We are actually very inclusive, but the Clinton Political Machine has steamed quite a few of us through their aggressive campaign tactics. Obama’s people don’t stifle debate, we just stifle non-issues brought up by Clintonistas who spout rhetoric and insults instead of facts and discussion.

Marjorie:

Didn’t you know?  Every citizen has the right to free speech - EXCEPT if they support Hillary!  And not only will you get vitriol, the Obama supporters and Hillary-bashers will actually attempt to stifle debate from your (our) side - which, of course, is such a very “American” thing to do.

It is actually ironic, even amusing, that the people who support Obama - the candidate of inclusion, acceptance, principle, etc. - are the very ones who are LEAST inclusive and accepting if you do not see things their way.  The candidate who tells us not to demonize people has supporters who happily demonize anyone who supports Hillary.  Yet most of them are blind to their own closed-mindedness, dismissiveness and condescension.

Peace.

All endorsements do, except for the simple-minded that can’t think for themselves, is anger other people in the same party that don’t share your preference. I don’t care who Al Gore or John Edwards endorse, although I certainly think better of them for their ability to keep their damn mouths shut.

I fear that the Democratic Party, that was congratulating themselves about being so lucky to have so many good candidates, while the poor dumb Republicans were in total disaray are now about to form another circular firing squad. Most supporters, in either camp, have made so many loathesome remarks and seem to hate their Democratic opponents more than they hate the Republicans.

I know as I say it, that by saying that I support Hillary Clinton I will be hit with vitriol on this blog. Evidently we are not allowed to form our own opinions unless they agree with many of the posters here. Oh, and perhaps by being supporters of Hillary Clinton we are just hideous trolls or the like. Actually, those that attack, so visciously, anyone that does not agree with them, are the ones that act like trolls.

Or the constant demand that somehow we must justify to some faceless poster how we arrived at our decision. Nasty and arrogant to boot.

If Al Gore ran in the last month of the campaign he could still win at the conventions, it would be turmoil, but he could still do it.  Obama or Hillary would each be a fine vice president.

I’m not a huge Al Gore fan, not by a long shot.  But i think that an Obama/Gore ticket would simply roll the country up (aside from the global warming deniers, of course).  Put John Edwards in the DoJ.

Actually it is spin, Maani. Double-check your information because Barack Obama has explicitly stated he would do another debate. The frequency of debates is his only concession because:

1) Doing five debates before March 4th would saturate the mind of the public with very little new information. As I said, no real issues have changed since the last debate. Having twelve debates in a week is a good way to tire people of the quality of these two candidates.

2) It is somewhat true Barack doesn’t always debate well. Though, I think he came out the winner of the last CNN debate, he hasn’t always performed to match his character. Clinton’s request for many debates over a short period of time is purely to exploit this, and since nothing has changed yet the request is gratuitous.

Aegrus:

Sorry, lad.  It is NOT spin.  Obama DID make that statement.  And there is only one reason WHY he would not want further debates; I challenge you to provide an alternative reason that makes anywhere near as much sense.

It is also interesting that when I attempt to be a bit more “balanced” (i.e., making a “negative” comment about my candidate of choice), you miss it entirely.

Peace.

My goodness. That’s some spin. Specifically related to Hillary Clinton’s ridiculous “trump card” of agreeing to debate on FOX news after the Democratic Party decided not to give validity to their entertainment journalism and Republican spin.

Hillary breaks rules to try and persuade people to believe she is a stronger candidate, when her actions really mean she is an unscrupulous power player. Her game is to us the Neo-Conservative tactic of saying people are afraid to debate on unfriendly territory when the real implication is about sacrificing commitments and principals to play someone else’s game in someone else’s way.

You do a real good job of being a Clintonista, Maani.  Nice echo chamber of chicken-hawk, hyper-aggressive rhetoric. Too bad Obama and the rest of America are too good to justify such nonsense.

Aegrus:

Haven’t you heard?  Obama has said that he does not WANT any more debates between now and the convention.

Why?  Because he knows he is outmatched by Clinton, both as a debater and as a candidate.  Despite his good showing on Super Tuesday, he is AFRAID of her now, and knows that it is SHE who stands to gain most from further debates because it is SHE who’s positions are more substantive and supportable.

(As an aside, this may also explain why Clinton has changed her mind about debating on FOX; because she ALSO knows that it is she who will benefit more from any further debates.)

Your candidate is putting his tail between his legs re debates…

Peace.

If he is not enough of an American to realize that his country desparately needs his leadership.That we realize we made a mistake in 2000 and that we want to rectify that mistake and have him lead our country to greatness and leadership in the world.Then he should just go home to Tennesee and be quiet.

Please no! Let another debate happen! Barack is going to make serious policy points soon, and every would-be endorser needs to keep quiet until that time comes. His merits are vast, but nothing has changed between the last debate, Super Tuesday and now. Strong statements have to be made before any new endorsement from political powerhouses such as Edwards and Gore.

Rumors of Gore endorsing Obama are a swirlin’...he’s a superdelegate, he’ll have to endorse in the end.

I’m disappointed that Gore won’t publicly endorse one of the candidates. He is one of the few political figures that I really trust to (1) understand environmental issues, (2) know and understand the candidates positions on environmental issues, and (3) know whether their stated positions are mere rhetoric or will correspond to actual policy-making in the future.

While I think that the public endorsement model as a whole is quite flawed, and is a large contributor to the “horse-race” / “popularity contest” nature of this election, that doesn’t mean that the people who are the most trustworthy and the most forthright should refrain from offering their endorsements.

And i would imagine that if Clinton wins the nomination, Sen Obama will get a discreet call from Mr. Gore telling him that he does not, under any circumstances, want to be the third wheel in that White House.

Same thing goes towards John Edwards. I’m very glad he decided to do the right thing by keeping his mouth shut in regard to endorsements. It won’t help anyone now, and I think America has “endorsement fatigue.” In any instance, I sure as hell have tired of celebrity, politician and Jesus endorsements. Jesus did officially endorse Mike Huckabee, as you know.

Me thinks it too Mike. But, as long as he stays classy…it’s OK.

And you’re so right. SOMEBODY from that era should. (stay classy that is).

Talk about so many going to the dogs….