The networks have all declared the SC primary for Obama.  No cigar for Hillary tonight; Bill will give it to somebody else.  May no one be hit with flying lamps and ashtrays.

Some “snoop’ has given vent to ancient rumors [like around 1980/1990s]
that Bill Clinton has fathered as many offsprings as Mr. Obama and in fact a couple of them with a non white woman that used to work for him in Arkansas.

More like a boring pissing contest between to high school teachers pets

Posing as the natural heir of Martin Luther King is an infinitely popular strategy for Obama, but is it actually realistic? After all, he was born in 1961, lived in Indonesia and Hawaii, then Kansas. It’s a little like donning a cloak of daggers in his case to portray a porcupine.

But for Hillary’s knowledge and experience, it might have worked.

Few remarks have been made about the Obama portrayal of the fox who would be king by using his skin color, but not his attitudes, (newly donned for the occasion), to slip into the Presidency because a woman is running, and he thinks he can take her with the help of his brethren. How about that hypocrisy?

Knowing that women throughout the world share the weakness of invisiblity, and credibility, he met with Hillary for an hour, to size her up, and decided whether she was sufficiently vulnerable to become his opponent for the White House and Democratic Party dominance. Is Audacious Hope the right description for that act?

Hoping that Bill would step aside or be diverted long enough for him to weasle into the preferred spot, this man who would be king deserves the come uppance he is getting.

Relying on an entire generation of people who really never could know what the Clintons were made of, and never had the chance to watch Bill Clinton in action because they were too young, Obama now offers youth as the promise of the Democratic Party.

Challenging the white establishment and the black establishment, does he think all those old folks will just roll over like tired old lions to allow him to be king? what planet has he been living on?

Both parties may rely on those tired old lions, but they still have enormous power in the sphere of their political influence, and age is a plus, not a minus - except in Obama world - where energy and enthusiasm are paramount to torch passing.

Did he really think that those tired old lions had so little on the line that they would not challenge a youthful takeover?

It’s doubtful that a march of the toy soldiers is likely to displace even the battle fatique of those tired old warriors who have spent their lives climbing that ladder and aren’t quite yet willing to give up those pedestals, especially where Republicans are not yet willing to do so.

There may come a time when they will, and it’s likely they will exert some influence into who fills their slots by custom. Obama could be the one, but it won’t be because he outfoxed the old foxes.

Life just doesn’t work that way.

In government, in business, and in politics, they simply have too much at stake to be so careless or negligent.

Sometimes Hillary looks kinda like one [or some] of the ruling Roman Tetrarchy. Maxentius Augustus? Or maybe Flavius Claudius.

Not sure why. Maybe it’s that regal roman bearing.
Or the hair?

Obama on the other hand looks kinda like that ancient Nubian King Shabaka. Second Pharaoh in the 25th dynasty in Egypt.

Because, well he just does.

And Edwards looks a lot like Edwards.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with anything except sometimes when you’re watching the endless replay of endless replay the mind wanders.

Yawn ...

Which makes me wonder if maybe the fireworks aren’t intentional. Getting us over the “this has been going on far too long and is getting really boring” hump.

Senator Clinton, please take the high ground.  Don’t stoop to criticism of your fellow Democratic candidates.  Discuss details of your policies, rather than waste time responding to an attack or to make one of your own.  You hurt your ability to persuade those, who have not yet decided whom they will support as President, to support you.  For fair or not, it’s still a man’s world. Many people hold traditional ideas about a woman’s behavior, especially when the woman’s goal is the position of President of the USA, the highest glass ceiling yet to be broken.  Therefore when you fight like a man, slinging mud, you’re the one who gets dirtiest.  The audience booed you after one criticism against Senator Obama.  It is never good to be booed during a nationally televised debate. 

From now on I want Hillary Clinton to do the following: 

When one of her opponents takes a pot shot at her (such as Obama’s attempt with that sitting on the board of Walmart jab), don’t retaliate with a pot shot of her own.  If she feels she MUST respond, how about say something like, “As First Lady of Arkansas it was my privelege to serve on the board of an Arkansas company that employed ___ many Arkansans, providing affordable products. Walmart has since expanded to employ ____ many Americans, many of whom watched their former companies move overseas. I am proud to have served on their board when I was First Lady of Arkansas.” Best response of all, though, is to ignore her opponent’s attempt to critique her.  To instead use her valuable national television time to address the question put to her from the floor, telling the American people about her policies, providing details when time permits.

Details - for instance in the case John Edwards gave in the debate about the mother of several children working full time but too poor to afford to pay her rent and pay her heating bill, so she places her children dressed in their coats in the same bed at night as it’s cold in the house as she could only pay the rent, I want details as to how Senator Clinton’s mandatory health care plan will let that mother buy health insurance.  For when one is that poor, one needs dollars put in one’s pocket to buy health insurance.  Tax credits mean nothing to Americans this impoverished as they pay no income tax, after their deductables, now. Many uninsured Americans live like this.

To quote Texas State Senator Shapleigh, D-El Paso, a city of 750,000:  “We have more uninsured adults and children than any other large American city.  Half of the children here do not have health insurance, and nearly 40 percent of the adults have no health insurance.” CHIP provides health insurance for many children, but as the State Senator says, half of them don’t have it.  Their parents are too poor to afford to pay the premium. They are like that mother John Edwards discussed.  In Texas, 82 percent of the uninsured are from families that have at least one working member.  A family health coverage plan costs on average $11 - 12,000 dollars in Texas.  Too many families have an annual income of $25,000 or less.

Senator Clinton should explain how such families will be able to buy health insurance under a mandatory health care plan, rather than sling mud at a fellow Democratic opponent, during these debates.

She must gaurd her facial expressions too.  In the debate the camera cut to Senator Clinton several times as she stood in repose.  Some of these times, she is smiling or looking pleasant.  However, twice she resembled Nurse Ratchett out of One Flew Over The Cookoos Nest.  That expression must not pass her face again. 

Hillary Clinton is intelligent and capable.  She can do better in her next debate, which I’m looking forward to watching as I want to see her become our President. ec kostrubala

Maani,

Some of your critique is quite justified, and yes, i overstated the amount of bombing by the Clinton administration.  Fair enough.

I did not, however, suggest that Bill Clinton invaded Iraq.  I said that the Iraqis did not choose to be invaded; moreover, Sen Clinton did choose to invade Iraq.  She must accept some responsibility for the utter destruction of that country.  And as she is partially responsible, i still wonder where she gets the nerve to put them on notice.  It sounded far, far, far too imperial for my taste.

I think we could probably go back and forth all day on whether the candidates had serious discussion or merely made references to the fundamental economic problems we face.  So its probably not worth it.  And i will readily admit that the honesty and level of discussion that i expect is almost certainly unrealistic.

Me too, Jackpine. Forced myself to sit through the whole thing, and I should say that I did it only after having already cast my absentee vote for Kucinich. (for whatever it might be worth). So now, I get to sit back and wait to see who everybody else ‘chooses’. And, I would be OK I suppose, with either Edwards or Obama if my own guy doesn’t make it.

Quite frankly, Hillary scares the living shit out of me, and that’s not all that easy to do, because I don’t ‘scare’ all that easily. (at least not at this age) On the other hand, it’s clearly a matter (for me) of learning from past experiences. In other words, I KNOW what to expect from her, BASED ON THIS DEBATE, as well as the past 16 years that she references, and I’m gonna tell ya, it ain’t good.

I just hope I don’t have nightmares tonight.

PS...I didn’t take notes. I’m impressed that you did.

J.S.:

Since I seem to be the designated Hillary apologist here (LOL), I want to make three points.

“The proposed stimulus packages were a waste of time, as none of these people will be able to put together a stimulus package for at least a year and the situation will be different.”

Actually, Hillary DID note this (twice), and was the only candidate who did so.

“And not enough honest discussion about how we got in the mess that they say they can fix.”

Actually, again, Hillary DID discuss this (Obama also mentioned it), and not just “Bush is bad.”

“I was terribly offended by Clinton’s comment, “That they [the Iraqis] are [when she is president] on notice that their time is running out and they have to make these tough decisions.” They didn’t make the tough decision to be invaded (or bombed by her husband for 8 years) and occupied.”

First, Hillary did not say the Iraqis would be on notice “when she is president,” but rather that they are on notice NOW - during the campaign.

Second, Iraq was not “invaded” and “occupied” by Bill Clinton but by George Bush.  Your conflation of the two is incorrect and unfair.

Third, BC did NOT “bomb them for 8 years.” He did bomb on and off for two years (1999-2001), which is still not good.

Peace.

So in an unexplained fit of severe masochism, i forced myself to sit through the whole thing.  I even took some notes; i tried to keep score of dishonest or shadowy statements but gave up.  As Martin Sheen said in Apocalypse Now, the bullshit was piling up so fast you’d need wings to stay above it.

I noticed that many of their plans are unrealistic or incomplete; i also noticed that if you start combining some of those plans, the ideas look more workable.

The proposed stimulus packages were a waste of time, as none of these people will be able to put together a stimulus package for at least a year and the situation will be different.  The two Senators could be doing something right now, but they aren’t working their current jobs...they’re interviewing for a new job that is more important to them.

In many cases, Sen Clinton displayed at least the ability to memorize numbers.  She did come across as very capable much of time; at other times she came across as capable of being a second rate Lady MacBeth.  I am more convinced than ever that she could best serve her country as a powerful Senator.

Too many digs; too much undignified behavior; too much childishness; too much self-aggrandizing; and not enough honest discussion about how we got in the mess that they say they can fix. (Bush bad is no longer enough for me)

John Edwards made the best impression on me, but then again, all he had to do was act like a grown up...which he did.

I was terribly offended by Clinton’s comment, “That they [the Iraqis] are [when she is president] on notice that their time is running out and they have to make these tough decisions.” They didn’t make the tough decision to be invaded (or bombed by her husband for 8 years) and occupied.  My visceral reaction in the notes is not reprintable, except my willingness to vote for her to go live in Iraq and help them make those tough decisions that they keep slouching away from.

Well, at least there was a Dave Chappelle sighting…

What bothers me here is the complicity of the media, and this is a perfect example.

They call these clips “the sweet spots.” In other words, they, like the corporate media, are trying to sell “controversy” instead of substance.  For me, the “sweet spots” were the far greater percentage of the 2-hour debate that focused on the issues, and in which all three candidates spoke intelligently and directly.

If the media were “honest” (Ha!), the headline would not have been “Clinton and Obama Tangle It Up” (or some such thing), but rather, “Clinton, Obama and Edwards Discuss the Issues, with Occasional Fireworks.” THAT would be more honest than FOCUSING on the few moments of “ugliness” as if THAT is the only news worth knowing about.

A pox on ALL media!!!

Peace.

Has America forgotten the Clintons so soon?  Apparently so.  George Bush has been such a bad president that Bill Clinton is fondly remembered.  Yet, ever since the Iowa caucus, we have been reminded that Bill and Hillary mean are dirty fighters who mean business.  Hillary is the pick of the Democratic party elite and she has waited her turn, standing behind Bill for decades, and finally getting elected to the US Senate.  Now it is her TURN and everyone in her way had best move or get run over.

That is all this is about.  The Clinton attack on Obama is a carefully planned strategy, there is nothing spontaneous about it.  They are just using what has worked for them in the past.

I was really disappointed to see Sen Clinton get so ugly.  Sure you need to be tough, and I don’t think any Democrat would dispute that, but we all know how this will play out by the Repubs during the election process.  Sen Clinton is not my first choice, however I will vote for her if she were to be the Democratic candidate.  Sen Edwards is the candidate of choice for me, he was tough without being ugly, but most of all, Sen Edwards has gone toe to toe with large Corporations and won!  He understands the DC game and wants to work to change it.  Sen Obama is my second choice. He is smart, well spoken, and also has a grasp of what needs to change in DC.  My biggest concern is 8 more years of watching the pundits go after Sen Clinton like pit bulls.  We need to change the air in DC and the news media and Sen Clinton will make that a little harder.  Why can’t the Democrats see that a Edwards/Obama ticket is the greatist fear of all Repubs and their toddy pundits.  Let’s make that happen........

^Edwards is a smart guy...he gets my vote.  Hillary and Obama just argue trivia.