Barack Obama Issues First Veto Threat To Congress

More from Huff Post: “President-elect Barack Obama made his first veto threat Tuesday in a closed-door meeting with Senate Democrats. Obama told his former colleagues that if Congress passes a resolution blocking release of the second half of the financial bailout funds he will veto it, said Sen. Joseph Lieberman after leaving the caucus meeting.”

Thierry de la Villehuchet: Madoff Investor Dies After $1.4 Billion Lost

Did Thierry de la Villehuchet kill himself? - Huff Postt: “Rene-Thierry Magon de la Villehuchet was found sitting at his desk at about 8 a.m. with both wrists slashed, New York Police Department spokesman Paul Browne said. A box cutter was found on the floor along with a bottle of sleeping pills on his desk. No suicide note was found...”

Biden To Chair White House Middle Class Task Force - Huff Post

See Huff Post for more: “WASHINGTON — As vice president, Joe Biden will oversee an Obama administration effort to find ways of building up the ranks of the middle class, that ambiguously defined segment of society most Americans identify with.

The task force will include four Cabinet members as well as other presidential advisers, the Obama transition team announced Sunday.”

Tina Brown And "The Daily Beast": Any Black Folks Around There?

The Daily Beast  is a new website along the lines of The Huffington Post from a content standpoint and started by long-time magazine editor Tina Brown and with an investment by Barry Diller. The rumor has been that $18 million was invested in the site and that the company was burning through $1 million or so in a month. Here in the video, Brown dispells those rumors.

In all, The Daily Beast is certainly an interesting "go" in that Brown is not going to have a set of unpaid bloggers, as The Huff Post does, but all paid writers, In other words a news and content staff.


I think that's a terrible idea because it places a high cost template in the business model and causes a higher level of revenue to be reached. Translation: a constant burn rate. But what's even more alarming to me is this staff photo we see: where the hell's the staff diversity? 

Has Tina ever heard of Black folks at all? Indeed, she wasn't a fan of President-Elect Barack Obama, but one of those who knee-jerk pointed to the "media bias against Hillary Clinton " while walking ignorantly past the dark racism that Obama faced during the campaign.


Regardless, assembling an almost-all-white (one Indian) news staff in an era that prizes diversity is massively irresponsible.  


Partly as a result of this "one-think", The Daily Beast is woefully devoid of any original content at present.  It's a cross between the online version of The New York Daily News, and The Huffington Post.  If "news is advertising" as Brown says in the video, The Beast has terrible ad content.


For some reason I can see this lasting two or three years -- tops.  That's not because of the staffing, but the total package.  There's nothing original here.  

Norm Coleman - Did Coleman's Financial Straits Force Him To Solicit Donor Favors?

Huff Post - Did Coleman's Financial Straits Force Him To Solicit Donor Favors?: “Did Norm Coleman's financial problems compel him to turn to friends and GOP donors for help with his living situation?

That's what a new story out of Minnesota alleges. Friday morning, a local Fox News affiliate reported that at the time that Coleman allegedly received $75,000 in unreported payments from a prominent Republican businessman, he was also struggling to make payments for the restructuring of his home.”

NPR Announces 7 Percent Staff Cut, Show Cancellations

NPR Announces Layoffs, Show Cancellations Huff Post: “NPR Interim President & CEO Dennis Haarsager announced plans to reduce 7% of its workforce and cancel two shows, "News & Notes" and "Day to Day" in a memo to staff Wednesday afternoon. The memo outlines NPR's financial difficulties and explains the rationale for eliminating 64 employees and canceling the two shows:”

Daily Kos Contributor Ben Bang Applogize To Huff Posts' Sam Stein

On September 27th of 2007, Daily Kos contributor Ben Bang linked to Sam Stein's piece on the then-alledged John Edwards / Rielle Hunter affair and let loose with a string of insults:

...And pretty much right after that, the article ends. What the fuck? How did that shit turn out, Stein? Did you not even take them up on their offer to show you those year old videos that you'd already seen and yet sought to make into some sort of international mystery scandal?

By the way, they probably insisted on being there while you view the videos to make sure that you do not copy them, you no-article-finishing, character-assasinating hack fuck.

After a couple of years of dedicated readership, the Huffington Post's prime spot on my bookmarks toolbar is in serious jeopardy. Apparently I'm not alone. The comments section of the article is brimming with disapproving commentators.

Well, in the wake of Edwards' confession it seems the Daily Kos complainers have some serious back-pedaling to do.

But at the time there was so much partisan bickering they can be excused for a little irrational exhuberance.

Mayhill Fowler An Ememy of The Obama For America Campaign

This is my letter to the Obama Rapid Response Team

Hello ORR,

Just some FYI. The person behind the installation of the "video" with Senator Obama's comments on the plight of Pennsylvania small towns is Mayhill Fowler. She's an Oakland resident of 61 years old who I first met online via Amanda Michel of The Huffington Post.

At first, our emails were fine as I wrote about videoing her -- we both live in Oakland But as her coverage became obviously anti-Barack, I not only backed off, I stopped contacting her, except to tell her that she was being biased.

All of her coverage at the time was pro-Hillary and Anti-Barack. Plus, she had the nasty habit of quoting Barack or any supporter without taking notes or using a camcorder. That habit was SO BAD she pissed off key members of the Obama For America campaign in Northern California.

Nuts.

Also, my Huff Post articles were pro-Obama and I was open about it. But they -- the Huff Post -- had a WEIRD tendency to promote Mayhill's anti-Obama coverage over my pro-Obama work, which also attacked Clinton.

Thus, I stopped submitting work to the Huff Post because of that, plus the fact that my interest is in building my blog network and not Arianna's. I love Ariana and I've copied her here, but all's fair in the Internet business.

My point was to tell the world the other story and that was being slowed, so I concentrated on using better "SEO" systems than the Huff Post, to rank higher -- it's worked. One thing I've learned is that once a person in this business finds the right formula, all of the beneficiaries of the "old" way give way to the new.

This will be true for the Huff Post, as much as any other website. You can't sit still, and yet they do. Just how is something I know. It's not that I don't respect the Huff Post -- in fact, I love it -- but I did not like the Mayhill matter. It stuck in my craw and fueled me to make my own news and not contribute to their content, or try to.

Meanwhile Mayhill pressed on. To her partial credit, this article has some evidence which I frankly think is good for the campaign. Barack's a speaker of the truth and the fact is that small towns in Pennsylvania have really been hit hard. He's right to talk about where they're coming from and it should spark conversation. Like the "race" issue, we will come out on top in the end. We're fighting against people who use dishonesty as a weapon -- I've learned that the best counter is honesty.

Also, I suspect that Mayhill's getting some assistance from Huff Post, but if so it's small. That $10 million they got is not going into the pockets of editors and writers as it should -- bully for me!

In closing, if you want to contact Mayhill yourself here's her email:
JuneHill@aol.com

As Scooby Do would say "Rotsa Ruck Roy!"
Dear

As

--
Zennie Abraham, Jr.
Chairman and CEO
http://www.sportsbusinesssims.com
Sports Business Simulations
510-387-9809
SBS Online Marketing at http://www.sbson.com

Arianna Huffington - My Email To Arianna On Lousy Dem Debate Article

Hi Arianna,

Normally, I enjoy the Huff Post, but this article makes my BLOOD boil. Which one? This one:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20080115/democratic-rdp/

"Clinton, Obama Vow to Bury Race Debate"

Why does the write refer to John Edwards as "the only white male in the race'? So freaking what? And why do your editors select headlines that focus on Obama and race and insult Obama?

I didn't see the debate -- I was at MacWorld -- but everyone I talked to, half not with any candidate in terms of preference -- said "Obama won."

Why in heaven's name are you all so afraid to point out when he does well, and why are you letting your new editor continue to inject racism into the campaign.

This is a real low for the Huffington Post.

Best,

Zennie

John Edwards' Alledged Lover Rielle Hunter Pregnant By Either "Edwards Operative" Or Edwards Himself

UPDATE: JOHN EDWARDS ADMITS TO AFFAIR

UPDATE: EDWARDS / HUNTER ALLEGED BABY PHOTOS SURFACE

UPDATE: JOHN EDWARDS CAUGHT VISITING RIELLE HUNTER AND CHILD JULY 21, 2008.

UPDATE: EDWARDS VISIT CONFIRMED BY SECURITY GUARD

EDWARDS AFFAIR VIDEO LINK

BREAKING:





As John Edwards prepares to go negative on Barack Obama after Obama's big Iowa win, there's a looming spectre of a story that should be of concern to him and it seems to be.

This is a story that will not go away and it comes up again, as The National Enquirer and Sam Stein over at the Huffington Post first introduced a story asserting that former U.S. Senator and Presidential Candidate John Edwards had an affair in 2006.

I wrote about it a while back , but focused on the Enquirer / Clinton angle. But I'm done with that as the story has massive legs.

Now, the Enquirer is reporting that the woman of interest as the supposed lover, Rielle Hunter is pregnant, and has a photo , shown here, to prove it. Now this is where the story gets even weirder. Because both the Enquirer and the Huff Post report...

Now, as the Enquirer has published photos of a clearly pregnant Hunter, she has gone on the record confirming that she is pregnant but denying that Edwards is the father. She claims that the biological father is Edwards operative Andrew Young, a married man who confirms both his extramarital affair with Hunter and that the baby is his. Hunter, who lived in New York, has recently relocated to a gated community in North Carolina near Young and his family. But, the Enquirer claims that Hunter is privately telling friends that Edwards fathered the baby.

That's the Huff Post's watered -down version of what the Enquirer reported, which is this:

The ENQUIRER has now confirmed not only that Rielle is expecting, but that she's gone into hiding with the help of a former aide to Edwards. The visibly pregnant blonde has relocated from the New York area to Chapel Hill, N.C., where she is living in an upscale gated community near political operative Andrew Young, who's been extremely close to Edwards for years and was a key official in his presidential campaign.

And in a bizarre twist, Young — a 41-year-old married man with young children — now claims HE is the father of Rielle's baby! But others are skeptical, wondering if Young's paternity claim is a cover-up to protect Edwards.

And what's interesting even more is that the Huff Post's original article by Sam Stein was taken down. But this Google search result will show that it was Sam Stein who gave more life to the story.

So let me get this straight. It's not Edwards, but an Edwards "oprative" -- who's marrried? Either way you spin it -- Edwards or Edwards operative -- the story seems, well, seemy at best with two married men behaving badly. Take your pick. And one things for sure : it's connected with John Edwards, one way or another.

It also brings up a question" will a John Edwards Presidency be like a Bill Clinton affair, all over again, with another sex scandal and a "Monica Lewinsky" running around?

The other question is why is the mainstream press ignoring this story that's all over the Internet? Redstate raises this issue, quoting Mickey Kaus...

"But there's a second way to divide the electorate that asks how the voters inform themselves. Do they rely on the traditional Mainstream Media (MSM), or do they get their political information from the Web, from cable news, from the tabloids, etc. This division may have once seemed unimportant, but it doesn't anymore--its seriousness is suggested by the MSM's impressive resistance to stories bubbling up from the blogs and the tabs that don't meet MSM standards (putting aside whether you regard those standards as high or merely idiosyncratic). "Rielle Hunter"--the woman whom the National Enquirer alleges was John Edwards' mistress--was the top-searched name on the MSN site at one point Thursday, I'm told. Meanwhile, in the traditional mainstream press, 'Rielle Hunter" was mentioned only ... well, zero times.
Of the two ways to divide the electorate, the second is arguably more important. After all, even those who don't follow politics, will eventually inform themselves before the election.** But if the MSM/Web barrier remains as robust as it's been, those who inform themselves from the MSM will find out something different, when they finally tune in, than those who go to the Web and learn both the news and what might be called the "undernews."

But this thing -- this story -- is all over the blogsphere, and as Bloggers have pointed out as well , the CNN's and ABCs of the world are trying not to pay attention to it.

Ron Paul - ABC News Fix Has Interview Only On Web

This is a terrible bit of news I got from Andrew Sulivan and which he got from The Huff Post's Matt Simon. Apparently Congressman Ron Paul gave an interview to ABC News' John Stossel -- one that ABC didn't show on television, but confined to the World Wide Web.

This is the latest and ultimate example of a mainstream media fix that has been in the works in different forms, from polling to television coverage. New Media to the rescue as bloggers and vloggers uncover a fix that would have determined the election in the past.

No more.

According to Matt Simon, Stossel wrote this:

Despite relatively low poll numbers, Paul has had a big influence on the presidential campaign. That's in part because he's raised a ton of money, and in part because of the passionate following he has on the Web. It's one reason we're posting my interview with Paul only on the Internet, where the debate about Paul is very active. In fact, he's the most Googled presidential candidate.

Yeah, right.

Any Internet expert know that television drives web searches. If the interview were shown on ABC, it would have compelled many undecided viewers to go to their computers and search for news on Ron Paul.

ABC either knew this and punted, or didn't know this, and still worked to deny the Paul interview full disemenation. In either case, it's wrong what was done. Here's the ABC interview.

White House Obstructing Valery Plame Investigation

This is reveaed by Huff Post writer Sam Stein , who writes..

"The Bush Administration is actively blocking Congress' investigation into the outing of once-covert CIA agent Valerie Plame, according to House Oversight Committee chairman Henry Waxman.

In a letter sent today to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Waxman notes that "White House objections are preventing Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald from disclosing key information to investigating officials." Among the documents being withheld are interviews taken from White House officers during Fitzgerald's investigation into the leak of Plame's identity."

Wonder what they're hiding?

Huff Post Live Bloggers: Iowa Democratic Debate Boring

The Huffington Post hs three people on site in Iowa to blog about the debate. I participated in this as an AOL Instant Messenger user for the CNN / YouTube Debates, but not this time. It's Sunday morning and too early for one who needs his rest: me. Plus, I'm on the West Coast, where this program's going to be pre-recorded so I can see for myself when I'm awake. If I get up.

There's a pattern emerging with these debates. Barack Obama's being painted as the different candidate as much by his challengers as himself. Hillary Clinton's pressing the obvious fact she's a woman. John Edwards makes long statements of feeling, but always misses the soundbites. And the rest are, well, the rest.

I don't think the debates themselves are boring, just the way ABC does it. Remember their fake experience at videoblogging? Well, they entirely ran away from it this time, thanks to me and Newbievids. But hey, they could have improved on the video format, but that's for another blog post.

Heres' the Huffington Post Live Blog text...

Welcome to yet another installment of HuffPost's Debate Liveblog Series ™ — where we watch the debates and critique the candidates in real time. Today we're joined by nonverbal communication specialist John Neffinger, Political Brain author and language expert Drew Westen, and HuffPost/Eat The Press contributor Glynnis MacNicol (with occasional piping up by me — your moderator, ETP editor Rachel Sklar). We are instant-messaging our comments to each other in real time, except for Drew, who will add in his comments later this morning when the debate is broadcast at his local affiliate (learn to stream, ABC!). It will be a fluid and chatty session — refreshed consistently over the morning. So keep checking in — in the meantime, here are some introductory thoughts by our panel!

John: So, here we are again. Another few days, another debate.
Rachel: I know! Did you hear that Obama said he's going to stop the insanity and pull out of the debates?
John: I did -- official, mandatory debates only from here on out.
Rachel: Apparently it's in a memo by Obama campaign manager David Plouffe. (Hee hee, "Plouffe.")
Glynnis: Yes - which will either give everyone else the opportunity to do the same...or give Hillary the opportunity to have way more face time
John: Looking back over the debates so far, was this format necessarily favorable to Hillary for some reason, or did it just work out that way?
Rachel: Interesting. Well, it's certainly been favorable to her visually - the eye picks her out of the lineup instantly. That was driven home watching the GOP debate
John: She is the only candidate who can get away with wearing pink. Er, coral.
Drew: We're certainly getting a good picture of how he is or isn't being coached for the debates. It looks too much like it's from Shrum handbook and not enough from Obama's natural style.
John: That's right, very cerebral. Only in the most recent AFL-CIO debate did Obama regularly display any facial expression whatsoever.
Glynnis: I think it has to be said only a small slice of the population is getting a fuller picture of things from these debates...I can't imagine a lot of people are tuning in at 9am on a Sunday in August. Which is why soundbites are smart i.e. "I'm your girl!"
Rachel: Ha, good point. Yet bizarrely ABC claimed that they had a great audience for this last week (even though it was still beaten by "Meet Russert's Giant Head").
Glynnis: On a side note - Karl Rove is doing all the morning shows except "This Week."
Rachel: Oh! That's so interesting! A subtle undermining of the Dems even in retirement.
Glynnis: I think everyone should take a lesson from Kucinich's Chicago performance -- had any of the top three candidates played to the crowd so well, I think it could have defined them better in the mainstream media, "I'm your girl!" notwithstanding.
John: You also mentioned earlier Glynn, given how few people are watching these debates closely, memorable moments (on the upside or downside) are what matter here.
Glynnis: I think that Edwards is going to be the one under the gun tomorrow...he has some 'splaining to do regarding Katrina and mortgage foreclosures.
Rachel: What???
Glynnis: Short version: he has investments with a company that is currently foreclosing on poor people's houses in New Orleans.
Rachel: Yikes. Talk your way outta THAT one, Mr. War On Poverty!
(see the rest of our pre-debate chatter here — the debate starts....now!)

THE DEBATE

Glynnis (9:05:37 AM): Welcome to the first Democratic debate ...from Iowa. George runs through the lineup by talking about Iowa poll support Biden and Kucinich are tied at 2%. Gravel has none.
Rachel (9:06:40 AM): Which gets a rather uncalled for laugh, I think. Shame on you, George.
Glynnis (9:05:55 AM): Stephanopoulous goes straight for the jugular. The big question is does Obama have enough experience? Hillary?
Glynnis (9:06:10 AM): She's wearing a taupe suit. Not showing up so well on the background of red white and blue.
Rachel (9:06:40 AM): I know - her first fashion misstep!
Rachel (9:06:47 AM): Where is the Vogue-sanctioned Huma when you need her?
Glynnis (9:07:19 AM): Biden dodges the question a bit.
Rachel (9:07:49 AM): "Is Senator Obama ready?" George leads with a challenge, to everyone.
John (9:08:00 AM): Hillary began her morning with a nice warm smile today. Is she our girl?
Rachel (9:08:17 AM): And Obama rises to it! Great joke: "To prepare for this session, I rode in the bumper car at the Iowa State Fair" - funny.
Glynnis (9:08:18 AM): Richardson dives in with taking it back to himself: "Clinton has experience, Obama has change. I have both." First laugh from the crowd.
John (9:08:58 AM): I was wondering whether this Pakistan disagreement would be left to lie. George Stephanopoulos goes right for it.

Note that George has set up a direct confrontation between Hillary and Obama here. The disagreement on the facts you can read about in the paper — what "wins" these confrontations in this setting is body language and tone. Hillary is not only firm, but slightly angry and disapproving when her integrity is challenged — her posture stiffens and her brow furrows and she raises her voice. She is not going to stand for attacks on her or her positions.

Obama, by contrast, attempts to take the high road. His response minimizes the disagreement rather than sharpening it as Hillary does, and while he stands firm, he projects serenity instead of toughness, looking disapproving only fleetingly. This shows a form of strength, and is a valid strategy if your toughness has already been established. But next to Hillary it is not clear that he is showing quite enough toughness, enough firmness. She makes clear with her body language when she objects to something. With Obama, you often have to listen closely to what he says to know where he objects.

Why is this so important? Remember the Swift Boaters. The specific facts of the Swift Boat accusations were not the issue. The issue was that when John Kerry's was challenged personally on his integrity, he would not stand up for himself. How then could Americans trust him to stand up for them? This is a dangerous world, and voters are looking for a leader who will stand up for all of us when our enemies challenge us.

Rachel (9:09:30 AM): Wow, that is an interesting way of looking at it. Obama is on the hook to show strength today, since he's the one taking all the heat right off the bat.
Glynnis (9:09:53 AM): Does this line of questioning strike anyone else as strange? Why is everything being viewed in the light of Obama?
John (9:10:36 AM): Very strange... but now George is going after Hillary's flip-flop on the nuclear option being on the table. George is stirring the pot here.
Glynnis (9:11:07 AM): The lighting at this debate is terrible on all the candidates. Everyone looks a bit orange.
Rachel (9:11:26 AM): Wow, it's an actual debate!
Rachel (9:11:30 AM): This is a nice change.
John (9:11:40 AM): Well done George.
Rachel (9:11:48 AM): I will add that the lineup has changed - Hillary is now stuck on the end
Rachel (9:11:55 AM): Good day to wear the bland beige suit.
Glynnis (9:11:55 AM): Hillary is off to the very right of the stage, at the podium usually reserved for Kucinich
Glynnis (9:12:22 AM): George is grinning. He knows he's stirring it up.
Glynnis (9:12:37 AM): Oh John Edwards!
John (9:13:56 AM): Edwards opens on a sunny note: "How about a little hope and optimism?" Unfortunately, we're talking about terrorism and national security, where a big sunny smile does not demonstrate the strength to handle this stuff.
Glynnis (9:14:11 AM): George is trying to turn this debate into a Obama Clinton showdown. Why aren't the other candidates reacting by pointing out they are all still in the game!
Glynnis (9:15:42 AM): Gravel is back! "I think they are all wrong" "Cheney should be committed"
John (9:16:04 AM): Oh brother. When you hear "Here's what I would do...." you know you're listening to Bill Richardson.
Glynnis (9:16:19 AM): Everyone sounds like they have a cold. Perhaps the lack of summer holiday is catching up with them.
Rachel (9:16:42 AM): There's a Bush/Iraqi parliament joke in here somewhere.
Glynnis (9:17:01 AM): George now brings it back to Karl Rove.

John (9:17:14 AM): Now George invites Obama to take a shot at Senator Clinton based on her soaring negatives in the polls. True to form, he is much too gentlemanly for that.
Glynnis (9:18:05 AM): They just did a crowd shot and there is a woman asleep in the audience.
Rachel (9:18:28 AM): I'm your guy!
John (9:18:30 AM): If they did a whole-stage shot, they might catch somebody napping up there too.
Rachel (9:18:32 AM): And nobody reacted!
Glynnis (9:18:40 AM): Obama has slipped into "hopeful" platitudes.
Rachel (9:18:41 AM): Obama is doing well today.
Glynnis (9:18:54 AM): George is trying to press him for details.
Rachel (9:18:58 AM): I'm not sure they're platitudes - and he's certainly not alone in THAT, anyway.
Rachel (9:19:09 AM): (Cf. Edwards, Richardson.)
John (9:19:28 AM): Yeah, Obama tried that at a moment when George was itching to cut him off. Wrong moment if he was trying to make that his soundbite.
Rachel (9:19:55 AM) has left the room.
Glynnis (9:19:58 AM): Edwards jumps in now : "America wants change in the most serious way"

[Technical difficulties courtesy of AIM - yay, Drew gets to fill this part in!]

Glynnis (9:29:09 AM): The questions have moved on to Iraq.
Glynnis (9:30:59 AM): Joe Biden is looking good. The fact that he isn't forcefully jumping in to the questions, however, seems to drive home that conclusion of the last debate that he is now vying for an alternate position.
Glynnis (9:33:03 AM): Hillary says getting out of Iraq is dangerous and people don't like to hear this. She says she doesn't want to oversell the evacuation.
Rachel (9:33:12 AM): She sounds strong and authoritative here. Dropping facts like a vandal.
Rachel (9:33:33 AM): (Um, not a good time for a Vanilla Ice lyric?)
Glynnis (9:33:34 AM): Gravel wants to make it clear that he disagrees with everyone!
Glynnis (9:34:24 AM): I like how Clinton and Obama are looking at him as though they are taking Gravel seriously.
John (9:34:39 AM): Yes, let's talk about the Turks. Hillary is going into the details just to show off that she can speak about them fluently.
Glynnis (9:35:22 AM): Edwards concedes that he understands that George is trying to create a fight up here. If George continues to be so aggressive I think that he is going to unite the candidates against him.
John (9:35:57 AM): Richardson now directly challenges Hillary, saying that Hillary has talked about leaving non-combat troops behind in Iraq without combat troops to protect them.
Glynnis (9:36:20 AM): Well, now Richardson is questioning Clinton and Obama. Richardson sounds good on pape, but is awkward visually.
Rachel (9:36:23 AM): We don't need no civil wa-a-ar!
Rachel (9:36:34 AM): (Um, not a good time for a Guns N' Roses lyric?)
Glynnis (9:37:43 AM): Biden may be so far down in the polls that it's safe for everyone to agree with him. The other candidates seem to be turning him into the wise old sage.
John (9:38:05 AM): He is awkward visually. When Richardson emphasizes his question: "What is the purpose of the residual force?" he holds out his hands and nods from his waist, and for a moment he looks like Bluto Blutarski.
Glynnis (9:38:14 AM): But George wants to bring it back to Obama and Clinton.

Glynnis (9:40:10 AM): Oooh. Obama starts out all friendly and then drops in the point that he wishes all the people on this stage had considered these points earlier!
Rachel (9:40:12 AM): "Nobody had more experience than Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney" - brilliant point.
Rachel (9:40:22 AM): And man does he sound authoritative.
Rachel (9:40:31 AM): Something is different about Obama today. He has it.
Glynnis (9:41:02 AM): Obama just turned his lack of experience into a positive...just as Hillary turned her "negatives" into a positive.
Glynnis (9:41:49 AM): I agree. Obama seems to be at the end of his rope with the "lack of experience" comments.
John (9:41:51 AM): He is doing pretty well today. I wonder though if any of this rises to the level of a clip that anyone not awake right now will ever see.
Glynnis (9:42:50 AM): Kucinich says the Democrats on this stage have to take responsibility for this war. The camera cuts to Hillary and she nods.
Glynnis (9:43:21 AM): George isn't even pretending that the other candidates matter.
Rachel (9:43:52 AM): I'm just a caveman, I don't understand your world...
Glynnis (9:43:59 AM): Apropos of nothing. Hillary is really good on stage. So polished.

Rachel (9:44:48 AM): Oh, gosh. John Edwards, talking about the death of his son, and Elizabeth's cancer. Wow.
Rachel (9:45:03 AM): This is a sobering reminder of what this man has been through. What his family has been through.
John (9:45:39 AM): Hillary nodded very empathetically when she had the question re-read to her. That was her answer right there.
Glynnis (9:45:42 AM): And now she manages to turn a question about a personal God into an answer about her experience. "If I wasn't a praying person before I got to the White House I would have been after a few days."
Glynnis (9:48:32 AM): Obama is owning this question. He takes it out of the personal sphere and equates prayer with the ability to effect change.
Rachel (9:48:52 AM): Nice ice-breaker from Kucinich!
Glynnis (9:49:18 AM): Kucinich is funny! "I've spent the last twenty minutes praying you were going to call on me."
Glynnis (9:49:36 AM): He is also the only candidate to refer to specific Biblical passages.
Rachel (9:50:37 AM): I think Dodd is a wonderful speaker. And there's his trademark Kelly green tie! (He favors those.)
John (9:50:41 AM): Matthew 25, every liberal's favorite Bible verse, will not impress evangelicals.
Rachel (9:51:03 AM): I rather like Genesis 38:10, but that's just me.
Glynnis (9:51:22 AM): George isn't even pretending to be representative of the larger viewing public. He is showing his colors as a Washington insider here.
Glynnis (9:54:09 AM): Somebody needs to do something sharp soon! Or John is right, this Sunday morning August debate won't even make a wave in the MSM.
Glynnis (10:00:41 AM): This debate is not furthering a whole lot in my opinion except to strengthen Obama's decision not to participate in them anymore.
Rachel (10:01:04 AM): Yikes. This ain't no snowman!
Rachel (10:01:48 AM): I'm gonna say it: This is a boring debate.
John (10:02:21 AM): Joe Biden just brought down the house with one of his trademark "I'm a big-mouthed idiot" jokes.
Glynnis (10:02:51 AM): Yes, we love Joe Biden and his self-deprecation!
Rachel (10:01:04 AM): Well, you do, Biden girl!
John (10:04:37 AM): Obama has a good response here, highlighting his speech to Detroit automakers telling them we need to raise fuel efficiency. It was a good moment that has not gotten all the attention he had hoped.
Glynnis (10:04:52 AM): Edwards is far from owning this debate, but I think if he can hang in there until Feb/March I think he could be the alternate for those independents that Hillary supposedly alienates.
John (10:06:13 AM): That's interesting: despite his stumbles, Obama has been leading the race for the not-Hillary candidate. But at this point maybe there will be room for a not-Obama not-Hillary candidate as well.
Glynnis (10:07:09 AM): Richardson says he is not the "scripted candidate" alluding perhaps to his homosexuality is a choice remark at the LOGO forum.

John (10:08:04 AM): Richardson saying he is "averaging about one mistake a week" is endearing, but not a compelling case for supporting him.
Glynnis (10:08:40 AM): Especially not when he follows it up with talk about nukes and Iran.
Glynnis (10:09:58 AM): Despite all of George's antagonism, the candidates seem to be going out of their way to point out how they agree with eachother.
John (10:10:30 AM): Everyone except Hillary.
Rachel (10:10:52 AM): What? She kicked that off from the very beginning, talking about building herself up and not tearing others down, taking it back to being a united force agains the GOP. C'mon, give our girl a little more credit.
Glynnis (10:12:52 AM): Considering this debate is being held in Iowa (some of the most privileged voters out there) they are very tame! Perhaps everyone there really is in church.
John (10:13:48 AM): Richardson is strong on education here, with a nice ringing response that does not sound canned. But the camera catches him looking sad and out of sorts for several long seconds after George cuts him off.
Rachel (10:13:57 AM): As in the GOP debate, George let's them talk, so it's telling when he does actually cut someone off. Perhaps he was doing Richardson a favor, cf. Melissa Etheridge ("I don't think you understood my question..."). God, that just never gets old.

John (10:14:07 AM): Glynnis, you were wondering if Gravel was going off the cliff..?
Glynnis (10:14:25 AM): Gravel is speaking truth to power. We are 46th in literacy in the world he points out. And then somehow makes it about nukes...
Glynnis (10:14:38 AM): ...and then goes right off the cliff
John (10:14:46 AM): Even he was chuckling at how disjointed that was after George finally brought the curtain down.
Glynnis (10:16:21 AM): Biden says regarding education: "don't tell me what you believe in, show me your budget."
Glynnis (10:17:56 AM): Richardson excessively laughs at Gravel's response before responding himself. Badly timed, and makes Richardson look like the silly one.
John (10:19:20 AM): Gravel aside, all of these people have a coherent, strong story to tell on education. I wonder what any of them could actually get done on education as President.
John (10:19:26 AM): Would any one them make it a priority? Would they have any political capital or budget left after a bruising health care fight?
Rachel (10:19:34 AM): Obama looks prescient here - this debate seems like a tipping point of non-relevance. When's Karl Rove on?
John (10:19:56 AM): Good question.
Glynnis (10:20:04 AM): Can we watch Karl Rove after this?
John (10:20:18 AM): Okay, the final question - what decisive moment shaped your character?
Rachel (10:20:30 AM): I would like to see some of Obama as an angry young man here, frankly. He doesn't move the needle much on showing emotion.
Glynnis (10:21:02 AM): With his working class ties and his radical plans...
Rachel (10:21:59 AM): Nice! This is the song-droppingest liveblog ever.

Glynnis (10:22:47 AM): Guess what? John Edwards father worked in a mill...had you heard?
Rachel (10:22:49 AM): Aw. That was a nice story about Edwards' dad. Today he's connecting with me. I think a lot of Americans would connect with that notion, the notion of self-improvement and aiming high - it taps into the upward striving element of the American Dream.
Glynnis (10:23:19 AM): Hillary on feminism: She owns this answer.
Rachel (10:23:24 AM): HILLARY IS A SISTA!!!!
John (10:23:25 AM): Wow. How is it that these people speak in public for a living, and are asked for a compelling personal story from their lives, and can't come up with anything memorable?
Rachel (10:23:35 AM): (Note how she folds in people of color.)
Glynnis (10:23:48 AM): ...and she does by alluding to the women's movement. I really think she needs to play this angle a bit more.
Rachel (10:23:54 AM): I'm sorry, I was inspired by that last interchange. John, I think these are actually quite compelling personal stories. I'm with them.
Rachel (10:23:57 AM): Which is the point, right?
Glynnis (10:23:58 AM): And then she brings it back to her mother. Nice.
Glynnis (10:25:23 AM): She says thirty years ago she could never have imagined herself as president. And then refers to the women's movement/civil rights movement
Glynnis (10:25:49 AM):...and then takes it to a personal level by saying how much she owes her mother, who never got a change to go to college.
Rachel (10:26:07 AM): Like I said: Inspiring. Look at all these candidates, running for president - something their parents could never have dreamed of doing. That, right there, is the best of America. (Says the Candian. But still.)

Glynnis (10:26:35 AM): Okay! Impressions on the whole?
John (10:26:43 AM): Thanks for that. What I could see was that she said it with a warm smile, which we are now seeing more regularly from her.
John (10:28:53 AM): Yeah, she does. And she is now showing us real warm smiles occasionally too.
Glynnis (10:29:17 AM): However, I don't think that we learned anything new from this debate. If anything, this debate seemed like a bit of an ego exercise for George Steph..perhaps a metaphor for the media in general as far at these debates are concerned
Glynnis (10:31:16 AM): I think it's interesting though what wasn't mentioned. No 9/11 mention despite yesterday's fire at ground zero. No mention of Obama opting out of futher debates.
Glynnis (10:31:28 AM): ON TO ROVE!
John (10:31:42 AM): Should we liveblog him? We can follow him from channel to channel.
Rachel (10:31:52 AM): Neat timing — to pass off gracefully to NBC.
John (10:33:34 AM): The only thing I saw new here was Hillary being warmer. George started strong, trying to start arguments, but Hillary swatted away his challenges.
John (10:33:39 AM): And no one -- not George, not her rivals -- would hold her feet to the fire either on the substance of the Iran/nukes issue or on the separate issue of why she would accuse Obama of things she had done herself.
John (10:34:35 AM): There were some good substantive responses along the way, but nothing for the highlight reel.