason I would vote for Hillary is to get BILL back in office. She's just there for show and everyone knows its true.

Posted by: JT | Oct 31, 2007 2:27:33 PM

EDWARDS ATTACK THE WOMAN A CHAUVENSITIC EDWARDS DITN GET HIGH SCORE-HE LOST. ALSO HILLARY DONT WANT TO BE IN THE BAG- THEN LATER IT BITE HER- TIM RUSSERT VERY BULL AND TRICKY GUY- HILLARY WAS SMART LAST NIGHT- ONLY THE CLINTON CAN GET BACK IN SHAPE IN OUR AMERICA JUST LIKE BEFORE; AMERICA IS GREAT-AMERICA WS GREAT UNDER THE CLINTON RMEMBER THAT TO ALL YOU AMERICAN PEOPLE OR AMERICAN PEOPLE RMEBER THE GOOD TIMES. WE HAVE GOOD ALMOST EVERYTHING AND WE HAVE SURPLUS REPUBLICAN PARTY BANKRUPT THE COUNTRY UNDER THE BSUH ADM, AND MESSY BUSH ACT LIKE HE HAS A NETAL PROBLEM AS KUSINICH ARGUMENT OR COMMNET. EDWARDS A LOSWR LIAR GEMINI BORN GUY- HE DONT GO NOWHERE. CHAUVENSITIC GUY SHOUD NOT ATTACK AWOMAN/ EVBEN REPUBLICAN- THEYR MOTHERS AND AUNT AND REALTIVES ARE WOMEN. HILLARY SI NON-INCUMBERNT CANDIATE AND WELL EXPREIENCE.55 YEARS IN CHCILDREN ADVOCATE /WOMNE AND WOEMN RIGHTS AND ETC. SHES GOOD WE NED A LADY LIKE HER- WISH ALL AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN SEE THROUGH ALL HER GOOD THINGS SHE DID DURING HER HHUSBAND TERMS. GOD BLESS YOU HILLARY UR THE EBST IN MY OPINION.
UR CARING LADY OTHER NOT GOOD. JUST TLAK NO SUSBTANCE.

Posted by: STEVEN | Oct 31, 2007 2:26:02 PM

Clinton had Vince Foster killed after she had an affair with him. This doesn't even top the list of the crooked things they have done. The Clintons are such scoundrels.

Posted by: Marlena | Oct 31, 2007 2:12:33 PM

Just a note: having an editor go through your article(s), or at the very least, proof-reading them before they're available for public viewing can go a long way.

Posted by: Rodney | Oct 31, 2007 2:05:35 PM

Brenda - Well so far Bush has only delivered the worst case scenario. Lies, deception, arrogance, stupidity, etc, etc, etc... It hard to get any worse than Bush/Cheney.

Posted by: Jeff | Oct 31, 2007 1:35:35 PM

Wow doesn't that qualify all politicians? Not just Bush. How about Mr. Clinton? Some just aren't caught yet and others don't make the news.

Posted by: ME | Oct 31, 2007 1:53:58 PM

She made many mistakes last night. She troubles me greatly.

Posted by: Dennis | Oct 31, 2007 1:53:48 PM

This article has some grammatical mistakes. Consider running it through spellcheck again.

Posted by: michael | Oct 31, 2007 1:50:21 PM

Doesn't matter unless she flip-flops on Israel ( and she won't do that. She is more ambitious than ethical).

Then they will flush her.

Posted by: Rob | Oct 31, 2007 1:48:02 PM

Given the fact that no one on this board is privy to more that 5% of the intelligence information presented to the President on a daily basis, please explain how you can determine Bush's level of intelligence. Anyone who has spoken with him will tell you he is an extraordinarily intelligent person. Yes, maybe he struggles speaking in public, but this is not an indication of his intelligence...unless you feel that you can judge a person's entire character and intelligence level by the few times a year you see him on TV... But enough about Bush, this article isn't about him.

Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 1:47:02 PM

Jeff: This article has nothing to do with Bush. In case you don't know, he didn't debate last night. You constantly bashing Bush every opportunity you get shows who you really are...a liberal democrat with no other agenda but "hate-Bush". Let's focus on the issues at hand instead of using this as a platform to launch your agenda.

Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 1:42:35 PM

I say we ammend the constitution and put BUSH/CHENEY in for four more years.

Posted by: jim bob | Oct 31, 2007 1:41:17 PM

Jeff: Typical liberal comment...change the subject by making a "hate-Bush" comment. 1) Bush has nothing to do with Hillary's flip-flopping. 2) Bush has remained constant in his stance (whether you agree with him or not) for seven years...he hasn't changed his values for political gain. 3) Even if you think Bush is the "village idiot", that's no reason to elect Hillary...stupidest arguement I ever heard (transparent attempt to use this article to promote your liberal "hate-Bush" agenda). 4) The reason people around the world don't think Hillary is an idiot is simply because they don't know her yet. I would venture to guess that many around the world think she's a fool for turning a blind eye to her husband's sexcapades for the past 20 years. Any femanist should think she's an idiot with no values...

Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 1:39:45 PM

SteveW, I agree. Last night won't dissuade her voters, most of whom are, as you indicate, lukewarm to begin with. Her supporters also a progressive bunch, and she managed to stay on message with respect to progressive causes (immigration reform, alt min repeal) albeit flimsily. I think.

Posted by: cordelia525 | Oct 31, 2007 1:36:21 PM

Brenda - Well so far Bush has only delivered the worst case scenario. Lies, deception, arrogance, stupidity, etc, etc, etc... It hard to get any worse than Bush/Cheney.

Posted by: Jeff | Oct 31, 2007 1:35:35 PM

Hillary has no plans. Anything she is telling you now is nothing more than a political promise. I live in NY and when she campaigned for Senator she promised the world...so far she has delivered nothing, and I do mean "nothing". And she can't blame it on being stopped by republicans either because this state is vastly democratic, both in population and leadership. She's a power-monger who will say anything to gain more power...she doesn't give a rat's #$%^& about the people who elect her.

Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 1:32:17 PM

Brenda - Kind-of like all the misinformed people that voted for Bush. It too late to erase all damage he has done to the US. Atleast one thing that H. Clinton has is people around the world don't think she is the village idiot.

Posted by: Jeff | Oct 31, 2007 1:30:48 PM

ME, the problem is that the political game has turned so nasty that the qualified people for president are not about to subject their familis to it. I dont blame them. Hillary is just an example of what is left over, it's sad.

Posted by: jim bob | Oct 31, 2007 1:28:50 PM

ME, the problem is that the political game has turned so nasty that the qualified people for president are not about to subject their familis to it. I dont blame them. Hillary is just an example of what is left over, it's sad.

Posted by: jim bob | Oct 31, 2007 1:28:43 PM

Millie: Calling the President a murderer is a pretty serious claim...I hope you done all your homework and you're not just jumping on the liberal "hate-Bush" band-wagon. As for Ku-sin-ich, I think he showed his true colors last night. People may not like Bush, but I think his comments were uncalled for and showed who he really is. But I don't expect anything less from a liberal...

Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 1:28:36 PM

WE want to know WHO is in New York! WE want to know WHO is everywhere. Hillary is part of the WE! Beware of the WE! WE have plans.

Posted by: GM | Oct 31, 2007 1:24:53 PM

SteveW: That was very well put. The driver's license issue is crystal clear to me...illegals tend to favor liberals because they, by-and-large, support amnisty. Who are they going to vote for? You are correct though, she only has a handful of core supporters. Right now, she is completely beholden to the far left to sustain the support of organizations like MoveOn.org and the Democracy Alliance (aka George Soros and his money). For this reason she only has the extreme far left as her base. Once she gets the nomination, watch how fast she runs back to the middle. My fear is that her support will grow among moderates and then if she is elected, she will show who she really is, a socialist...but by that time, it will be too late.

Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 1:24:48 PM

I am a 100% Obama suporter and think he did a terrific job last night bringing up important issues without insulting anyone. However, regarding the question asked of Kucinich, as a science teacher I must clarify that a UFO is an unidentified flying object and many people have seen them. It is just an object that does not look like an airplane or other identifiable craft. It may be a meteor, or even a piece of space debris entering the atmosphere. It does not have to be aliens! As to Bush being mentally ill, I can see no other rational explanation to all the bullying, arrogance, and plain murder he has committed.

Posted by: Millie | Oct 31, 2007 1:20:04 PM

If "illegal alian" = "undocumented worker" then does "drug dealer" = "unlicensed pharmacist"?

Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 1:12:08 PM

I haven't seen but a few outright Hillary supporters on this blog, which is the only one I post on. Even when I go to blogs with 'liberal' or 'progressive' in the blog title, I see less than wholehearted support for Hillary-corp, as if she's the lesser of eight evils, and they want the 90's back. They don't care that she won't answer a direct question until her handlers have a day or so to do some polling and spin out a position. Many of her few strong supporters, though, like what she REALLY believes. She said last night that we should have passed the Immigration Reform Bill--it failed because a huge majority of Americans oppose blanket amnesty--but her few core supporters want that. She flip-flopped badly on the New York drivers license for illegals question--because she knows that a huge majority of New Yorkers are against it. But her few core supporters want drivers licenses for illegals, because once they have drivers licenses, they can VOTE...illegally, of course, but to Hillary supporters, a vote is a vote. She said last night that she would pare down the military by BILLIONS of dollars, yet she conceded that she would have to continue the war against terrorism for YEARS!!! That, of course, doesn't make practical sense, but her few core supporters want those drastic military cuts that the majority of Americans don't want. Her performance last night was not good--that is true. It was not good because she got caught a few times saying what she really thinks....and once the rest of America knows what she REALLY believes, it's over for her. Really.

Posted by: SteveW | Oct 31, 2007 1:11:04 PM

Her answer on the driver's license issue was stupid. How is giving an illegal a driver's license going to "bring about comprehensive immigration reform"? This was just an opportunity to take a shot at Bush. She then said that the possibility of them having an accident and harming someone is great. So...how is giving them a driver's license going to help? They will still be driving on the same roads with the same vehicles. All this does is makes the government issued driver's license a non-valid form of identification because anyone can get one. Brilliant idea!

Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 1:09:34 PM

I am just so sick of all of this so soon. The reality is not a one of these people will do this country any good. They have not YET said what they will do for this country. Too busy bashing each other. Try that first and I may listen. If elections were today I would not vote. It doesn't matter who we get our government is a joke. They do not work together they try to upstage each other. Sad for this country. Hilary has been in NYS for a few years and all she has done for us is promote her book and her election. Do we still have to pay her?

Posted by: ME | Oct 31, 2007 1:04:04 PM

The question on UFO's was irrelevant.We all have seen strange things-especially when it comes to the political system. I have more tust in the UFO's and I haven't seen one.

Posted by: D. Kerns | Oct 31, 2007 1:02:38 PM

Jerry, if you call getting called to the carpet for talking out both sides of her mouth for political gain "ganging up on Hillary" so be it, but if people are ignorant enough to elect someone who is obviously only out for herself and power, then we deserve what we get...a socialist who wants to tax us to the gills and turn us into a anti-capitalism, socialist country. BTW, anyone will get Bush out of office in '08...it's the end of his 2nd term...

Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 1:01:08 PM

I think they should have pushed her for a yes or no answer. I was a Clinton supporter in the beginning when she announced her candidacy, but after reading up on her position and watching her in debates, I am honestly not sure where she stands on many things for precisely the reason demonstrated in this debate; she answers questions on issues based on the political value of the answer and not based on what she actually thinks. That is unacceptable in every way. I think both Obama and Edwards are far better choices at this point. Although I have to say that the best overall candidate from either party remains the Republican, Dr. Ron Paul. All the other GOP candidates are garbage though.

Posted by: Tom G | Oct 31, 2007 1:00:41 PM

Step One: Triangulate - take all sides of a position.

Step Two: If step one fails, blame Bush (even though Congress stalled his comprehensive immigration proposal).

The most telling sentence from Hillary was "You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays 'gotcha.'" Well, as President and a leader, you have to make decisions so get used to 'gotcha'.

Posted by: Kevin | Oct 31, 2007 12:59:23 PM

Did you noticed at last night's Democratic debate that Hillary have set
aside that hyena's laugh (cuckle) despite the attacks thrown at her ? Remember how she tried to parry Tim and George's tough question with it on their shows with the prolonged cuckle ? Where was her vaunted counter punch as she bragged of decking her attackers ? I don't know if this debate will change the dynamic of the campaign, but certainly it affirms that Hillary is a very pliable candidate that in Tech hardware lingo, she is classified as a programmable chip. So, I therefore categorized the debate as a Hillary Reset. What do you think ?

Posted by: wilson | Oct 31, 2007 12:57:25 PM

Ok, according to the state of New York you must have a drivers license and valid insurance to drive in the State of New York. If illegal immigrants are driving now without a license and insurance and risking the consequences, what is a 2nd law stating the same thing going to do to stop them?

If Hillary is such an "intuitive thinker", why didn't she think of that?

Let's face it, having Hillary in office would be no different than GWB or her husband Billy. Yet another administration based on lies and only thinking about themselves.

Posted by: Michael | Oct 31, 2007 12:55:04 PM

Sorry...Hillary is the front-runner and I'm not willing to turn my country over to a flip-flopping socialist while you people hem and haw trying to make up your minds who to vote for. If you don't want to hear the truth, read something else!

Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 12:53:01 PM

Its obvious the other candidates are getting desperate and the media wants to create some conflict so its lets gang up on Hillary time. Stiop trying to dissect every word she says into several possible meanings and get on with getting BUSH out of office. She's the only one capable of doing that at this time.

Posted by: Jerry | Oct 31, 2007 12:52:51 PM

For God's sake, everyone. WHY are you STILL picking on Hillary? Give those of us who haven't made up our minds who to vote for a chance to evaluate her and the other candidates rationally. So until we do, just SHUT UP, stop muddying her name, and let us decide in peace!!

Posted by: Veronica | Oct 31, 2007 12:46:00 PM

I was looking forward to having a women president. What we are going to get is just another politician, is as simple as that. I used to respect Hillary Clinton, but lately as I pay more attention to what she says and does that respect is gone. Calling NY State ILLEGAL Aliens, undocumented immigrants is just a playing with words. They are not entitle to driver licenses, 3/4 of her constituent's do not agree with this plan. Does she listen to them? No!

Voting yes to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, just what Bush needs to declare war with Iran. Did she not learn from the mistake that the Iraq war has turned out to be.

Shame on her, Congress and look for nothing to change in the White House.

Posted by: A Soldier's Mom | Oct 31, 2007 12:43:05 PM

I was a democrat / Hillary supporter until earlier this year when I took a step back, disregarded all the bias and "republican hate" I was being fed and looked at the facts and what was best for our country. The results were amazing. I was blinded to the truth for so long by all the propaganda the liberal media and democrat party was feeding me. Holy crap! I can see how people can't see the truth amid the limited information that is out there, but I would encourage people to think about the level of character a president should have. Bush may not be perfect, but he has stuck to his convictions and hasn't waivered. The Clinton machine is an agenda driven organization. There is no concern for the American people, just power. Open your eyes people!

Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 12:37:56 PM

Interesting that you don't mention that Obama also said that he could see issuing the driver's license as an issue of 'public safety' and also declined to endorse, or attack the govenor's plan. I like Hillary and Obama and they both answered the same on this issue, but, Hillary gets all the criticism. Our fine media at work.

Posted by: k | Oct 31, 2007 12:31:23 PM

What came to the surface last night is just the tip of the iceberg. She has no values, she has no principles. All she is concerned about is being popular so if that means changing her stance on key issues depending on who she's talking to, she has no problem with that. Frankly, I don't think anyone can lead a nation without values. A compass, not a weathervane will lead you forward. PS...she also has no qualifications to be president regardless of what she lies, uh I mean tells you.

Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 12:29:20 PM

I only caught a portion of the debate last night. I found Sen. Biden's and Sen. Dodd's comments about them fearing Pakistan more than Iran very interesting. YET neither one of them -- at least during the time that I was watching -- attacked Sen. Obama for his comment from several weeks ago saying he would be willing to invade Pakistan.

Now as for issuing driver's licenses to illegal aliens, it is a huge mistake. That actually makes that individual "legal" -- at least at the state level. And then the individual is free to drive LEGALLY anywhere in the country.

Posted by: James Danley | Oct 31, 2007 12:16:32 PM

Senator Clinton is finally being confronted about her trying to preach to the croud saying what she thinks a specific group wants to hear. Not the truth on the issues that most americans want to hear. She wants to attack Bush and that is the basis of her campaign . The only problem with that is everyone agrees with her position on Bush.

Posted by: John McMichael | Oct 31, 2007 12:13:28 PM

Hillary is not the best candidate and it is not a matter of male of female. Mrs Clinton like her husband will say anything as long it gets her in power.
Why she did not ran for Senate for her own State? because she knew she will have been a sure looser period. I will never waste my vote on her.

Posted by: Franco | Oct 31, 2007 12:10:43 PM

Oh poor Tim Russert. There will be hell to pay for him now. The Clintons don't mess around. Better put up an electric security fence Tim, like Juanita Brodderick had to do.

Posted by: JRB | Oct 31, 2007 12:05:10 PM

Hillary kick off your shoes get in the kitchen and cook us something.........

Posted by: Roostercruiser843 | Oct 31, 2007 12:01:06 PM

Well, for me, I didn't go "huh" when you quoted Hillary's comments about giving illegal taxi drivers licenses and suggested it was a contradiction. (?!)

All she said is that she understood why the governor WOULD do it (i.e., to counter a flaw in the current system).

This is typical of intuitive thinkers -- they can follow various arguments and even articulate them to others, all without it being any sort of endorsement.

She was simply explaining the governor's reasoning, but she was not necessarily endorsing his solution at this time. If she had been endorsing it, she would have explicitly said so.

Shame on the others for capitalizing on this "mistake" in how she expressed herself. It's one reason I hate election season... people are more concerned with ripping holes in each other's comments rather than working together to accomplish a task.

Posted by: Jennifer | Oct 31, 2007 12:00:58 PM

Hillary showed America the true Hillary-a person with very little principles who will say and do anything for power--thoughts of Machivelli, Stalin and Lenin come to mind. She will destroy the dems if they persist in promoting her. They have good people in Biden and Obama but are obsessed with calculating Clinton and it ain't gonna fly folks.

Posted by: rockychance | Oct 31, 2007 11:53:32 AM

I think that they are trying to twist what Hillary said...the Governor is trying to do something to make sure that everyone driving in New York State is license, and insurance, is it the best plan, maybe not, but he is coming up with a plan to make the roads safer. I think she clearly stated that the Federal Government should have been doing something about the illegal immigrants, not State by State, I understood her and would vote for her and I think she would make the best President, and any one of the other men running should be proud that she is on their team and work with her not against her.

Posted by: Anita Kramer | Oct 31, 2007 11:49:15 AM

I think that driver's licenses should be considered as licenses to drive. Does that make sense? I mean, state-issued driver's licenses should not necessarily be used by the federal government to control borders. Maybe I'm just old fashioned.

Posted by: reyonthehill | Oct 31, 2007 11:20:19 AM

Gotcha Hillary! The perils of being the frontrunner.

Posted by: megan | Oct 31, 2007 11:20:01 AM

Ahh! the Gotcha point! I think Obama finally got teeth, good for him, even thou I would never vote for any of the socialists I am glad to see them standing up to Clinton.

Hilary has always flipped-flopped, worse then Kerry has ever done!

Thou you got put something up about Kuninch calling Bush mentally ill, but in the same time saying he saw little green men (UFO's)

Posted by: spock | Oct 31, 2007 9:58:48 AM

Mancow Mueller, Clinton / Peter Paul Story Death Threat - Recorded Discussion - EJFA.Org

This is an update of our earlier story on the death threat Radio Talk Show Host Mancow Mueller says he received after he had former Hollywood business man Peter Paul on his show Friday.

I've just received from a source a copy of the radio show audio file where Mancow discusses the death threat he received with James Nesfield of the Equal Justice Foundation (ejfa.org) on Mancow's radio show, Monday, October 29th.

Here's what was said in text form:



Mancow: Listen, I had a guy on named Peter Paul on Friday.
James Nesfield: Yes. I know.
Mancow: Last week. And want to tell you, I had, a, uh, a very high level call over the weekend, and it was very frightening to me.
And..
James Nesfield: It should be.
Mancow: And I'm being sincere.
James Nesfield: No. I believe it. I...Listen. We were at our ISP, where we host the site. We had a attack from Russian and Chinese hackers.
Mancow: My. Uh. My family was threatened. And it was uh. I know the source, and it's a very dangerous source, and I'm really, uh, nervous about talking about your video, cause I think some very powerful people are going to be very upset about me talking to ya.
James Nesfield: You're right. I've been threatened too.

The "movie" they're talking about is called "Hillary Uncensored" and it's a detailed and hard-hitting documentary that has been playing to audiences at colleges around the country. It's drawn a large web-based following , and is continuing to be offered for view by any group that will ask.

What is the movie about? Well, I like WorldNetDaily's description:

"Hollywood filmmakers normally inclined to support candidates such as Sen. Hillary Clinton are working quietly behind the scenes to put the finishing touches on a documentary alleging the New York Democrat committed felonies to get elected and assisted her husband in defrauding a major donor."

The "major donor" is Peter Paul, and you can learn more about the story here.

The rest of the conversation is in the audio file below.

The audio file is here:

Mancow On Death Threat

Please listen to it. But you may be asking what the "so what" is here? Well, some have claimed that the Clintons have a way of associating themselves with people who in some way eliminate those who can block their path to power. Or as one blogger put it, "This is what happens when you have dirt on the Clintons."

The point is, if this can even be connected to the Clinton's it spells m-a-j-o-r t-r-o-u-b-l-e if the news is spread to a wide audience. It speaks to a lust for power that may even be greater than Hillary Clinton's desire to serve the American People.

Antonio Villaraigosa's Affair - Horndog Mayor Has Hillary Clinton In A Bind - RadarOnline

It isn't only Antonio Villaraigosa's political rivals who are gleeful over the Los Angeles mayor's extramarital exploits. Democratic presidential hopefuls not named Hillary Clinton are snickering at how one of the party frontrunner's most coveted supporters has suddenly become a potential embarrassment.

Villaraigosa, who serves as one of four national co-chairmen of Clinton's campaign, admitted earlier this week that he's been having an affair with Telemundo news anchor Mirthala Salinas. Villaraigosa's wife Corina—the two merged their last names, Villar and Raigosa, when they married in 1987—announced their separation last month. (Salinas has been pulled off of the air while her bosses look into whether she violated the station's ethics rules.)

A rising star in the Democratic party, Villaraigosa's endorsement had been heavily courted by other candidates, especially New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, the only Hispanic in the race. "They're probably pretty relieved now that they didn't win that one," laughs an insider from another campaign.

Villaraigosa's revelation leaves Clinton in a bind, says the insider. "They want people to forget all the ethical, marital partisan wars that were being waged" during Bill Clinton's time in office, and "this is exactly the type of scandal that's going to remind people of that." On the other hand, "it would be very difficult for them to walk away from someone who's widely viewed as one of the most influential Hispanic politicians in the country."

"They're highly motivated to find a way to justify keeping him," agrees a strategist from another campaign. "Where they are going to find themselves in a tough situation is if Mrs. Villaraigosa goes to the mat the way [Rudy] Giuliani's wife did. If she gets militant about the divorce, they are going to be in an incredibly awkward situation."

For now, Clinton's best response is probably to do nothing, says a former Democratic consultant. "The Clintons don't stick with people who become liabilities, but to get rid of him would invite comparisons they don't want," he says. "Bottom line, she's a bigger punchline if she throws him off."

CNN Shows It's Anti-Obama Bias Again Today - Issues Don Lemon To Do Hit

CNN -- every working to downplay the shining star that is Senator Barack Obama along with the USA Today -- has shown it's anti-Obama bias again today. In a segment on the appearance of Senator Obama and Gov. Bill Richardson at the "Take Back America" rally, CNN devoted over 30 second to Richardson's more reasoned statements, while giving Senator Obama just 10 seconds and showing him in what were obviously closing statements of excitement.

Then, anchor Don Lemon is instructed to read a teleprompter which reports that Richardson crticized all the presidential candidates, "including Obama."

CNN's presidential coverage is just plain biased and terrible.

The First Debate of the Caucus

Well, the first democratic debate has come to an end, and as the political pundits over at MSNBC interview each other and talk about who looked the best, I’ll make the call to arms – bloggers: start your fingers!

For starters, to those of you who don’t know exactly where Hillary, Barack, and John Edwards stand on the issues: don’t feel bad. None of us do. The three front-runners coming into the debate have continued their firm stances of not having any firm stances. Hillary is roughly in favor of leaving some people in Iraq, Barack is more or less in favor of leaving no residual troops, and John Edwards is definitely from a poor, southern family. That’s about all they gave up in their continued campaigns to sound passionate without offering real solutions. Oh, and they’re all Christian. That matters to some people, I know.

If you want to know what their stances are – please just check their official sites, because there’s no point in going through a middleman when the information is so readily available. I’ll put the links at the end, if I can figure out how.

Now, to those of you who don’t know where the lesser-known candidates stand: shame on you! For the first time in a very long time, we have a great cross-section of democrats that are all ready to lead our country into a renaissance of peace and understanding. Any one of these candidates would be an unprecedented leap forward from our current administration, and every one has ideas that are both novel and refreshing. But as is the case with so many things in life, the best ones are flying under the radar. So here they are: the candidates without $20 billion….

Not that my opinion should mean anything to anybody other than myself (please just read about the candidates and make a decision on your own), but I’m officially stating that I feel Bill Richardson (Governor of New Mexico) is the best candidate for president of the United States Of America that we’ve had in decades. For virtually every question he was asked, he had a well thought out and decisive answer prepared, even if he wasn’t asked the same questions as the other candidates. He had multiple-points that he attempted to get to in the 1 minute allotted to him per answer. Admittedly, he doesn’t seem to have mastered the art of being concise with his speech, but that just tells me that he was more prepared than anybody else and he knows that there isn’t a quick, 1-minute answer to these difficult questions. His speech was honest (admitting once that he was the last of the candidates to call for Alberto Gonzales’s resignation, partially because Gonzales is Latino) and his opinions were clear and well stated. The moderator once mentioned that Richardson has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize four times, and he was the only one to propose a way to give universal health care without raising taxes (which correlates with his track record in New Mexico, but again – check his site for facts. Blogs are for opinions.)

However, I’m not here to blow smoke up Governor Richardson’s ass, as every candidate is worth mentioning. Standing out from the crowd was former Alaskan representative and senator Mike Gravel. His speech was loud and often accusatory with radical ideas and an aggressive style, but frankly: that’s what we need. He was the most vocal against the Bush administration, but was also opposed to the other candidates that would pander to said administration by trading more money for a long-term timetable of withdrawal and taking any action that wouldn’t result in immediate change. The only other candidate looking for such quick action is Richardson whose timetable is “the end of this calendar year” but Gravel offered a virulent path to that end: a call to congress to make a law that would make it a felony for President Bush to continue the war in Iraq. His idealism may be a bit far-fetched, as he would need 67% of congress to over-rule the President’s obvious veto, but the idea is the sort of progressive thought that liberals are looking for.

Another stand-out in the field of candidates is senator Joe Biden, who came across as the most intelligent and professional of the group, even if his opinions are less radical than Gravel’s. Also, despite his great track record he doesn’t have the diplomatic experience that Richardson does. Biden is a very well spoken candidate who advocates a complete withdrawal from Iraq and a quick end to the war. Unfortunately, he has a similar approach as Hillary, Barack, and Edwards in that he seems fine with a slow withdrawal and has no brilliant new ideas to make the changes we all want to see. He does have the intelligence, passion, and experience to run the country though.

Dennis Kucinich, like always, stands out as a passionate and intelligent individual. I’ve been a fan of Kucinich for years, and it’s a shame that once again I see him picking the wrong fights and choosing the wrong places to make a stand. When not one of the other 7 candidates would endorse his plan to impeach Vice President Cheney (this caucus is all about uniting, not further dividing) he pulled out a pocket-sized copy of the Constitution and held it up while explaining that Cheney was going against what the country stands for and needs to be held accountable. A great point, and a good picture that we’ll likely see again during this race, but it certainly didn’t help his popularity. Richardson was right to say that the American people want an honest candidate, but a level of discretion is advisable to somebody involved in a popularity contest. And make no mistake: this is the grandest of popularity contests.

Senator Christopher Dodd also came across as both intelligent and well spoken, but his opinions were little more than regurgitation of everybody else’s stances. He was neither controversial nor particularly memorable, so his presence is more that of a strong benchwarmer than anything else. He reminds me that even the least memorable democratic candidate is infinitely better than the options that the other side has, and we would be lucky to have Dodd as a president, even though I don’t see him making many waves this year. But it’s still early, and we may hear from him yet – he certainly has the capacity to lead the democrats, and we could all rejoice if he were our next president.

As for the three front-runners, they don’t need more press, so I won’t spend as much time talking about them. Hillary was very well composed and presented herself like a President. Her pearls were a bit extravagant (who cares about a $400 haircut when you’ve got a $10,000 necklace?), but I’m not one to make a decision based on superficialities so that’s the end of that. Barack wasn’t his usual self, but that’s not to say he isn’t still deserving of his large following. I was first made aware of him three years ago, and to this day I like the guy. My only problem (like most people’s problem with him) is the lack of experience: it’s more than signing bills and pulling the troops out, and his continued reluctance to take any firm stances would keep me from voting for him. I’d love to see him take the vice-presidency, and then take over after 8 years of internship. That’s a distinct possibility. As for John Edwards: he’s the cookie-cutter candidate that we get at least one of every four years. Just like Al Gore before him and countless others that I won’t waste my time mentioning, he’s got the key phrases (“my Lord” was mentioned, of course) and his look is both clean-cut and conservative (appropriate, considering his approach). He doesn’t represent change – just a solid step away from the current regime.

So what should we all take away from this debate? Hope - tons and tons of hope. Every single candidate up on that stage was a good remedy to the bunch of stubborn misfits that we have in place right now, and no matter what happens – we’ll be much better off in 2009 than we were before. These candidates all represent more than a change of primary color in the executive branch: they represent a change in philosophy and approach. Every single one agrees that war has to be 2nd to diplomacy, not the other way around. They are all more willing to talk about the issues than to give each other grief (even if only one of them was willing to sign Governor Richardson’s agreement not to sling mud during the caucus), and they are all qualified leaders. We are terribly lucky to have this group vying for our votes, and 2009 will prove to be a great year in American history.

So do yourself a favor, and watch the future debates, keep track of the candidates, and know that whatever happens: voting democrat in 2008 is going to be a good decision regardless of your usual party affiliation.


Official sites/candidacy sites:

Bill Richardson

Mike Gravel

Joe Biden

Dennis Kucinich

Christopher Dodd

Hillary Clinton

Barack Obama

John Edwards