Bert - I don’t see a big need for any more debates, do you? What’s it going to prove that isn’t already known? They both have similar ideas, but a vastly different style. Style over substance rules the day and we now have another candidate that is ‘cool’ and popular. Just like Bush in ‘04, Obama has a loyal and loud following ready to pounce on anyone with an objective agenda.

It’s dangerous for this country, at this moment, to put blind faith in a man who is selling us pop song lyrics of Hope and Change and calling them policy and position. It’s pretty easy for him to get elected to a higher office, that’s really his only practical political experience, but much harder to sit at the desk and actually lead. When this general election is over and if he wins, how is Obama going to cross party lines and deliver on those thousands of promises he’s made to a population starving to death from a lack of leadership? Sure we’re all hungry for change. Of course we’re all hurting and we all want things to be better. I submit there is a HUGE difference between making delicious-sounding promises and serving up a satisfying meal.

There are millions of Obama fans, at some levels I am one too, but man this election is really important. Don’t expect me to support him because he tells me what I already know, that the country needs fixing. I can see the peeling paint on the barn for myself. How come Mr. Style can’t show me exactly how he plans to rule after he gets the gig? Getting bi-partisan support is a hell of a lot tougher than giving a speech and expecting to get it. I don’t think Hillary has ever lost sight of how difficult it is to actually lead when all the ballots have been counted. If the nagging questions about his associations persist and the country remains deeply divided as a result, then exactly how is he going to get a new healthcare system? How is he going to blow past the loud voices screaming “Not in my backyard” when he wants to build new alternative energy systems? How exactly does he plan to unite us? I mean get real!

Without a doubt, asking the “common man” to decide questions of justice through the sights of a gun is a tall order.  I think that the larger point is for legislators to consider just such a scenario when writing the laws.  I don’t think that the founders intended for the common man to write (or rewrite) the laws of the land in lead.

Again, it is the fear of the people’s actual (not symbolic power of voting) power that i find important.  And of course, an armed population is the final check against tyranny.  That is, obviously, a grisly scenario to be avoided at all costs.

To be sure, any gun law can be viewed as oppressive.  That’s a general problem with civil liberties across the board.  The founders gave us a framework, not a set of commandments.  They obviously expected us to apply our Reason...something we rarely do...to changing situations.

But when we look at the most dangerous categories of small arms in America (esp assault rifles), we also must examine how they arrived.  Most of the black market arms of that type entered in relation to the drug trade...they being “necessary” in the criminal underworld that surrounds drugs.  Are guns the disease or the symptom?  I would argue that prohibition is the root cause.  Moreover, it’s not easy to bring large quantities of assault rifles into the country (or even procure them).  There is a large body of evidence that points to government involvement (at least tacit) in drug importation rings; if that is true, then we must also assume government involvement in the arms trade.

The problem with guns is not the generally law abiding citizen, even if they own an AK-47.  The problem is one of crime.  The guns are involved in crime; the police up-arm to counter that; the criminals up-arm to counter the police...and we see a vicious circle that begs for legislation.

I always favor treating the disease rather than the symptom.  But i would not be against sensible gun control laws, just as i would not be against sensible abortion restrictions late in a pregnancy.  It is about approaching all things with Reason: the true religion of the founders.

OK that’s cool. I thought I remembered seeing Joementum somewhere. I was hoping it wasn’t something Joe Scarborough named himself.

It might be hard to tell from my angry diatribes here, but I love a good joke.

;->

Purely because it is Joe Lieberman’s slogan, and I find it very amusing. Just poking a little fun. Humor will save us from ourselves. };>

Joe Sixpack writes:  “He’s overconfident and a touch arrogant. Did you see the little ‘brush off’ he gave to his shoulder pad after the debate? Childish and immature. The big question, the one Obamabots are quick to ignore, is that the job he is trying to get hired for is a real bitch. If he can’t take 45 minutes of ‘distracting’ questions, then spends the whole next day complaining to people about it….”

Sure did. And I saw the gesture right before that one, too and that Truth Dig has chosen not report. No surprise there as they are a Pro-Obama/Anti-Hillary site. And I used to have such respect for Roberta Scheer.

Hope and change have gone out the window for Obama since he got his ass kicked in the debate. So instead he decided to get vengeance by flipping a U.S.Senator and former First Lady. I guess Obama’s new role model is Dick Cheney.

Like all cowards, Obama is brave when he is away from the confrontation.

He cannot take her on when she is standing right next to him but has to mock her and denigrate her when she is miles away.

Saw an article this morning where he says he will probably not agree to any more debates. Guess he is just scared.

I wonder if he thinks he can get by with no debates in the General election. I guess he just hopes.

You’re not far from the truth there. I believe that Hope and Change is not the same thing as policy and positions, it’s simply political filler. When your campaign is based on style and conceeds that there is no real difference in policy positions then you can’t bitch when the campaign is reduced to style points and gotcha moments. I am just a democrat that wants to win. Plain and simple. I know Hillary can brush past the rethuglicans and the 527s in the fall and after the debate two nights ago I am even more convinced that Obama cannot. He’s overconfidant and a touch arrogent. did you see the little ‘brush off’ he gave to his shoulder pad after the debate? Childish and immature. The big question, the one Obamabots are quick to ignore, is that the job he is trying to get hired for is a real bitch. If he can’t take 45 minutes of ‘distracting’ questions, then spends the whole next day complaining to people about it, then what’s he apt to do when the Egyptians, Syrians and Jordanians make a move on Israel? Will he get a little annoyed if the Iranians invade Iraq after our troops come home? Would he react to another terrorist attack on the US by going on Oprah to say how unfair the media is being to his Presidency?

It just seems so obvious to me that this pop song of a candidate is dismayed to discover his popularity waning. The people who once thought it was the greatest song of all time certainly still think so, but the people who thought his song was ‘a little catchy’ are now getting sick of hearing it played over and over on the radio. What are we going to think of this guy when we all hate his song? Even more troubling to him, I’m sure is that the radio stations are starting to turn on him too.

We see the weakness and the crack in the plaster is getting wider every day. There is a definate pattern in his questionable associations and people are taking a longer look at what we once assumed was solid judgement. Not so any longer. Tougher days are ahead in the general. It’s most likely too late for Hillary, the damage is done. I wonder how long it will be before people realize that just because he won in earlier contests and built up a huge lead in the nomination process, it doesn’t mean that support will be there in the fall. So far the supers are convinced he’s their guy and we’ll be stuck with another dead on arrival nominee. But I am a democrat and I hope I am wrong.

samosamo,

Thanks so much for posting this link from truthout. The other author is Katrina vanden Heuvel who writes for (and I think is an editor of) The Nation. It’s an excellent publication. And yep, I understand those senior moments, and have them myself. I only remember it now because I have it here to reference, having posted the same on a couple of other threads.

Meantime, I’m going to post it here again, or at least the link since it provides full content to both articles. And, it is this topic, (the horrendousness of the ‘so-called’ debate) that this thread considers.

As for Obama needing to prepare for these ‘shenanigans’, I think he has. I believe that he’s done an exemplary job at reaching out to the only people who SHOULD matter in this election, and that would be US. The people; The 83.45% of us who actually support the combined product of a nation. I’m under no illusions that he’s perfect, or that he ‘knows everything’ but I also know that it isn’t required. Matter of fact, such a mentality is what has us in this mess to begin with. A president needs to have good judgment, impeccable character, and the intelligence to select and utilize the best resources for the best results. The operations involved in running the bureaucracy of this nation cannot and should not be considered in terms of what ONE person or ONE CABAL/dynasty/monarchy can do. Rather, we count on a president to select the right advisors, and to bring the people into the government of their own country.

So, check out the link that outraged provided to the piece by David Brooks, here on this thread. It’s an excellent piece of journalism, and an equally exemplary example of how thinking people continue to employ their intelligence in progressive directions that can and do adapt to the changes in our socio-political environment.

On a slightly different note, I received an email from a long time friend and former co-worker who advised me that her son, (and he’s about 40 years old now I think) had just left for North Carolina. He’s taken a 6-week leave of absence from his job at CHEVRON (of all places) to go and volunteer in the Obama campaign efforts in that state. That has been happening more and more, and is obvious in the results of the primary elections so far.

And yes, it DOES give me hope. I’m old enough to know and recognize that his movement IS a change (and a major one, despite the cynicism of the minority) to the status quo that has created the decline of the nation-at-large.

Meantime, just remember this…the truly educated never graduate. That means we’re supposed to keep paying attention, and keep learning…forever.

Oh...here’s that link again, just so ya’ll don’t have to dig down too far in the thread for it…

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041708B.shtml

Just because Obama was put through some uncomfortable, (but voter needs to know) questions that all his fans think were purposely directed at him to make him look bad, that dosen’t mean it’s so.

Hillary goes through that most of the time with the media and democratic powers to be that don’t want to see her advance beyond where she already is.

Why is that OK?

Sure Obama crashed and burned, but, he admits that debates are not his strong hold.  He likes large crowds and teleprompters. AT those he can be his arrogant self and feel comfortable.

He acts like he feels awkward debating Hillary.
(She)wears pant-suits.
He acts like because she is a woman, and him being the gentleman that he is, he has to restrain himself from attacking her like he would if she were a man.

It should not matter to him, but, I think any male candidate facing a woman foe would feel the same.

It’s a man’s world still, and because of that, I’m afraid Hillary’s chances are nill only due to that she is a woman. It’s not because she’s not capable for the job, or smart enough for the job, or even tough enough for the job, which she certainly is.

The male democratic powers to be are working very hard to see that she won’t be the 1st woman president.

Sexism is much more alive in todays world than racism, so therefore Obama fans, fear not, I’m almost sure he will be the nominee and whether the right choice or not, possibly the next president.

Either or, it will definitly be a another man. :(

Thank you Cyrena. I lose myself too.

Why is that Aegrus? What does JoeMentum mean to you?

Joe6pak..

I appreciate your full disclosure. As a general rule, the multiple identities don’t trouble me as much as the singular posters to whom they belong.

I one time changed my own identity here on truthdig, because I’d changed my internet browser, and couldn’t immediately figure out how to get back to my own self. (not the first time that’s happened by the way...getting lost from myself). But, it’s rare, and it’s been awhile, and yep...I’m still the one same person.

Fortunately, I was able to figure it out eventually, so there’s been no need for me to post under that alternate handle. Now I should mention of course, that on every occassion that I used that alternate ‘handle’ I made the appropriate ‘cross reference’ so that anyone reading would know that they were one and the same. Anyway, I think I only had to use it a few times, before I was able to figure out how to get back to myself.

EVEN IF I HAD NOT done that however, most readers would have been able to figure it out, JUST AS MOST READERS CAN FIGURE OUT WHEN OTHERS CHANGE THEIR HANDLES, and/or appear under alternative idendities.

So yeah, we’re cool..at least on your full disclosure.

Thanks, Joe Sixpack. Great article.

have thought, and have probably said it on this site, that I belive Obama is a hypocrite. His entire political career has been little more than a cynical hypocritical execise in being a regular politician. 

In this cmapaign he uses his hope talk just to get elected. I feel sorry for the people who truly believe in him becasue should he be elected they are in for some big disappointments. Managing and running the big bureaucracy that is the U.S. government will of necessity also require him to be just a politician. Being POTUS requires far more than just giving lofty speeches.

I humbly request you change your handle to JoeMentum

Well we have ABC, sponsor a debate (using the word debate loosely here) between the two selected for US Democratic candidates.  Seeing Clinton’s entourage on the panel provides questions in a sane mind, how can this possibly be objective? Of course the Washington DC crowd would never want objectivity, for then they would always be placed on the defensive, for objectivity seeks the truth. 

Many of us know the Mass Media is controlled by special interests, and objectivity is not and never has been on the MM radar, but their bias seems to be more blunt as they shove their special agenda’s down the throats of the people. Feelings conjured are the same as those associated with the existing White House. 

Must have felt like old home week in the White house for Hillary. She has the backing of the elite, they have already confronted Dean, now they are working from the other end, it pisses elite off because they are havening to work harder to get their pick of the litter in, after all she was the entitled shoe in. 

What seems to be skewed for anyone with a minimum amount of common sense, is this blind acceptance as normal on the Hillary side, promoting Hillary the warmonger, her divisive tactics, and outright lies. All this appeals to people who would prefer not to look truth in it’s unpleasant face.

What the Hillary people do not seem to see our want to see or understand, is we have skewed dishonesty in the White House Now, Hillary offers the same.  Taking some of the comments on TD posts, being forced to defend truth explains a lot.

JPS - That was very thoughtful and a terrific post. We agree on more than we disagree on guns and gun control.

At one point in reading your thoughts I was struck by something Webster wrote. I’d love your take.

“A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”

Asking the common man to make a careful consideration of whether a law is unjust, oppressive or unlawful while looking through an open sight and trying to decide to use deadly force in a given situation is a tall order. My point is that gun laws are put in place for the betterment of society for public safety reasons, but anyone can make an arguement that any gun law is oppressive. So when the problem in society is handguns being used in crime and the answer is clearly to get rid of the guns, how can the government help us without many believing it is an attempt to keep the people weak? Another tall order in my mind.

Off topic, but really thought provoking. I’m going to go work on the lawn and think more about your post. Thanks for making my day.

Unfortunately, nothing we do in November will make a difference...unless we all band together to throw a wrench into the works and vote “none of the above”.

The issue is, of course, complicated.  Since those men couldn’t even conceptualize the existence of an assault rifle, we have to assume that they weren’t thinking of them. (The same could be said for semi-automatic handguns.)

Since they clearly did not intend for there to be a standing Army, the argument that the Army substitutes for the “militia” of the Constitution gets a little shaky.  They imagined raising armies to defend the nation, not launch wars of choice. (That too gets complicated since as soon as they had the Constitution, which does decree a Navy, they used that Navy to launch a war of choice against the Barberry Coast.)

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. ~Noah Webster, 1787

Granted, times change.  The fact remains that the founders saw an armed citizenry as the final check/balance on government power.  In that is the idea that the government should fear the people, rather than the people fearing the government.

I would not advocate that no limit can be placed upon an American’s personal arsenal.  Moreover, if the organs of government enforcement were not armed then the equation would be different.  That the police are armed while i am not does not make me feel safe; it makes me feel vulnerable to the capricious intent of authority.  I have no desire to shoot an officer of the law, but i have even less desire to submit to unjust laws.

To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character. ~Alexander Hamilton

I’m sure that this all sounds horribly right wing; however, i would also strongly advocate the dismantling of all but the smallest of a standing army.  To defend our sovereignty is honorable, to impose our will through military might is disgraceful.  So if the government disarmed itself and required that citizens be trained as militia members and keep their personal weaponry in the home (similiar to the Swiss system), then i would be satisfied with fairly strict gun control.  (Hunting weaponry is somewhat different, though a 12 gauge shotgun is a potent anti-personal weapon.)

I do buy that the 2nd amendment was to protect America from foreign invaders, but i also think that it is clear that there was a motivation to protect the fledgling country from the possibilities of its own government.  Oddly enough, in the modern world, European politicians are much more afraid of their unarmed constituents than American politicians are afraid of their armed constituents.  (That, however, is a different matter entirely.)

I didn’t say you shouldn’t post links, I merely stated the truth of the matter that when you do it invalidates your opinions and makes you look like a tool.

In an effort to be a bit more consistant in my writing I am changing my Truthdig handle from Joe In Maine to Joe Sixpack.

Just so there is no confusion or misunderstanding. I wanted to post this in the interest of full disclosure. I know how sensitive some can be when people suddenly change their names or post using multiple names.

We cool Cyrena? LOL

Joe

JPS - You don’t buy into the thought that the founding fathers put in the second ammendment to make sure that a fledgling country with no large standing army could protect itself from foreign invaders like the British and the French?

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the” security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

I’m just not convinced that the founders meant that any wacko survivalist could start his own armory with assault weapons. Not sure they intended the average citizen to retain his right to armour piercing ammo either.

Your thoughts?

All politicians are hypocrites.  None much more so than any other.

I, of the unwashed masses, don’t give two shits about religion; however, i’ll cling to my guns because i don’t trust my government...neither the red kind nor the blue kind.  And the reason that the founders put the 2nd amendment into the constitution was to keep the government honest. (read their various statements about it, and it will become clear)

When Clinton gets the nomination...and she will because she must have it, it will be a whole lot of fun to watch the Republicans dig into her. (Unless Paracelsus is right and the Clintons have McCain’s interrogation transcripts.) I’m particularly interested in reading the redacted portions of the Barrett Report.

He’s come a long way in his thinking. Once a conservative supporter of Obama, now he has changed his mind in a big way. Funny how that works. Too bad most people won’t change their minds about Obama until it is too late to make a difference.

Bert - I just read this in my local paper and the light bulb went off. Joseph Reisert asserts that Obama is not an elitist, he’s a hypocrit. Everyone who runs for office is an elitist by definition. But when you base your campaign on inspiring and enabling the people to rise up and “be the change” and then in private tells a small group that the great unwashed masses “cling to guns and religion” then then message of hope and a new kind of politics are in his words, “just words.”

You should read it. I know you’ll enjoy it.

http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/view/columns/497 4669.html

No, you didn’t forget anything.  You didn’t use quotes either.  You plagiarized.  And with the way you treat other posters here, i won’t cut you any slack.  So save your thanks for someone who believes that you mean it.

Hey Bert,

Got caught with your hand in the cookie jar!  Remember when you chastised me for citing an article from Time or an other media which I named and made clear, I cited the source but not the name of the author. You made a big deal out of it, remember?  I do!

Hypocrisies seem to be acceptable in some crevasses of society, sort of like not the truth.

Thank you for letting me know that I forgot to source the David Brook’s quote. Ny bad.

Re: jackpine savage

Great catch!  Exposing “bert” for the cheater she is.  I wonder who her mentor is.....LOL

In honor of “bert’s” stealing from David Brooks, which in a backwards way is a compliment(as low as it is), I thought I post something else David Brooks has written.

David Brooks (12-18-07):

“If Clinton were running against Obama for Senate, it would be easy to choose between them.

But they are running for president, and the presidency requires a different set of qualities. Presidents are buffeted by sycophancy, criticism and betrayal. They must improvise amid a thousand fluid crises. They’re isolated and also exposed, puffed up on the outside and hollowed out within. With the presidency, character and self-knowledge matter more than even experience. There are reasons to think that, among Democrats, Obama is better prepared for this madness.”

(continues)
“Like most of the rival campaigns, I’ve been poring over press clippings from Obama’s past, looking for inconsistencies and flip-flops. There are virtually none. The unity speech he gives on the stump today is essentially the same speech that he gave at the Democratic convention in 2004, and it’s the same sort of speech he gave to Illinois legislators and Harvard Law students in the decades before that. He has a core, and was able to maintain his equipoise, for example, even as his campaign stagnated through the summer and fall.

Moreover, he has a worldview that precedes political positions. Some Americans (Republican or Democrat) believe that the country’s future can only be shaped through a remorseless civil war between the children of light and the children of darkness”

(continues)
“But Obama does not ratchet up hostilities; he restrains them. He does not lash out at perceived enemies, but is aloof from them. In the course of this struggle to discover who he is, Obama clearly learned from the strain of pessimistic optimism that stretches back from Martin Luther King Jr. to Abraham Lincoln. This is a worldview that detests anger as a motivating force, that distrusts easy dichotomies between the parties of good and evil, believing instead that the crucial dichotomy runs between the good and bad within each individual.

Obama did not respond to his fatherlessness or his racial predicament with anger and rage, but as questions for investigation, conversation and synthesis. He approaches politics the same way. In her outstanding New Yorker profile, Larissa MacFarquhar notes that Obama does not perceive politics as a series of battles but as a series of systemic problems to be addressed. He pursues liberal ends in gradualist, temperamentally conservative ways.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/opinion/18brooks.html

Thank you, David Brooks

Nought’s had, all’s spent
Where our desire is got without content.
‘Tis safer to be that which we destroy
Than, by destruction, dwell in doubtful joy.

or…

Come, you spirits
That tend on mortal thoughts! unsex me here,
And fill me from the crown to the toe, top-full
Of direst cruelty; make thick my blood,
Stop up the access and passage to remorse,
That no compunctious visitings of nature
Shake my fell purpose, nor keep peace between
The effect and it! Come to my woman’s breasts,
And take my milk for gall, you murdering ministers,
Wherever in your sightless substances
You wait on nature’s mischief! ~Lady MacBeth

But i’ll give you this, bert, at least you used quotation marks this time.

Actually, Matt Taibi from RS isn’t bad.  And let’s not forget that the political desk was originally headed by Dr. H.S. Thompson.  I wish he were alive to weigh in on all this.

Talking points?  You’re accusing someone of spewing a campaign’s talking points?  You hit the TD comment threads with the Clinton campaign talking points before the conference call ends.  And you plagiarize (see above).

Why don’t we all do full disclosure about our campaign associations, bert...you first.

No, ok, i’ll go first.  I’ve never given a dime to a politician.  I’ve never volunteered for a campaign.  I’ve never joined a Party.  And i’ve never even put a yard sign out or a bumper sticker on.  Nor will i do any of those things until a politician comes along who convinces me that they are a public servant who wants to represent me...i’m not holding my breath.

I understand the complaints, but I thought the questions were excellent. The journalist’s job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities. Almost every question tonight did that. ~David Brooks, The NYT

Sound familiar, bert?  You have to lift whole sentences from someone else’s opinion column?

I thought the questions were excellent. The journalist’s job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities. Almost every question tonight did that. ~bert

That’s right, bert, some of us read the news.  And all i have to say is, “That’s really fucking weak.” After all your lectures about definitions and argument structures, you don’t even have the decency to use quotation marks and cite the writers that you rip off.

You lose…

In your reply to Joe in Maine you wrote:

“Interrogation is not what a debate is. How
could you even say something that off base?”

Interrogation by definition is just, quoting Webster’s, “to ask questions formally; examine by questioning.”

So it is you, Aegrus that is off base. Questions were asked last night. Interrogation or questioning are the same thing. You are just scrambling to find a reason - any reason - why your candidate did so poorly. For the answer to that question you need to look more closely at your candidate.

“Men at some time are masters of their fates:
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.”
~Shakespeare, in Julius Caesar (Act I, Sc. II)

I don’t think I have ever told anyone not to post a link or what they can or cannot say.

But I sure do tell folks when I think they are using fallacious arguments or posting bold faced lies. And I offer proof for my assertions.

Here is a link to an editorial sent into TruthOut from a newspaper editor in Philadelphia and actually a second one from someone else whose name and location I cannot remember(senior moment).

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041708B.shtml

I still think is is wrong for either of the 2 to keep answering irrelevant questions and either one of the 2 should have intervened to stop that type of questioning for a debate. But being a rigged debate, I totally see why hillbillyhillary played the game since it was all for her benefit.
The fact neither one objected to the questions and kept stumbling around trying to answer them gives the highest degree of ‘UNABILITY’ to be a leader of our country. This is THEIR future on the line and they should be in control especially about what is asked in the debate and as to whether to have one. I mean at the beginning of all this pomp and fluff did some of them up and refuse to be part of fox inquistions? Both of them to show their true patriotism for this country should have protested the questioning, demanded real questions and if that did not work, walk out to a willing reporter and define why they were not about to go through such a idiotic piece of propaganda for corporate neocons.
Believe me, hillary and billary are pulling out the tricks and it will get worse until a decision is made. Obama better be a lot more alert to these kind of shenanigans(sp) because he needs to show a lot more directly that he WILL be able to run this country. Hillary and billary just want to keep a family dynasty going which has nothing good for this country.

“You just didn’t like the way it was hosted.”

And they didn’t like the questions becasue they made Obama look bad. They did not like it becaise Obama was not able to answer this particular set of questions with his standard stump speech. It showed that he is not quick on his feet, not as verbally agile, and no wheer near Hillary in terms of knowledge on foreign and domestic affairs.

Several times he reverted to his stump speech, but it fell flat as it wasn’t on point.

Another good post Joe in Maine.

There are those Talking Points again. Can’t some of you at least rework them so we all don’t realize you are working for the Obama campaign.

You got me there.

I thought the questions were excellent. The journalist’s job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities. Almost every question tonight did that. The candidates each looked foolish at times, (position on gun control) but that’s their own fault.

No one should be surprised that Obama had a nightmare night. He finally got real questions for which he should have had ready answers. Over the last year Barack Obama has gotten a complete pass on his record, his life and everything associated to his political rise. In fact, if Senator Obama had been subjected to the scrutiny that Hillary Clinton has been subjected to he would have turned to ash by now.

So forgive me if all the blogospheric bellyaching permeating this site today is not impressing me much.

But do those of you now crying fowl really believe you could protect Mr. Obama, as his Democratic challengers did all last year, throughout the rest of this campaign?

Asking a question about Rev. Wright? A question about William Ayers? The horror!

Seriously, is Senator Obama so frail that he shouldn’t be subjected to questioning that should have come a long time ago and will inevitably come in the general election?

If nothing else and at the very least, everyone in the Democratic party should want to know how he’s going to handle this stuff if he is our nominee.

Because there can be no doubt that the wingnuts will lock and load Barack’s greatest hits, then share them with the electorate in a cascade of negative ads.

Your laundry list of questions ABC should have asked Clinton is the very same as on another thread here and on other sites I have visited today? Sometimes down to the same wording and the ise of the same link. Veerrrrry interesting.

How come such similar lists?

Did you all receive your Talking Points from Obama Campaign Headquarters via e-mail this mornig? Or maybe you are al paid campain workers masqureading as real people. Hmmmmmmmm I wonder????

No Vash, Unlike Obama, I can’t take credit for an idea that I found at hillaryclinton.com.

Last I heard he was the host of THIS WEEK, you know it right? It’s political show on Sunday mornings? Maybe you’re too busy at church, or clinging to a gun to have noticed.

“...through distraction and deflection - a slight of hand, a perinicious and well chorographed execution/murder of truth...”

Sounds a little like the Obama strategy. If punched in the teeth, change the fucking subject as fast as you can!

Maybe you missed the Obama resume of chorographed execution/murder of the truth. OK. In some cases only a distraction/deflection of the real issues at hand…

My pastor said 9/11 was our fault? We did the AIDS thing? Better change the story to race relations and avoid the anti-american side.

More distraction or murder in your mind? How about this one?

“Bitterly cling to guns and religion” Oh shit! Better focus on the Bitter side of that clusterfuck.

Murder and deflection?

Ayers? Oh he’s like my friend the US Senator who has a radical opinion on somthing else. Yeah. He’s almost the same as a terrorist.

Deflection!

Ayers? Oh man! That was like 40 years ago! It’s not like he still feels that way, you know, like Wallace sort-of. Except that Ayers still believes his horseshit. After 9/11 saying the bastards, “didn’t do enough”. Oh and yeah, 40 years later, when I should know better I sat on a board of directorship with a known terrorist. Better use the old standby:
“The American people want to take the higher road and don’t like all of these pesky distractions...”

Distraction/deflections abound, but hey! It’s a NEW kind of politics, right?

Barry Teflon ‘08
Nobama.com

Grandma? Yeah she’s a typical white person. As a matter of fact she’s a biggot too, so Rev. wright isn’t all bad, right?

I agree PatrickHenry.  If you’re going to lie and produce fiction, then it may as well be entertaining!

With his interview skills he should work for the Weekly World News.

http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/

Actually, that might be a good idea!;)

Gerry Springer moderates and Rolling Stone reporters ask the questions. Now I might watch that debate!

In fact, THAT debate would be worth watching!
Someone pass the word along!

here here, samosamo.

Wait, i though that you were the moderator here, bert.  You’re usually the one telling people what they can and can’t post in comment threads that are supposed to be a place to express opinions.

And to here you accuse someone of living in “his own little world” is the funniest thing i’ve heard all day.

Somewhere on this thread, someone (i think it was bert) suggested that this what a “REAL” debate is.  That is patently and unabashedly false.  We haven’t seen a real debate between political candidates in a long, long time.

Once upon a time, the League of Women Voters handled debates.  Not anymore.  Now they’re just part of the ratings game.  In many cases, you can’t even watch the debates unless you have cable.

A real debate would be two (or however many) candidates debating each other.  That is, asking each other questions; answering the questions; responding to the answers.

What we have now are of the media, for the media, and by the media.  In 90 minutes, less than half was dedicated to discussing actual issues.  And, no, “electability” is not an issue.  Neither Tuzla nor Wright have any place in a debate.

You’ve been promised your bread and been given your circus, now go out and vote like good little sheeple.  If this debate is political discourse in America, no further pieces of evidence need be presented.  We are Fucked.

George S as a Moderator????
Really you think that was a good choice. Are you too young toknow he cut his Political teeth on Bill & Hills WH Teat?
You either need to read a history book- or see your Doc- you may have alzheimers.

Absolute truth that neither of these 2 candidates will make a difference. Want a real candidate? A real candidate would after 5 or 10 minutes or even after the first question raised objections to the question and if it persisted, if that did not stop the irrelevant questions then demand real questions to real issues and if that did not worlk, walk off stage and hold a news conference and shock the media by stating the postion that any further debates would have to be on issues concerning this country and the world. I am tired as hell of political campaigns being nothing but selling personalities.
Plain and simple but these bought out corporate whores have no idea how to be their own person and will not have much good for the people of this or any other country. Or,they have no intention of working on fixing problems in this country or anywhere else in the world.
And for me, I already know the msm will not start helping the people with real information and real questions until someone with the wherewithal breaks up the media monopoly, so I come to sites like this to get information and see what other’s opinions are on the issues of reality. As for the rest of the people, How many goddamn nails have to be put in the coffin before they demand a true media?

So is bert suggesting that the president must have a pair of balls?  That would seem to eliminate her candidate from the competition.  On the other hand, there are some things that i’d rather not know.

Well Doc, you have a point. There never seems to be any real discussion of the two candidates positions.

I think the MSM is satisfied with the answer that Obama uses whenever it helps him. He loves to say that there are no real differences between the two on actual issues. Especially when he is not quite sure what his position paper posed on Obama.com might actually say. He’s much more comfortable saying something that inspires so much hope for me, “Yeah, what she just said”. How about an original position on an issue for some REAL Change We Can Believe In?

What was Clinton’s Boy Wonder doing sitting at the moderators table???
He cut his Politcal teeth on Bill & Hill’s adminsitration Teat!
ABC should be at least fined, if not exclued from holding anymore Debates time the year 2016 (if Ever again!)
Is there the thought that Americanare too stupid- or the Drugs they’ve put in the Water too strong that we wouldn’t think this Skewed/Biased. They couldn’t find anyone Else. give me a Break- and Hillary has the audacity to complain the media is ‘mean to her’- George should have grabbed his old Boss a Pillow, Balnket,her favorite slippers adn some hot chocolate!
What a travesty, what a Joke, What a obvious attempt to help Hillary!Who made this casting descison Minnie Mouse or Goofy? I’m disgusted and Outraged! Again!

Fox might want Hillary but the RNC to a member wants to run against Obama now. They know he has a fatal flaw and they will exploit it. When HRC was the frontrunner they used to say they wanted to run against her because of her high negative polling number, but no more. They can’t wait to run against a one-third-of-one term freshman senator who has spent every minute in Washington running for President instead of being the elected representative of the people of Illinois.

As for the debate I thought that both candidates got a handful from the hosts. George asked her about Bosnia and her credibility. She was forced into showing support for a candidate she knows can’t win. Obama got held accountable for the company he keeps. Pretty fair, but not if you’re expecting another pillow fight. You don’t believe it was a ‘real debate”, I take it? Why is that? Is it because all of your fawning media friends took offense at the way poor Barry was treated? Spin it however you want but the candidates did have a debate last night. You just didn’t like the way it was hosted.

The moment I thought was telling was the question about America using its nuclear deterrant in an attack by Iran on Israel. Clinton’s answer was really ballsey. She said she would consider an attack on Israel by Iran an attack on the United States that would deserve a “massive retalliation”. I think Obama seemed uninformed on the issue and hedged his answer with the crutch line, “appropriate response”. Now I have studied middle eastern nuclear proliferation and her answer which included all of the regional powers under the same umbrella was inspired. That’s leadership on the global scale that can’t be reached from Crawford, TX or the South Side of Chicago.

You must admit that his performance was his weakest yet, right? His answers were painfully slow and overly-crafted as to not give her a ‘gotcha’ moment. He was really lucky that Charlie didn’t press him on his handgun position in 1996, like showing a copy of the document with his signature, but I’m sure a 527 or two will dig that up. Not to worry, I’m sure Obama will convince the general election voters that calling him on his flip flop is “the politics of old” and a distraction. I’m sure it won’t stick to good ol Barry Teflon.

The whole debate looked like a set up.  Using George Stephanopoulos as an “objective” moderator is ridiculous.  Why not Mark Penn...?  Remember how Richardson was attacked by Bill C. for not exercising his “loyalty” to the Clintons.  Looks like Stephanopoulos is “loyal”. 

All the old non-issues toward Obama were brought up. If that was going to be the “debate criteria” then why didn’t the road go BOTH WAYS? Why not any questions about the Richardson issue to Clinton?  Why no inquiry concerning the Mark Penn fiasco?  What about the Hsu affair?  What of the allegations concerning the thrice-convicted felon Peter Paul and that “fund-raising activity”.  What about Clinton’s suspect associations with the fundamentalist group known as “The Fellowship” and also called “the family”?  Why no inquiry into the suspect associations of “the family” such as; Suharto, John Ashcroft, Rick Santorum, and Brazilian dictator General Costa e Silva?  Why not one question to Clinton regarding her SILENCE concerning the 200,000+ votes cast in Ohio, Texas and Mississippi by Republicans in her name?  Why nothing addressing the release of the supposed “Muslim” picture of Obama?  Why no question of her involvement with Delta, Land and Pine and the Rose Law Firm?  Where was the inquiry into her association with BCCI (Bank of Commercial Credit Int.) a known front company for laundering dirty money for the Saudis, Pakistanis and others?

In stark contrast Obama was consistently barraged with already settled matters.  Those issues have been settled.  Yet many of Clinton’s have yet to be acknowledged by the MSM.

Some back-drop for those who aren’t familiar with “The Fellowship”.

“Coe’s friends include former Attorney General John Ashcroft, Reaganite Edwin Meese III, and ultraconservative Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.). Under Coe’s guidance, Meese has hosted weekly prayer breakfasts for politicians, businesspeople, and diplomats, and Pitts rose from obscurity to head the House Values Action Team, an off-the-record network of religious right groups and members of Congress created by Tom DeLay. The corresponding Senate Values Action Team is guided by another Coe protégé, Brownback, who also claims to have recruited King Abdullah of Jordan into a regular study of Jesus’ teachings.

The Fellowship’s long-term goal is “a leadership led by God—leaders of all levels of society who direct projects as they are led by the spirit.” According to the Fellowship’s archives, the spirit has in the past led its members in Congress to increase U.S. support for the Duvalier regime in Haiti and the Park dictatorship in South Korea. The Fellowship’s God-led men have also included General Suharto of Indonesia; Honduran general and death squad organizer Gustavo Alvarez Martinez; a Deutsche Bank official disgraced by financial ties to Hitler; and dictator Siad Barre of Somalia, plus a list of other generals and dictators. Clinton, says Schenck, has become a regular visitor to Coe’s Arlington, Virginia, headquarters, a former convent where Coe provides members of Congress with sex-segregated housing and spiritual guidance”

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillar ys-prayer.html

Link for info. on the Clinton involvement with BCCI:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/leveymg/347

NOT ONE QUESTION ASKED OF CLINTON AND HER VERY, VERY SUSPECT “ASSOCIATIONS”.  Clinton had the gall to say “she would’ve left Obama’s church.  I suppose we can just that to the list of Clinton’s current and pending LIES.  She talks the talk, she doesn’t walk the walk.

“....I have heard they support Hillary. “

Hearsay.

But no, FOX does not support Hillary. They are squarely for McCain.

Be careful Marshall K. Aegrus does not like it when you post a link. I received this message from him on a different thread heer at TD just today.

“I’m going to continue to remind you and everyone else that, unless it is some really obscure piece with validated facts, posting links to blogs or articles where people are giving opinions to support your opinion is shamelessly devoid of meaning or worth. All it does is help support the argument that you don’t think for yourself, and only repeat other people’s opinions as your own. It’s in poor taste, and shows poor judgment.”

I guess Aegrus thinks he is the moderator here and can tell us what to do.

Funny thing, though. I was not posting an opinion piece. I posted a copy of the first print attack ad on Obama in the pA campaign. And another funny thing. It was not a Hillary print ad.

On well, guess Aegrus just likes living in his little world where he is right and the rest of us wrong.

Seems the delusion is yours, watch FOX I have heard they support Hillary.  Guess anyone who dost not agree with your pick of the litter is delusional.

Any comments on the so called debate?

“....confront her about her campaign’s discussions with Canada regarding political positioning with anti-NAFTA,...”

You are getting your scandals mixed up. That was Obama and Goosling.

On now, come on Joe in Maine. That is not even close. Matthews wins by a landslide with his thrill up his leg comment. Personally I think he was mistaking a warm, wet sensation running down his leg as he is so full of it. But what do I know.

Olbermann is just delusional and has fantasies of actually being Edward R. Murrow,.

Joe, Hillary has been held with kids gloves since she almost succeeded in firing someone from MSNBC for using unfavorable language. Not only that, but Hillary was never interrogated for forty-minutes-straight about completely worthless issues.

These moderators never ask her about her work with Wal-Mart, didn’t bring up Mark Penn’s support for CAFTA, don’t discuss her completely bogus stance on Free-Trade in general, confront her about her campaign’s discussions with Canada regarding political positioning with anti-NAFTA, her ridiculously impractical idea of freezing all foreclosures and many other real issues, mostly doing with the economy and her deceptive stance on trade issues.

The criticisms against Hillary for the most part was her discounting little states, her husband’s dumbass mouth, the legitimacy of her health care platform and whether or not she knows the new president of Russia. Now, these all have minimal legitimacy as issues save for health care, but she was never really “vetted.” Please move on.

“Gibson and Stephanopoulos. If these guys are supposed to be the best? What for goodness sake is the worst?”

Oh I dunno. Toss up between Matthews and Olbermann.

You didn’t seem to mind very much when it was only Hillary being “interrogated”. Oh well, you must have missed the 20 previous debates. It was last night, for the first time, that Obama was held accountable for relationships he has and the questions those relationship raise. It’s all fair to question the Clintons since the ‘92 election year about all of their questionable friends. You love bringing up Hillary’s baggage yet you hate to see your guy get the same kind of close inspection. Why is that, exactly? To suggest that Gibson and Stephanopoulos were unfair because they asked the first set of tough questions Obama has faced in what will undoubtably be the most vicious general election fight in history is absurd. The interrogation you objected so strongly is only a precursor to what is to come, my friends. That Rev. Wright or the terrorist Ayers somehow distract us is just pure bias and total spin.

When you lose a debate badly, I guess all you can do is blame the hosts asking the questions. Yeah. That might work. Maybe.

Well, after reading these “enlightening” remarks, I have to say I’m glad I decided not to waste my evening on the Gibson and Stephanopoulos Dog and Pony show. And I have to say [in case anybody cares, and I’m sure nobody does] the fact that so many did, and actually believe they got something of value out of the affair, proves the media really wants to, and really believes they, control the outcome of the election. Duh

Now do you suppose Gibson and Stephanopoulos got any kind of charge out of their great pretense at being relevant in any way?

They probably did, because as far as mainstreammedia is concerned, brains and brilliance have long since been replaced with banality and bullshit. Which is why I too can say with satisfaction, I gave up watching cable news years ago. Precious time is better served by doing something that one can actually learn from.

There were no winners in last nights debate, I’m sure. Even without having watched it, it’s probably safe to say the two candidates were made to feel and look like kids out of their element, because that’s what mainstremmedia likes to do. To heck with whether or not their viewers need to discover anything of value, about anything.

Gibson and Stephanopoulos. If these guys are supposed to be the best? What for goodness sake is the worst?