All this talk about Bill Clinton's past reminds me of the probably apocryphal story about JFK.

Supposedly, when a reporter asked JFK if he was sleeping with Marilyn Monroe, JFK replied: 'And you wouldn't?'

How far we have fallen.

Time for us to consider the truth that we get the government we deserve. As represented above, so much of the voting has been against so and so, aot for so and so, that negative campaigning works and we are disabled from forming a consensus.
As for those who decry the two party system and want to support a third party candidate, everytime that has been a factor, it has resulted in a Republican being elected.
Thus, we get the government we deserve.

If they both want to be MLK so much, why doesn't someone just ask who has the most urgent martyrdom complex?

Clinton, who'll be shot by her own kind for actually being truly democratic? Or
Obama who's already appears to be struggling in King's stolens boots; wearing both right boot on left foot and left on right?

What's happening here, is slowly beoming clear. Hillary is the front-running candidate, and has won and will win most of the contests. But on these chat-lists, we have the peculilar phenomenon, that if you see 20 posts, 19 are anti-Hillary. A majority of the country votes for Hillary, but a huge majority of the posts sent to internet sites, are anti-Hillary. Something's wrong with this picture. The rightwingers have obviously gotten the message, that a possible method of subverting Hillary's campaign can be found on internet sites. Most of the people on these sites are conservative and right-wing malcontents, full of spite and bitterness, attacking Hillary from every angle, hoping to reduce her strength.

Excuse me, while I vomit.

If Hillary is elected, will Bill be working as President? He is already too involved in the campaign - as if HE is campaigning for a second term. OK, I understand Bill has to support his wifes bid for president - but the TWO of them are running for President. Bill was termed out after 2 terms, can't be elected for a 3rd term - and this is his way to wriggle back into the White House. Most people don't remember Bill was IMPEACHED, because he lied to Congress about having "sex with that woman" but the Congress/Senate did not move to the final action of actually kicking him out of the White House. Bill was disbarred and cannot practice as an attorney, he didn't get his Presidential pension, he was censured on the floor of Congress/Senate.

So Bill Clinton can be impeached for getting blow jobs from Monica Lewinsky and lying to Congress about it, but Bush can't get impeached for lying about WMD, leading us into a war which cost 3,400 American lives, warantless wiretapping, breaking FISA laws, legalizing sexual torture at Guantanamo and Abu Ghirab?

I'm sick of the Clintons - although I voted for Bill twice when he was President.

I don't care if Obama doesn't have the same level of experience as Hillary. I can't stand her - and just because she is a woman (I am female) that is not enough of a reason to make her President.

The media has censored the news about Hillary's PAC donations - out of all the candidates she gets the biggest PAC donations from military defense contractors, HMO's and pharmaceutical corporations. Hillary is NOT a progressive and up until about 4 months ago she was a hard core pro-war hawk who wanted permanent military bases in Iraq.

I don't think the Clintons give a crap about working class people - they are Carpetbaggers masquerading as progressives.

Hillary's latest racist remark about MLK being "too idealistic" and alleging it was white man LBJ who really got civil rights legislation passed made me furious. According to Hillary - black people are too inept to help themselves, which is why they need White Liberals to help them and do it for them. I'm white and I found her remarks highly offensive.

I don't trust her - she is a "Corporate Democrat" and a "Republicrat" before you know it - Hillary will morph into Dianne Feinstein. Just because Hillary is a woman doesn't make her any more "moral" or nobler in ethics. Look at the huge dissappointment Nancy Pelosi turned out to be. The first thing Pelosi did after being sworn into office was declare that impeachment of Bush "was off the table". Pelosi has also pushed really hard to keep funding the war in Iraq. Pelosi is a sell out just like Hillary - all they care about is POWER, just like any male politician.

Please refrain. Lets not have any wise cracks about that picture of Obama holing the baby. I bit my fingers.

"Holding", not holing!!

http://www.digthewig08.com

I kinda like the 'holing' comment myself—meanings and inflections abound in my perverse mind.

Many of us are personally affronted by the prospect of another 10 months of this sniping-give it a rest fellas, eh!!

(I digress) Somebody, somewhere hopes baby doesn't donate his lunch to that open mouth.

Obama hits back at last. Ever since Iowa, the Clinton camp has been working to raise the profile of race in people's minds, branding Obama as The Black Candidate and thereby slashing his support among White voters, especially women.

What Obama wants to do now is raise the profile of Bill Clinton, branding Hillary as Mrs. Bill, the Wife of the Former President Candidate. It's a good counterattack, if maybe too late.

Maybe instead of "Senator Clinton" he should start calling her "First Lady Clinton." After all, it's not like her distinguished record in the Senate is what set her up to run for president.

Caption -

Obama: Oh, what a cute little girl.

Grandmother in crowd who handed her to him: Well, you ought to think so, she's your own child!

Photo!

The Clinton's are neocons. If more people realized this, maybe Hilary would get what she deserves...retirement.

Obama's a political deadman now. No-one can insult St. Billary and live.

Sigh.

Obama just bit the corporate owned campaign fund bag holding hand that feeds him.

It's interesting that Ron Paul is regularly coming in ahead of Guiliani in primaries so far, yet in this article Guiliani is named as "one of the four leading candidates." I wish at least the foreign press would do what we know major media in the U.S. won't do and that is look at the facts instead of the spin. It might be hard to characterize Paul as a "leading candidate" based on current vote/delegate tallies, but he's definitely "leading" Guiliani.

I knew it would happen, the worst is yet to come.

baruch, how are people supposed to know this? The Propaganda Ministry (AKA media) only tell us what they want us to know. And they certainly don't want us to know who is running this country.

Those South Carolina numbers look ominous for Obama. I've said all along I think this country is too racist to vote for a black president. But the fact that any union workers could support Hillary staggers me. I think Nader sees the handwriting on the wall. He's considering another run. At least it will give me someone to vote for without holding my nose. All you nose holders out there, have fun. And remember, as long as you vote holding your nose, that's all you will ever do. You will never get to experience the feeling of voting for what you want. I'm sorry for you. At least you're keeping the corporations happy.

kathyodat

oh dat crazy bill clinton. holla!

There is an old saying that I have found to be pretty accurate. "The first liar doesn't stand a chance."

I hate to say it guys and gals, but Obama will be lucky to survive the election. Literally.

Anyone want to bet that on the wildly improbable chance that obama actually becomes POTUS he actually will be allowed assume that august office?

I have three acronyms for groups that would gladly put a bullet in him before that happens.

NRA

KKK

GOP

When I case my vote for Dennis I will not have to hold my nose, and I will not just be voting for a spoiler.

Why are the media continually referring to Obama as a "black candidate"? If one of his parents were from Germany or China, for example, would he then be a German or Chinese candidate? IMHO none of this is relevant to his suitability to be president - but it says a lot about media attempts to stir up racism and to make us believe that the country is behaving in a racist way.

Exactly ONLOOKER. The things Bill Clinton said were not racist, they were just facts and he had every right to say them. Bill Clinton would very likely have said them if Hillary was not running for the office and someone else was the candidate he supported. Obama has every right to argue Bill Clinton's words. Race is not the issue, at least it shouldn't be. But the press will insure it is. __ If you don't have any news, make some.

"...three days after she captured the Nevada caucuses."

Obama won Nevada. Obama won 13 delgates. Bill and Hillary won 12.

Total Delegates (superdelegates + election results)

Obama + Edwards + Kucinich = 176
Bill and Hillary = 210

On the basis of election results (minus the superdelegates)

Obama has 38 delegates.
Bill and Hillary have 36 delegates
Edwards has 18 delegates

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/

"The pundits judged the political winds to be blowing in the direction of the President. Despite - or perhaps because of how much experience they had in Washington, too many politicians feared looking weak and failed to ask hard questions. Too many took the President at his word instead of reading the intelligence for themselves. Congress gave the President the authority to go to war. Our only opportunity to stop the war was lost.

I made a different judgment. I thought our priority had to be finishing the fight in Afghanistan. I spoke out against what I called "a rash war' in Iraq. I worried about, 'an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.' The full accounting of those costs and consequences will only be known to history. But the picture is beginning to come into focus."- Barack Obama

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

http://icasualties.org/oif/

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

"All of us have heard this term 'preventative war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time… I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower

"As Blair has said, in war there will be civilian was well as military casualties. There is, too, as both Britain and America agree, some risk of Saddam using or transferring his weapons to terrorists. There is as well the possibility that more angry young Muslims can be recruited to terrorism. But if we leave Iraq with chemical and biological weapons, after 12 years of defiance, there is a considerable risk that one day these weapons will fall into the wrong hands and put many more lives at risk than will be lost in overthrowing Saddam." -Bill Clinton, March 18, 2003

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,916233,00.html

"If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power."- Dwight D. Eisenhower

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower

"During a campaign swing for his wife, former President Bill Clinton said flatly yesterday that he opposed the war in Iraq "from the beginning" - a statement that is more absolute than his comments before the invasion in March 2003."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/us/politics/28clinton.html

"Bill Clinton's Own Fairy Tales on Obama's Views on Iraq"

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14219.html

"Hillary Clinton on Iraq"

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4802

One of the pundits the other day referred to Bill as like a "little League father" running around pumping up his kid and trying to hog the spotlight himself....sounds about right.

All I can think of is the general campaign when all of the old attack-Clinton garbage will be dredged up by the Rovian meatgrinder and we'll all get the treat of seeing Monica Lewinsky/Bill/Hill all over again...not to mention all the incredibly bad things that Bill brought us: NAFTA, Telecommunications consolidation, etc, etc... and then all Hillary's baggage with her vote FOR giving Bush his way with Iran and AGAINST prohibiting cluster bombs (a Feinstein amendment that Obama voted FOR--correct position).

So, when Democrats puff themselves up thinking that we'll get the White House regardless of which one is the candidate...it shows how delusional they've become...
Like the idea that impeachment-off-the-table will help them get the White House.
###

I guess this is the thread we will all be going to after the debate - I want some discussion of strategy used by all the candidates - even the one's whose guts you hate. I hate Tony Clement with a passion but I can still admit that he has debate skill.

RE: - "You know, the former president, who I think all of us have a lot of regard for, has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a level that I think is pretty troubling,"

Of course Obama finds it troubling, but not likely for the reasons he gives. He is just calling foul because his spouse is no Bill Clinton.

RE: - Somebody, somewhere hopes baby doesn't donate his lunch to that open mouth.

Seems as if the baby hasn't since it would have been replayed about 15 times already on Newsworld if she had - 20 times by the time I finish this post. Newsworld would consider it - er - newsworthy.

RE: - What Obama wants to do now is raise the profile of Bill Clinton, branding Hillary as Mrs. Bill, the Wife of the Former President Candidate. It's a good counterattack, if maybe too late.

Oh no Mrs Bill! You have to give Obama a hand.

Obama would lose the women's vote if he tried to reduce Senator Clinton to Mrs Bill too blatantly. Sadly, even by Stephen Lewis's own account, there is quite a bit of truth in what Obama is saying - Bill actually got an article about Hillary pulled from a magazine because he didn't like it's tone:

http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=1735

Stephen Lewis=father of Avi Lewis
Avi Lewis=husband of Naomi Klein
(video old before the gaffes in the Clinton campaign - so Lewis may be more hopeful now)

RE: - Those South Carolina numbers look ominous for Obama. I've said all along I think this country is too racist to vote for a black president.

What do those same polls say about Edwards or were they only asked about the twins Clinton-Obama

I think that there are many waiting for tonight's debate. If that poll was truthful, the leading Dem candidate would be a write-in - Former Senator Buggeroff.

RE: - I have three acronyms for groups that would gladly put a bullet in him before that happens.

I think that the NRA will put a bullet in Mayor David Miller before they would Obama. Obama is smart enough not to piss them off.

Someone should tell those Americans who fell for Hillary's tears that this is what real tears look like:

http://www.thestar.com/article/295410

Hey, no one is going to shoot Obama because he is telling Black voters who are poor to "get over" slavery and to take responsibility for their own lives. Some are deluding into thinking that this is "empowering Blacks to do better" but is is really just a sweet way of blaming the poor for being poor.

Hey, we all should and can do better than we do. However, it is much easier to do better when one is not perpetually sabotaged - which some Blacks still are in the south.

Why hasn't anyone asked Kiefer Sutherland which of the three top Dem candidates has the best Health Care plan?

BeForKids:

"At least it will give me someone to vote for without holding my nose. All you nose holders out there, have fun. And remember, as long as you vote holding your nose, that's all you will ever do. You will never get to experience the feeling of voting for what you want. I'm sorry for you. At least you're keeping the corporations happy."

Well put. Please, stop recognizing the Democratic/Republican parties.

Vaudree: Keifer Sutherland is a Canuck like me. We have national health coverage, so he doesn't care.

Kucinich is trailing so badly it's almost hopeless, "they the people" apparently don't support what he stands for. Too bad for them and us. I've heard it said that people get the leaders they deserve.

Don't forget the thieves were pardoned and Jesus was crucified. Apparently the people of his day didn't support what he stood for either.

Third party anyone?

Galen says: Keifer Sutherland is a Canuck like me. We have national health coverage, so he doesn't care.

Then why was Keifer Sutherland at the NDP 2006 Conference promoting his grandfather's ideas. Tommy Douglas looked after Keifer and his sister while his mother was working sometimes. Number 11 shows Keifer at an earlier Medicare rally:

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-74-851/people/tommy_douglas/

Keifer Sutherland's mother Shirley Douglas, who was living in the US at the time, participated in the Civil Rights Movement. Shirley also organized a breakfast program for black children which the US government considered a front for storing bombs. She was kicked out of the US and told never to return.

Tommy Douglas with his daughter Shirley talking about her time in the Civil Rights movement:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eA4HWec9DAQ

Yes, Hillary has a record and she is running on that. Obama has praised Ronald Reagan!! What is his record? So what do we have here, Clinton bashing. Ya, he had Monica, so what, big deal. Did he lie ya about sex not about a war. He must be running scared.

I was a Republican for 40 years. Bush ran me off like the law was after me. I have been a Democrat for six years and active in poll-watching, knocking on doors, making phone calls, appearing on TV, etc., and what do I have?

1. Avaricious Democrats who would do or say anything to get elected. Bill Clinton, a pretty good president, should shut his mouth and let Hillary run. Helping her behind the scenes is permitted, but stay off the stage. If he doesn't, the old cigarette deal is apt to show up and things will get bad, bad.

The Democrats had three of the best candidates for the Presidency, and they were pushed aside like a you-know-what.

2. The Republicans are laughable except for McCain, and even he has opened his mouth too many times in his self-claimed "honesty," which, if genuine, is hurting him badly. This country is sick of war.

Before this campaign ends, I predict the Independents will have the votes to decide who is going to win and who is going to lose. The Democrats and Republicans have only themselves to blame with their bull-shit pratings.

My wife and I have decided to go Independent and are amazed at those who are doing so in increasing numbers. Maybe Paul, the true Libertarian, will get his chance after all.
To hell with the Obamas, the Clintons, the Giulianis, the pompous ass Romney and the congenial and smooth talker, Huckabee.

How many of you have realized that the contemplated leadership, that is, those who are in the running today, is unlikely to change anything and likely to leave us worse off financially and even less able to hold our heads up to the world if these remaining candidates are elected to run our country? If you aren't shuddering, it is only because you don't know how to shudder.

2. The Republicans

KEM: Your'e surprised that HR Clinton would act like the mud slinging republican whore she is?

I thought John Edwards did well. Thank goodness he left his stump speech behind and started speaking extemporaneously. He really comes across when he's spontaneous. His story about the single mom who had to put her kids to bed with their winter coats on because she had no money for heat was the best and most touching thing anyone said all night. People GET that John Edwards cares.

Edwards also made the best points about Iraq, saying that he will close all U.S. permanent bases in Iraq within a year. The others waffle on that. His point about leading through moral strength was also compelling.

Hillary did well by demonstrating her command of the issues. She nailed Obama on his fake anti-war credentials, though Obama still tries to dodge on that. I honestly don't know who has the better healthcare plan (of the three), but Edwards made a strong point in comparing Obama's healthcare plan to Bush's plan for Social Security, which would allow individuals to opt out.

Obama is starting to be revealed as something of a phony. He had to dance around his recent praise for Ronald Reagan, claiming it was really criticism! Oh, please! Watch it on Youtube. He praises both Reagan's rhetoric and his deregulation/small government agenda. Yuk! Then both Hillary and Edwards exposed his 2005 vote against capping credit card interest rates at 30%. Obama voted with the credit card companies and the Republicans to defeat that measure, and today predatory lenders are still charging as much as 1000% interest per year. Obama twisted up like a pretzel trying to wriggle out of that one!

Overall, Edwards won tonight, Hillary was second, and Obama third and fading.

No Galen,, I wasn't surprised at all. I was disgusted, and Obama started it tonight. It was just awful, the entire "debate".

How much do Americans know about the sex lives of Canadian politicians? And I am talking about real politicians, and not the personal escapades of Dar Heatherington. In Canada, we had an NDP leader who started dating a Conservative MP. We have all sorts of openly gay MPs and even the straight ones show up at gay pride parades. We even have one MP who lists her former common-law husband and her present common-law wife on her webpage (she is proud of both of them). And then we had the Trudeaus ...

Anyone hear of the engagement between Conservative MPs Rahim Jaffer and Helena Guergis - I wonder if Jaffer is double booked if Matthew Johnston will take his place on the wedding night as well!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahim_Jaffer

Basically, no one has sex in the US except Bill, it seems. Though I may change my mind after watching Bedtime for Bonzo.

RE: - Obama has praised Ronald Reagan!! What is his record?

Now here is something more shocking than the average sex scandal - Obama's record IS that he praised Ronnie boy in a way, that if he was not misquoted, looks like he favours extending Ronnie's legacy.

And this is also the reason why the Repugs are so against the right of centre Clintons - the better the Clintons look, the greater the damage to Reagan's legacy. Think of it, if Reaganomics were so good, then all Clinton had to do was not tinker with them which means that he never really accomplished anything).

RE: - I was a Republican for 40 years. Bush ran me off like the law was after me

What did you like about the way Reagan did things?

bobpomeroy:

"As for those who decry the two party system and want to support a third party candidate, everytime that has been a factor, it has resulted in a Republican being elected.
Thus, we get the government we deserve."

It's always a factor. And with that same old line of thinking you'll have the same old reps and the same old dems running this same old country in the same old way.... forever. You can keep believing there is a worthwhile difference between the democrats and the republicans. Or you could make real political change by helping to get new parties with new ideas involved in the process. Once every four years, make it count.

Nader is as inconsequential as a fart in a tornado. Let him run, and by all means, vote for him, kathyodat. Nader used to be my hero till he gloatingly threw the election to Bush in 2000 (with a little help from good people like you). Now I just think he's a sadistic egomaniac. I doubt that he has to suffer the ongoing consequences of the 2000 election in the same way that most of us do, so hell yeah, why not run again in 2008 and try to relive the glory of 2000? As far as I'm concerned, Nader can jump up a goat's ass. By the way, how's that "not a dime's worth of difference" looking on the Supreme Court these days?

Bill and Hill are holding hands now but if Hill doesn't take the presidency they will separate quite fast.

Defiance: Being ideologically correct is a luxury we cannot afford. I am not so interested in being right toward helping elect another Republican. Show me where in history the presence of a third party candidate has had a beneficial result. Rather than curse the darkness, you might be well-advised to work for candidates locally to replace those you feel do nothing. There are plenty of them from which to choose. Meantime, rather than being "against", maybe you should try being "for". Ultimately, we elect the government we deserve.

I'll say it again. Obama who sounds like Osama is the best thing that the republican party has going for them. Lets get for real, if Obama were chosen the democratic candidate he would lose hand down to any of the three top republicans. I personnaly would vote for Kucinich but that's too long a shot, Edwards would be next. A Hillary, Edwards ticket would win big time.

I really don't think that a candidate that has a grandmother that lives in a mud hut with no running water in Kenya would give a dam about seniors here in the U.S. That in itself does't sit too well with me! The fact that his father belonged to the Luo tribe who under Odinga have killed over 600 people in kenya would really be good P.R. Remember "I didn't inhale" well this guy has admitted to much more and he's still wet behind the ears. Enough said.

Gil,

I hope your racist ass gets lost on the way to vote. Just a thought, if you have that much against Kenyans.

Obama is in his 11th year of elected office. Hillary is in her 7th year of elected office. Edwards is in his 6th year of elected office.

Obama opposed the war since 2002. Hillary and Edwards voted for it.

If you do not want to hold them accountable to their votes that's what you are really voting for.

Obama voted against the Bankruptcy Bill in 2005, opposes NAFTA and MFN Status for China, has fought for lobbyist reform for over 10 years at the state and national level-successfully-, and has the only healthcare plan that focuses on affordability.

"Cost is the number one reason that 47 million Americans do not have health insurance and thousands more are edging toward bankruptcy every day…What I have said repeatedly is that the reason people don't have health insurance is not because they don't want it, it's because they can't afford it."- Barack Obama

He has never ruled out a mandate, he has said we have to take on the health insurance corporations and address the underlying costs of healthcare first, before we can legislate an affordable mandate for ALL AMERICANS.

What good is an unaffordable health care mandate? What are we going to do, throw everyone in prison who doesn't have health insurance when they're caught speeding?

There's another cost that neither Edwards or Clinton include in their individual mandate plans: the cost of enforcement. What are they going to do? Throw people in jail when they're caught speeding without health insurance?

At least Obama has said that he if he was starting from scratch he would favor single-payer.

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/05/fact_check_obama_consistent_in.php

At least Obama levels with Americans that you have to take on the costs of health insurance before you can issue a mandate.

The Massachusetts Mandated Health Insurance Plan

"But the reluctance of so many to enroll, along with the possible exemption of 60,000 residents who cannot afford premiums, has raised questions about whether even a mandate can guarantee truly universal coverage.

Additional concerns have been generated by projections that the state's insurers plan to raise rates 10 percent to 12 percent next year, twice this year's national average. That would undercut the plan's secondary goal of slowing the increase in health costs."We're going to be very aggressive in trying to get those numbers down to single digits," said Jon M. Kingsdale, executive director of the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, the agency that markets the subsidized insurance policies. "If we continue with double-digit inflation, I don't think health reform is sustainable."…

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois sees it a different way. He argues there is danger in mandating coverage before it is clear it can be affordable for those at the margins. While Mr. Obama does not rule out a mandate down the road, his emphasis is on reducing costs and providing generous government subsidies to those who need them. He would mandate coverage for children. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/us/politics/25mass.html

Obama is wrong: Hillary can't run on her record, she has to run from it. I would love to see more qualified, capable women in politics, and I'm embarrassed that we've never had a woman president and that we have so few women in Congress. But I think a lot of women are supporting Hillary because she's a woman and turning a blind eye to her record and character. She's an unabashed Iraq hawk, unconditionally supports Israel's outrageous human rights violations, lobbied Bill not to intervene and leave tens of thousands of Albanians and 800,000 Rwandans to lose their lives in genocides we could easily have stopped and screwed up health care reform with her arrogance, causing 50 million Americans to go another decade without health coverage. She is at least as divisive as Bush--at the same stage in his career, he was less so--and her election would ensure another four years of partisan bickering, gridlock, triangulation, realpolitik and hardball. And, given her incredibly high negative ratings, there's a chance she'd throw the election to the Republicans. The neocons are smacking their lips at the prospect of her winning the nomination. Perhaps Obama should preempt Hillary's feminist appeal by breaking with tradition and choosing a bright, progressive woman as his running mate now.

Listening to Bill Clinton shamelessly diss Obama, I was reminded of yet ANOTHER reason why I don't support Hillary Clinton: the country would do well to have less of him rather than more of him.

What a swine.

It is both inappropriate and beneath the dignity of a former President to conduct himself in the way that Bill Clinton has during the last few weeks. I totally agree with Obama - at this point a reasonable person has to wonder which Clinton is running for President.

Bill needs to back off and let the little woman fight her own battles - if she can.

was at this debate debacle today, walking around, sold Hard Rock some seafood for these guys,tried to get the blurb to some of these 'TV faces,' self important kooks, on when is someone going to ask her about Mena, and all the deaths there

here is link to all those killed for their narco trafficking with bush and all his cronies like cheney,
http://www.spirituallysmart.com/waco.html

whatever, best to legalize all,
you 'sheeples' all on pills and meth and who knows what booze here like crazy, but Myrtle is a carnival

The debate tonight was a disaster. There were no rules. Hillary came out the best overall. Obama second and Edwards barely got in a word with the other two slamming one another. It wasn't a debate, it was a shit fight. No real winners.

Well I'm 199% behind John Edwards, but I thought he didn't get the fair amount of time, (as usual), and Hillary did and she gave John some darn good replys in defference to his comments. Hillary came on strong tonight. Edwards did not do as well as he has done in my opinion, because every time, he was finishng speaking on an issue, Obama interrupted and the cameras swung to him. He's expert at up-staging.

We'll see when the votes come in. I"m concerned, Edwards has just half of the votes that Hillary and Obama have so far. They'll keep fightng and will continue to get free press coverage, John Edwards is hardly ever mentioned. Tonight one of the TV "expert" commentators, talked about how Edwards was a loser and he should drop out now. It pisses me off.

This may be racist, but I figure since it was the black caucus that there would be a strict adherence to the time.

We did find out who was saying what about who - seems that I was correct that it was the Obamites doing the voting record stuff.

Actually I think Edwards did pretty good. When he said to Hillary "Is that a yes" after her preamble he revealed it as fluff.

Edwards line about how their back and forth bickering is going to help one person get health care etc was a good one.

And Obama came off looking like he likes to hear himself speak. When the person told the much ignored rule about keeping the response to 30 seconds Edwards told Obama "good luck" and Obama's response "I know what you mean" was an admission that he was having trouble following that rule. And Obama complaining about waiting after one of the few exchanges between Edwards and Clinton made him look both impatient and like a person who is happier talking than listening.

Obama's "Senator Clinton President Clinton" talk was supposed to be a dig about who was really running which got debated instead of the issues. Hillary got out of that one ok.

Clinton's talk about all the damage caused by Bush sounds to me like she has already laid out her strategy to blame Bush after she is elected to hide her own incompetencies long enough to get second term - everyone knows Bush screwed up that is why you don't see Georgie Porgy on the campaign trail with the Repugs!

Obama's digs about John Edwards being a white male I think backfired. Edwards seemed too genuinely proud of the diversity and when asked about who King would support, it was nice to be able to say that King's son was supportive of him because of his two major areas of focus (caught one but not the other because that was when the VCR decided to go off for about 5 seconds). Obama, on the other hand seemed angry about voting for ideas or skin colour - I think he was trying to sound offended about people dissing his ideas, but it didn't quite sound like that.

Personally, I think Edwards did quite well compared to the other two even though I wanted him to sell his Health Care plan a bit better. His words about the kids sitting on the fence deciding which way to go was right on the mark. I would consider Edwards first, Clinton second, and Obama last - and I hate Clinton.

To make that assessment I ignored Hillary saying that her strong point was National Security and did not count it against her. Anyone who sees imaginary people crossing borders should basically run as far away from that issue as possible because it makes her look like a joke.

To make that assessment I gave points to Obama for mentioning labour standards in NAFTA - but also did not take any away from Hillary on that one because neither Obama nor Edwards really made the point that there were people (ie Bill Blaikie) who were fighting to get labour rights into NAFTA when it was first negotiated. Though I think both of them made a point that it was good thing to put in trade agreements. Edwards focused more on the Peru agreement than NAFTA and seemed quite knowledgeable on it.

I agree with you Kem that Edwards is too deferential to the others. That's a surprising quality for a successful trial lawyer. He's best when he is assertive.

I do think that having only three people in the debates will help Edwards. Voters who pay only marginal attention to politics now see their choice as one of the three. The more people listen to what Edwards has to say, the more they are going to like him. He will have an opportunity to impress voters between now and Feb. 5 (Super Tuesday), and hopefully beyond. I just hope he continues to speak off script and from the heart.

Yes, the media continue to diss him, but they created this three-way race amongst the Dems, and now they might get eaten by it.