Barack Obama Ahead of Clinton in NH; McCain Gains On Romney in NH

Just on the heels of a poll that had Clinton ahead of Obama in New Hampshire and which I stated was misleading , USA Today / Gallup has released a new poll that reports Obama is ahead of Clinton 30 percent to 28 percent, according to the Boston Globe.

Meanwhile, John McCain is rising in the same state; he's only behind Mitt Romney by three percent, 28 percent to 25 percent.

Fomer President Bush Dunks Bill Clinton's Foreign Policy Tour Assertion

Stating that he was never aware of such an idea and will not accept the idea, Former President George Bush issued a fast and stern reply to Bill Clinton's comment that the elder Bush would go with him and fly around the World basically undoing the work his son did.

Wow, what a blow.

And the National Review jumped all over him:

Bill Clinton Outdoes Himself
Ladies and gentlemen, one more piece of evidence that Bill Clinton is no longer the least bit careful about what he says, and is used to getting away with little white lies on a regular basis. We've seen him claim to have opposed the Iraq war from the start. We've seen him suggest that the media isn't interested in covering his wife fairly. We've seen him suggest that Barack Obama as president would be "a crapshoot."

And now, he's suggested that former President George H.W. Bush is eager to help his wife repair America's image in the world and undo the image of America created by his own son.

ORANGEBURG, South Carolina (CNN) – Former President Bill Clinton said Monday that the first thing his wife Hillary will do when she reaches the White House is dispatch him and his predecessor, President George H.W. Bush, on an around-the-world mission to repair the damage done to America's reputation by the current president — Bush's son, George W. Bush.

"Well, the first thing she intends to do, because you can do this without passing a bill, the first thing she intends to do is to send me and former President Bush and a number of other people around the world to tell them that America is open for business and cooperation again," Clinton said in response to a question from a supporter about what his wife's "number one priority" would be as president.

Bill Clinton: He's a 1992 media-loves-me-and-doesn't-check-my-facts kind of guy in a 2007-2008 world.

After Iowa Debate Obama Rises Both In Focus Groups And Iowa Poll

The last Presidential Debate before the Primaries and caucases was held today and by the Dems. It's a contest that caught the West Coast off-guard as it happened during working hours.

What we missed was a performance which featured Senator Barack Obama getting in what turned out to be the ultimate sound-bite.



It started as Senator Obama was asked why he had so many former Clinton advisors on his foreign policy team and how would that cause him to really bring change. But before Obama could talk, Senator Clinton was heard with her now-famous cackle stating "answer that" and Obama did; he got in this zinger:

"And Hillary, I'm looking forward to you becoming my advisor as well."

Pow. Right between the eyes. You could say she walked right into that one.

The debate overall was a good policy exchange which saw Obama emerge as a leader. Plus, Senator Clinton did not make enough of a difference to change her sagging fortunes before the Iowa Caucus. Senator John Edwards performed well, but it's not believed well enough to turn the tide totally in his favor. It's still a close race, but vastly different than even a month ago.

Now, Senator Obama's top dog in the Des Moines Register's latest poll. Plus, in another poll, the Newsweek Poll shows Obama's lead actually increased to 35 percent versus 29 percent for Clinton.

Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee's leading amoung Republicans and my guess is because he's the one that seems less threatening. Giuliani's off-politics antics make him seem less presidential. Ron Paul's still a bit too extreme for Republicans. And Mitt Romney - in my view -- comes off as both way too high-brow and mean-sprited. Huckabee seems to be the mostly likeable candidate for the Republicans.

Barack Obama and Ron Paul Win National Presidential Caucus

I just saw this on my Facebook profile news update, and clicked on the headlines, reveling this press release below. Let's see how CNN and Fox and the other main stream news outlets handle this news. It flies in the face of their polls and adds ammo to the idea that some news people there are trying to steer the election toward Hillary Clinton.

For example, in New Jersey, the finish was Obama, Edwards, and Kucnich -- yep. See it here:

Stay tuned.

Video on The National Presidential Caucus:

National Presidential Caucus Announces Results From First-Ever National Caucus

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

National Presidential Caucus Announces Results From First-Ever National Caucus

--

Barack Obama Wins Democrat Caucuses; Ron Paul Dominates Both GOP And "Open" Caucuses

--

Washington, DC (December 12, 2007) -- On December 7, 2007 in cities and small towns across the country, Democrat, Republican and "Open" Caucus groups formed independently online and Caucused face-to-face on National Caucus Day. The first-ever National Presidential Caucus is now history and the results are in.

Barack Obama wins over Democrat voters generating 40% of Democrat Caucus voter preferences. Obama was followed by a three-way tie for second, with John Edwards, Bill Richardson and "Undecided" each generating 20% of Democratic Caucus preferences.

On the Republican side, Ron Paul obliterated the field for the GOP generating the preference of 50% of GOP Caucuses. Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson follow, generating 33.3% and 16.6% of Republican Caucus preferences, respectively.

Among votes in Open Caucuses, Ron Paul wins with 62.5% of Open Caucus votes, followed by Barack Obama (18.75%), Fred Thompson (12.5%), and Hilary Clinton (6.25%).

Results were tallied from 19 independently formed Caucus groups (Republican, Democrat, and Open) that met on Friday, December 7th, 2007 in Dallas, TX (2D); Sarcoxie, MO (O); Boise, ID (R); Needham, MA (D); Carthage, MO (O); Manhattan, KS (D & R); Pineville, MO (O); Richmond, MO (O); Costa Mesa, CA (O); Springfield MO (R); Winston-Salem, NC (O); Overland Park, KS (R); New York City, NY (O); and Joplin, MO (R), Warrensburg, MO (R), Roselle Park, NK (D), and Philadelphia, PA (O).

Some caucuses used multiple voting rounds with minimum vote thresholds to give citizens a chance to change their minds and switch candidate preferences, but all meetings were built on a first round of issue discussion and deliberation. Multiple rounds of voting were not prohibited and each group was encouraged to create the most engaging caucus format possible. However, threshold voting eliminates all but the top vote-getters. While that may have been the intention for some groups, the NPC feels obligated to recognize the efforts and opinions of all caucus goers.

Issue results reflected opposition to Iraq involvement, foreign intervention in general, and health care, immigration and erosion of civil liberties rounding out the top concerns of all caucusers.

Self-organized and independent, most gatherings were small, informal discussion sessions, while others attracted hundreds of participants including party officials and campaign operatives in a raucous bid for supporters. The NPC feels that the results at each caucus is of greatest importance and relevance to those in that caucus room and to that local community where those ideas were exchanged, relationships were created, passions were shared. We believe this is social capital formation at its finest.

The NPC was previewed by major media from CBS News, The Washington Post and The New York Times, among others. The actual Caucuses are receiving a fair amount of local attention from the mainstream media, including front page newspaper coverage in Greensboro, NC and TV coverage by WNBC news in NYC, the largest NBC affiliate in the nation.

But even better, people reported on their own caucus events. Using numerical reports, commentary, pictures & video, and through a growing number of blogs, each caucus tells its own story. Some reports from those who participated, include Kansas City: "Wow, what a great evening it was in Kansas City!"; New Jersey: "It was a fun night with close to 200 people participating in this exercise."; Chicago: "It was a very informative experience."; Boise, Idaho: "It was an extremely fun event..." Video footage is being compiled on the official National Presidential Caucus channel on YouTube. Visit http://www.youtube.com/NationalCaucus to view.

"The NPC wants to applaud everyone who took the time and made an effort to engage their neighbors in this evening of passionate civic discourse, said Don Means, NPC's primary organizer. "You have just ushered in a new era of participatory democracy in America. Your country should be proud of you!"

National Presidential Caucus is the product of a consortium of partisan, bi-partisan and non-partisan interests who seek to demonstrate how local, self-organized, web-enabled face-to-face gatherings is the new basis for participatory democracy. To view National Caucus endorsers visit: http://www.nationalcaucus.com/endorsements . For more information about the National Presidential Caucus vision visit: http://www.nationalcaucus.com/about

CONTACT:

Myles Weissleder
National Presidential Caucus
myles@nationalcaucus.com
Office: 415-332-3205
Mobile: 415-990-0970

# 30 #

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.

CNN / YouTube Debates - My Message To Steve Grove and Dave Bohrman

This video and post present my message to Steve Grove, the News and Politics editor for CNN, and to Dave Bohrman, the Executive Producer of the CNN / YouTube Debates for CNN.



My take is that CNN/YouTube was lucky to realize the ratings record that was set for the debate, and this was achieved for two reasons: 1) the time of year -- it's the fall holiday season, and 2) the fact that all of the Republican Presidential Candidates were there, which is no small feat.

Still, CNN/YouTube handled this debate differently than the Democratic Debate. First, the level of promotion of the event was dramatically scaled back compared to the first. Second, there were fewer questions picked out of the 5,200 that were submitted : 34 questions versus 43 for the first debate. Third, there was an annoying tendency to pick Blacks who submitted questions about Black issues, when there were videos from people who were not Black, but did ask questions about Blacks and the Republican Party.

(As a momentary aside, I think that practice shows an America that does not exist. It shows an America where only Blacks care about Black or minority issues, and not the real America, where a diverse set of people care about all Americans, and will ask questions regarding how Blacks are treated. To not show this -- the real America -- is criminal and paints America as far more racist than it really is. This country has come a long way and is better than it's ever been.)

CNN/YouTube also didn't handle its video talent properly. In the video I present myself as an example. In the begining I was -- and still am -- part of the sample video for the CNN/YouTube Debates. I'm also on the YTDebates channel, at least as of this writing and you can see my photo on the channel here in this blog post. So when I learned that YouTubers were being flown out by Google to the debates, I thought -- rightfully -- that somone would call.

Nope. Didn't happen.

I also sent an inquiry to determine if this was the case, and didn't get an answer from Steve Grove.

So it makes one wonder -- in this case, me -- what's going on over at CNN / YouTube and why they treat people in this way - or at least me. But given the thousands of people who have made and submitted videos, and the other talent that was promoted, I can't believe it's just me that had the problem.

CNN itself showed little regard for my time when they contact me for the first debate. Three show producers contacted me separately and in one case I thought I was to get on a flight. Then didn't get a call back. Then was essentially made to wait for a few days, then got a call saying I wasn't being flown out, only to get a call from another show flying me to New York.

Nuts.

What bothered me this time around was not that I was not called, but Steve didn't answer my emails attempting to learn what he and YouTube were going to do. If they'd said "Zennie, we don't need you this time", or "Hey CNN thinks you're an Obama supporter, and they've got a problem with that" then I'd be fine. I just wanted communication. I didn't get it.

As for the debate itself there were a lot of problems in addtion to the ones I discussed above. Not a single video question on Health Care was presented, leaving one to think the Republican Party doens't care about it. Is that CNN's call or the Republican Party? One has to assume they were working together. But in eliminating that series of questions, CNN / YouTube and the Republican Party pissed off a country.

Plus, CNN / YouTube did't tell video submitters they were going to do this, and the video makers -- given the Democratic Debate with YouTube, had full reason to think they would do so. Moreover, CNN / YouTube didn't tell anyone what they were going to do -- I learned it from CNN's David Bohrman being quoted in the New York Times.

That's not good.

In closing, I think CNN / YouTube owes YouTubers an appology and I'm also disappointed with how Steve Grove handled things this time around. I have high standards for him and I expect that -- givent the historic nature of what he's doing with YouTube and CNN that he will reach and maintain them. It's not personal -- I like Steve -- just professional.

I don't know Dave Bohrman, but I expect that he's a fine and upstanding person who will take these crticisms to heart and act on them. I think all of us want to see the CNN / YouTube system reach its potential.

Ron Paul - Republican - Will Not Support The Republican Nominee Because Of Iraq War

Congressman Ron Paul said that he will not support the GOP nominee for the Presidential election because of the Republican Party's stance on the Iraq War.

Ny Observer's Steve Kornacki Hammers CNN For "Fixed" Democratic Debate

This is definitely "terring them a new one" in every sence of the words.

As soon as last Thursday’s 128-minute Democratic presidential debate concluded, CNN called on two analysts—part of what the cable channel has dubiously and incessantly branded “the best political team on television”—to interpret what had just transpired for the several million viewers at home.

Not surprisingly, James Carville, one of Bill and Hillary’s closest friends, and David Gergen, a Clinton (and other) White House alum, agreed that it had been a winning night for Hillary Clinton. Apparently, Harry and Linda Bloodworth-Thomason weren’t available.

The use of Mr. Carville, and to a lesser extent Mr. Gergen, provoked some criticism, with watchdogs griping that CNN didn’t properly disclose its conflicts. But disclosure isn’t really the issue. The question is why, given the endless supply of eager political pundits who are unaffiliated with the Clintons and every other campaign, CNN ever offered such a prominent spot to Mr. Carville and Mr. Gergen in the first place.

Not that it was the only insult to viewers last Thursday.

Once the gold standard for all-news television, the Cable News Network used the night to make a convincing argument that it should never again be entrusted with a presidential debate.

The network’s journalistic crimes are legion, starting with how the debate—which, at least in theory, is supposed to serve as a public service to voters—was promoted. In full-page ads, CNN cast it as pure sport, a boxing match in which “the gloves will come off.” Really? How would CNN know ahead of time that that this would be a contentious forum, especially after most of the previous debates had been tame, unless they were planning to force conflict?

There was also the warm-up act, a full-hour of Lou Dobbs fulminating against illegal immigrants and reading letters from adoring and sycophantic viewers, all presented by CNN as some sort of debate preview. This is the same Mr. Dobbs who has done little to quell talk that he himself wants to run for President next year. (Not that this came up on CNN, either.)

It got worse when it was time for the actual debate. First, CNN persisted with the prize-fighting motif, with moderator Wolf Blitzer playing the Michael Buffer role and calling the candidates to the stage individually, like boxers entering the ring. Then Mr. Blitzer introduced Campbell Brown, John Roberts, and Suzanne Malveaux, fellow CNN personalities who would join in the questioning.

“They are part of the very best political team,” he informed viewers.

As the candidates were fitted with their microphones—shouldn’t that have been done backstage?—Mr. Blitzer awkwardly handed off to analyst Gloria Borger, who stuck with the boxing imagery as she told viewers which candidates could be expected to come out “swinging” in the public policy forum they were about to watch.

If CNN was intent on giving America a fight, it could have at least tried to put on a fair one.

But the audience at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas was slanted heavily in favor of New York’s junior senator. One of the first questions of the night, from Mr. Blitzer, sought to incite a tangle between Barack Obama and Mrs. Clinton. Mrs. Clinton used her turn to criticize Mr. Obama’s health care plan, but when Mr. Obama began, loud shouts from the audience distracted him and viewers at home.

So pro-Clinton was the crowd that Mrs. Clinton needed only to pause for a beat during an answer and the audience would fill the vacuum with raucous cheers. Meanwhile, when Mr. Obama and John Edwards sought to engage Mrs. Clinton, they were shouted down.

Conspiracy theorists will say that CNN had packed the crowd for its old friend. But the audience imbalance, like the inclusion of Mr. Carville and Mr. Gergen, was more an indictment of CNN’s incompetence. The network farmed out the distribution of tickets without insisting on any kind of balance. The resulting Clinton rah-rahing was both distracting and misleading to viewers.

Similar incompetence was at work in the framing of questions. Time and again, candidates were presented with simplistic hypothetical scenarios and told to pick one side. They were invariably presented false choices—human rights or national security?—but if they failed to provide direct answers, they risked looking like typically evasive politicians.

And nothing but incompetence can explain why CNN decided to end on a “cute” question, prodding a UNLV student—who had hoped to quiz the candidates on the Yucca Mountain issue—to inquire if Mrs. Clinton preferred diamonds or pearls.

Knockout stuff.

Obama Leada In Iowa, Stunning CNN in The Process!

Yep. Here's the news from ABC : Barack Obama's ahead 30 percent, 26 percent for Clinton, and John Edwards at 22 percent. Wolf Blitzer can't seem to stand that Obama's ahead of Clinton. They didn't mention that, or the Des Moines Register Poll, or the latest poll reporting Obama's lead at 4 percent.

Instead, CNN's Blitzer's focusing too much on other matters like the CIA leak, and totally ignoring Senator Clinton's major gaffe on Pakistan.

The Clinton News Network can't stand the news that Obama can win the Iowa Caucus.

ROBERT NOVAK *I'VE SEEN NO EVIDENCE OF DIRT ON OBAMA

In this video, Fox News interviews columnist Robert Novak, also called "The Prince of Darkness" who in this case spread darkness about Senator Barack Obama by stating that the Clinton campaign claimed to have news about a sex scandal about Obama. Novak -- in the video -- essentially that the source was not from the campaign but who was told by an agent of the campaign. In other words, his source has a source. It's called gossip and he's spreading it, but there's nothing there. Novak does compare Clinton to Nixon!

Mike Gravel - "Hillary, Your Lips are Moving and You're Lying'

In this video, Former Senator and U.S. Presidential candidate Mike Gravel -- who was not invited to be in the Nevada debate -- held his own event where he responded to the answers given by the candidates, well, ok, Senator Clinton here. He says she's lying about Clinton's position on Iran, saying "Hillary, Your Lips are Moving and you're lying. She's ignorant. The law that was past right after 9-11, coupled with the resolution that (U.S. Senator Joe Libermann) put in, gave the President the power to go to war."

It's not right that he was excluded; he'd have made the event informative and unforgetable as well as providing a great check for Hillary Clinton.

Gore / Obama Supporter - Gore Endorse Obama?

I asked the person in my video about Al Gore endorsing Barack Obama and had a hard time getting a straight answer out of her, but I did learn a lot about the Gore / Obama effort -- it seems that, as she said, it's there idea and a dream. But for me, it's really more than that as they have signs and shirts and a website.

They're really activists. The bottom line is that I can't remember an election where there were so many fringe groups formed around "dream tickets" -- can you?

In WSJ Peggy Noonan Calls Hillary Clinton A Jerk For Playing Gender Card

Never one to mince words, Peggy Noonan, the former speechwriter for Ronald Regan and a contributing columnist at The Wall Street Journal, wrote this classic column comparing Senator Clinton and former Prime Minister Margret Thacther. In it she wrote..

"It's all kind of wonderful, isn't it? Someone indulged in special pleading and America didn't buy it. It's as if the country this week made it official: We now formally declare that the woman who uses the fact of her sex to manipulate circumstances is a jerk."

Noonan also is a fan of Barack Obama.

PEGGY NOONAN - WALL STREET JOURNAL

Things Are Tough All Over
But Mrs. Clinton is no Iron Lady.

Friday, November 9, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

The story as I was told it is that in the early years of her prime ministership, Margaret Thatcher held a meeting with her aides and staff, all of whom were dominated by her, even awed. When it was over she invited her cabinet chiefs to join her at dinner in a nearby restaurant. They went, arrayed themselves around the table, jockeyed for her attention. A young waiter came and asked if they'd like to hear the specials. Mrs. Thatcher said, "I will have beef."

Yes, said the waiter. "And the vegetables?"

"They will have beef too."

Too good to check, as they say. It is certainly apocryphal, but I don't want it to be. It captured her singular leadership style, which might be characterized as "unafraid."

She was a leader.

Margaret Thatcher would no more have identified herself as a woman, or claimed special pleading that she was a mere frail girl, or asked you to sympathize with her because of her sex, than she would have called up the Kremlin and asked how quickly she could surrender.

She represented a movement. She was its head. She was great figure, a person in history, and she was a woman. She was in it for serious reasons, not to advance the claims of a gender but to reclaim for England its economic freedom, and return its political culture to common sense. Her rise wasn't symbolic but actual.

In fact, she wasn't so much a woman as a lady. I remember a gentleman who worked with her speaking of her allure, how she'd relax after a late-night meeting and you'd walk by and catch just the faintest whiff of perfume, smoke and scotch. She worked hard and was tough. One always imagined her lightly smacking some incompetent on the head with her purse, for she carried a purse, as a lady would. She is still tough. A Reagan aide told me that after she was incapacitated by a stroke she flew to Reagan's funeral in Washington, went through the ceremony, flew with Mrs. Reagan to California for the burial, and never once on the plane removed her heels. That is tough.

The point is the big ones, the real ones, the Thatchers and Indira Gandhis and Golda Meirs and Angela Merkels, never play the boo-hoo game. They are what they are, but they don't use what they are. They don't hold up their sex as a feint: Why, he's not criticizing me, he's criticizing all women! Let us rise and fight the sexist cur.

When Hillary Clinton suggested that debate criticism of her came under the heading of men bullying a defenseless lass, an interesting thing happened. First Kate Michelman, the former head of NARAL and an Edwards supporter, hit her hard. "When unchallenged, in a comfortable, controlled situation, Sen. Clinton embraces her elevation into the 'boys club.' " But when "legitimate questions" are asked, "she is quick to raise the white flag and look for a change in the rules."

Then Mrs. Clinton changed tack a little and told a group of women in West Burlington, Iowa, that they were going to clean up Washington together: "Bring your vacuum cleaners, bring your brushes, bring your brooms, bring your mops." It was all so incongruous--can anyone imagine the 20th century New Class professional Hillary Clinton picking up a vacuum cleaner? Isn't that what downtrodden pink collar workers abused by the patriarchy are for?

But even better, and more startling, people began to giggle. At Mrs. Clinton, a woman who has never inspired much mirth. Suddenly they were remembering the different accents she has spoken with when in different parts of the country, and the weird laugh she has used on talk shows. A few days ago new poll numbers came out--neck and neck with Barack Obama in Iowa, her lead slipping in New Hampshire. There is a sense that Sen. Obama is rising, a sense for the first time in this election cycle that Mrs. Clinton just may be in a fight, a real one, one she could actually lose.

It's all kind of wonderful, isn't it? Someone indulged in special pleading and America didn't buy it. It's as if the country this week made it official: We now formally declare that the woman who uses the fact of her sex to manipulate circumstances is a jerk.

This is a victory for true feminism, in its old-fashioned sense of a simple assertion of the equality of men and women. We might not have so resoundingly reached this moment without Mrs. Clinton's actions and statements. Thank you, Mrs. Clinton.

A word on toughness. Mrs. Clinton is certainly tough, to the point of hard. But toughness should have a purpose. In Mrs. Thatcher's case, its purpose was to push through a program she thought would make life better in her country. Mrs. Clinton's toughness seems to have no purpose beyond the personal accrual of power. What will she do with the power? Still unclear. It happens to be unclear in the case of several candidates, but with Mrs. Clinton there is a unique chasm between the ferocity and the purpose of the ferocity. There is something deeply unattractive in this, and it would be equally so if she were a man.





I wonder if Sen. Obama, as he makes his climb, understands the kind of quiet cheering he is beginning to garner from some Republicans, and from those not affiliated with either party. They see him as a Democrat who could cure the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton sickness.
I call it that because it seems to me now less like a dynastic tug of war than a symptom of deterioration, a lazy, unserious and faintly corrupt turn to be taken by the oldest and greatest democracy in the history of man. And I say sickness because on some level I think it is driven by a delusion: "We will be safe with these ruling families, whom we know so well." But we won't. They have no special magic. Dynasticism brings with it a sense of deterioration. It is dispiriting.

I am not sure of the salience of Mr. Obama's new-generational approach. Mrs. Clinton's generation, he suggests, is caught in the 1960s, fighting old battles, clinging to old divisions, frozen in time, and the way to get past it is to get past her. Maybe this will resonate. But I don't think Mrs. Clinton is the exemplar of a generation, she is the exemplar of a quadrant within a generation, and it is the quadrant the rest of us of that generation do not like. They came from comfort and stability, visited poverty as part of a college program, fashionably disliked their country, and cultivated a bitterness that was wholly unearned. They went on to become investment bankers and politicians and enjoy wealth, power or both.

Mr. Obama should go after them, not a generation but a type, the smug and entitled. No one really likes them. They showed it this week.

Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father" (Penguin, 2005), which you can order from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Fridays on OpinionJournal.com.

John Edwards Joins WGA Writers Stike For Cameras

Walking with Hollywood writers is no way to show you're a populist Presidential candidate. To me, this is a mistake.

From ABC News....

Edwards Joins Writer's Strike

ABC News' Raelyn Johnson Reports: Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., will leave the campaign trail briefly Friday to join striking writers on the picket lines in Burbank, California.

"I’ll be there to walk with them because this is an example why when a product is being produced and that product is creating a significant amount of revenue then we have to be fair to the workers and the creative forces that are producing," Edwards told ABC News before leaving Las Vegas to fly to California.

John Edwards Attacks Hillary Clinton For Planting Questions

U.S. Presidential Candidate John Edwards, fresh from the Nevada Debate where it was widely reported and admitted by CNN that the network planted a question to ask Senator Hillary Clinton -- herself the focus of several revelations of planted questions -- about "Diamonds and Pearls", launches a video called "The Politics of Planting, and a website designed to expose all of Clinton's planting episodes called Plants For Hillary.Com

According to the John Edwards website, the new "planting" site..."will offer a one-stop shop for all Americans interested in growing the Hillary plant movement.
As part of the PlantsforHillary.com web site, potential plants can listen to testimonials from past plants, read the "Top 10 Questions Plants Should Never Ask Hillary," learn how to recognize other plants at Senator Clinton's events, submit suggestions for planted questions, and purchase the soon to be released "Questions are hard...so plant them" t-shirt.
The site also features a new YouTube video—"Politics of Planting"—which highlights Senator Clinton's evolution from parsing answers to answering planted questions.

Here's that video:

Nevada Progressive Blogger Greg Brown Thinks Debate Was Embarassing For Nevada Dems

Using words like "inappropriate " and "embarrassment" Greg Brown, a Nevadan who attended the debate , writes:


(It's hard for me to disagree with what Greg is saying here. I'll have more on this in a debate wrap up in a little while. - promoted by Sven)

I was at tonight's debate and really appalled by the audience behavior. There was a lot of inappropriate cheering and even more inappropriate booing that interrupted candidates during their responses.
The fault for that lies with CNN and with us, Nevada Democrats. I think it particularly lies with the tendency of the Clinton campaign to turn every event into a rally rather than a disucssion. I don't think they intended for their supporters to behave this way but be under no illusion -- it was the Clinton supporters, only a part of the crowd, who were booing Obama and Edwards.

The coup de grace came at the end, when CNN -- which had made a big deal of vetting the questions to avoid having anyone who could be tied to any of the campaigns (as if having knowledge of the candidates' platforms and a preference among them renders one unable to pose a question). Then, they select only a handful of those to pose questions that were vetted ahead of time. After all that, they give the last question to a student who asks the most embarrassingly superficial question, possibly in American presidential history.

Tonight was an embarrassment for the Nevada Democratic Party.

I could not agree more.

CNN Rigs Nevada Debate For Hillary Clinton - Plants "Diamonds and Pearls" Question In Nevada Debate

Without a single doubt the dumbest question asked at last night's CNN Democratic debate in Las Vegas was the one about what Senator Clinton would choose between Diamonds and Pearls. That totally out-of-place question was asked by 15-year-old Maria Luisa. It's in the video below:



..And is being picked up by blogger , after blogger , after blogger.

Now, according to Marc Ambinder , it turns out the question wasn't of her making, but of CNN's. On her MySpace page, where this picture comes from and is set to "private" after all the emails she's gotten, she explains ""Every single question asked during the debate by the audience had to be approved by CNN.



I was asked to submit questions including "lighthearted/fun" questions. I submitted more than five questions on issues important to me. I did a policy memo on Yucca Mountain a year ago and was the finalist for the Truman Scholarship. For sure, I thought I would get to ask the Yucca question that was APPROVED by CNN days in advance."

Shame on CNN for manipulating the debate. But it didn't stop there.

CNN Rigs Debate for Clinton

All night long it seemed that CNN had rigged the debate so that Hillary Clinton had all of the chances to recover from the self-inflicted wounds she sustained in the Philadephia Debate. From the unusually Pro-Hilary crowd, to the way new CNN anchor Campbell Brown soft-balled questions to Senator Clinton. It gave me a bellyache to watch. But this revalation of a planted question in favor of Clinton by CNN is the coup-de-grace.

This is bad, both for the Hillary Clinton campaign, which is showing a tendency toward planting questions and flip-flopping on answers to questions they didn't install, and CNN, which is called "Clinton News Network" by many.

I do think the other Democratic candidates and supporters should feel cheated by this, and move to take action to prevent it from happening again.

Still, even with CNN's gaming, Barack Obama won the debate.

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.

Zogby Poll Has Iowa Race Near Dead-Heat - Clinton Two Points Over Obama

It's getting tighter. The latest Zogby Poll has Clinton just three points ahead of Obama, 28 to 25 percent with Edwards at 21 percent.

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