View Story | 321 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
I'm not sure how much interest there is in yet another diary about last night's debate. But I am still uncommitted, and thus not writing through the lens of my favor towards or opposition against any candidate. Perhaps that makes this of some use.
I will be interested in any responses to the points I raise. And if someone can give me the link for the diary on the Solomon amendment, I will go back above the fold and put in the link.
peace.
Those who can, do. Those who can do more, TEACH! If impeachment is off the table, so is democracy
by teacherken on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 03:44:57 AM PDT
Thanks for this and all of your other efforts.
by sqz23 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 03:57:07 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
No one did make serious mistakes and advocates of the candidates will of course slant it towards their choice because they all made their points.
I've been putting a together a "Ben Franklin chart" on positions and pros and cons of each. After watching the debate and with my current project, the thing that stands out is that America has such problems for the next president to address... that we are going to need all three of these candidates to work together after the election to effect change.
While I would still like to see a more substantive debate, one where they make take two or three issues and really compare and contrast their proposals, I hope that the new tone of civility will continue.
The substance of their proposals gets lost amidst the partisan bickering and their supporters, who frequently go off the deep end in their attacks or defense do nothing to help their candidates at all.
by Flint on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:59:31 AM PDT
I got the impression that Obama and Clinton gave Russert a talking to before the debate, that they were not there to address the media blitz on statement-parsing to incite the mobs. And although it was still attempted by the moderators, I think together they did a great job of putting it to rest. At least, I hope it's put to rest.
We really do need all three of these candidates to work together after the election. They each bring so much to the table.
Republicans: Your history has earned you a new mantra: "War and waste." ~~ Marta Jorgensen (CA-24 in '08)
I am an Edwards Democrat!
by Scubaval on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:42:57 AM PDT
But my real reaction is that it reminded me of her 2000 Senate campaign. People remember Rick Lazio invading her space at the debate, but tend to forget that he was at that moment pulling a similar stunt on her - pull out something and get your opponent to agree or put them on the defensive.
I don't think it was remotely similar to Lazio's stunt. It wasn't designed to put Obama on the defensive at all, as it was clearly something he fundamentally agreed with.
It served two purposes for Clinton. First, it made her seem like a unifier. She could have asked a pointed question, but instead she asked about something the Democrats largely agree on. It not only shows Democratic unity, but it also shows a clear contrast with the Republicans. Second, it shows her leadership on an important issue that she has been vulnerable on.
Lazio was aggressive and mean spirited. Clinton was the opposite.
by Partially Impartial on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:11:57 AM PDT
but I still view it as a bit of a stunt, not as obnoxious, but a calculated ploy. I'm not sure it made her seem like a unifier - I think would be more the perception of someone already inclined towards Clinton. My wife is a committed Obama supporter, and had a mixed reaction to it.
by teacherken on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:42:12 AM PDT
But regardless of how it came off, I do think that was the intention.
Was the negative part of your wife's reaction limited to it being a "calculate ploy," or was there something else?
by Partially Impartial on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:46:21 AM PDT
and that she viewed it as an attempt to be manipulative. But then, she is not a fan of Hillary or Bill Clinton, even though she is a strong feminist, and stylistically she is far more in tune with Obama. She also thinks the issue of race is more important than the issue of gender, both within the country and as how we appear, so that may influence her reaction.
by teacherken on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:05:22 AM PDT
a calculated ploy when they enter these debates. Everything they say is for the most part calculated and I think it is sort of silly to presume otherwise of experienced politicians. She definitely knew she had the opportunity to question Obama and it was clear that she and her team decided that it was best not to attack, but instead to offer an olive branch. Both of those candidates were on the verge of implosion last week and they both knew they had to pull the animosity back from the edge. My guess is that the Obama and Clinton camps probably agreed on that special moment before hand - that is how calculated I think it was.
by inclusiveheart on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:56:02 AM PDT
all 3 were re establishing the Democratic "brand". I feel they all 3 decided to show who the grownups are.
McCain already vetoes every environmental bill !
by dotcommodity on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:38:11 AM PDT
from another uncommitted voter. As always thoughtful and to the point. I have not watched any of the first "debates": too many candidates, too little time for substantial answers and shallow questions. I found from just the snippet that I did watch that the MSM and the blogs seem to have a bias against Sen. Clinton, much of which is based on her marriage and sex. As a woman, I found this very disturbing, as I did the recent racial commentary. I disagree with her and Edwards' vote for the AUMF but that is not the sum total of their records. If we could put bags over their bodies or just read their positions without knowing sex, race or even affiliation, it would be interesting to see which candidate is the favorite. However, my decision has now become a process of elimination. My favorites have withdrawn from the race and I am left with four. I have already put two of those on the bottom of my list. This week is my dead line as I vote absentee, so, I am down to the wire. Later, today, I will watch this debate and perhaps, make my choice.
"By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes" Wm. Shakespeare, "Macbeth"
by TheMomCat on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:21:35 AM PDT
One reason I'm still in the undecided camp is the simple practicality of resource allocation. As an Ohioan, I'm resigned to the fact that we usually have no say in picking the candidate because our primary is so late. Our importance comes down the road, and I'll do whatever I can for whoever the rest of the country picks.
I'd also add that there's a positive element in being undecided. I'm not against any of the remaining three major candidates. I agree and disagree with each of them on various points. But on the whole, we've really got a strong group, even if we don't compare them with what's on the other side.
Courage has nothing whatever to do with testicles.
by VetGrl on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:36:28 AM PDT
It could definitely come down to Ohio and Texas on March 4th.
by Partially Impartial on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:40:50 AM PDT
We're retiring Steve LaTourette (R-Family Values for You But Not for Me) and sending Judge Bill O'Neill to Congress from Ohio-14: http://www.oneill08.com/
by anastasia p on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:12:09 AM PDT
supporting any of the Democratic candidates in November. In a way, fir the good of the country, I wish all of the the best.
by TheMomCat on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:43:04 AM PDT
and along with Texas could even be decisive, although it is also possible that even after March 4 we will not have a clear winner.
by teacherken on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:47:19 AM PDT
on that I would agree. And it was amazing to watch the 180 spin from Chris Matthews last night - he has been so negative on her and her husband, it is almost as if someone bat him over the head so he swung too far the other way last night.
It remins me of something from aviation, about yaw - the aircraft tilting too far to one side. If you pull the stick over all the way to the other side and do not easy up before the aircraft has reached level, you will tilt even further to the other side. Keep going back and forth and the wings might rip off. That's what I thought I was seeing from Matthews.
Of course, the Clintons have a long history with the press, which includes both being treated unfairly and their manipulation the press - "playing the refs" if you will. So on balance I am not sure that it has been a disadvantage for them.
by teacherken on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:46:27 AM PDT
which is still on the rec list has a list of links to Matthews misogyny. I am amazed what passes for journalism in the MSM.
by TheMomCat on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:58:04 AM PDT
about Kerry in '04. When it looked like there was a likelihood that Bush would go down. After Bush reasserted dominance, he fell over himself denigrating Kerry and fawning over conservatives.
Analyzing Chris Matthews is pointless as he is simply articulating the views of the people who write his checks. He literally has no horse in the race, which is why the complaints of misogyny, a misogyny which accurately reflect the feelings of his bosses, surprised him so. Political turnarounds are all in a days work with this toad. History extends as far as the last commercial break. He's like a relative living with short term memory loss.
Intelligent Designer Laments Lapse in Intelligence
by mrblifil on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:58:00 AM PDT
He's like a relative living with short term memory loss.
I'm living with one.
Tweety blows with the wind, raising his snout to get a whiff of aqua velva, or the perceived front-runner of the moment, whichever comes first.
by Scubaval on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:49:04 AM PDT
to help you see them clearly, (no msm silly questions), by the NH Sentinel video:50 minutes eachin detail...these NH interviews are how the msm should be doing them!
by dotcommodity on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:43:49 AM PDT
I miss the League of Women Voters. They ran very balanced debates way back when.
by TheMomCat on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:54:57 AM PDT
by dotcommodity on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:37:49 AM PDT
bur after Reagan abolished the Fairness Doctrine, they disappeared.
by TheMomCat on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:47:36 AM PDT
would get painted with "partisanship" by the new rules after the fairness doctrine was done away with. It would have affected their mission and their tax status. Shorter version: They got played and they wouldn't go along with it. The spindoctors hated them.
Charlie Brown for Congress
by Rolfyboy6 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 08:00:44 AM PDT
here is their Home Page
by TheMomCat on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:50:08 AM PDT
by dotcommodity on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:30:10 AM PDT
Not sure why that happened. I have a new computer with Vista and it still has its little kinks. That happened before when i posted a link. I'll have to double check them. Thanks. THome Pagehis should be the correct link:
by TheMomCat on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:35:01 PM PDT
as a progressive I have problems with Clinton. But it is annoying when the MSM focuses on dumb stuff like her clothing or cleavage.
I figure those online selector quizzes are a bit like "the bag over the head", and those usually give me Kucinich with Obama a close second. The Iraq war vote matters a great deal to me because it showed poor judgment; I don't care how many other people also had poor judgment, that doesn't make it any better for me. Even worse is that she won't admit it was a mistake. She seems to have a general difficulty in admitting to mistakes and faults, and that would disturb me in any candidate.
-7.75, -6.05 The point of the war in Iraq is that there IS a war in Iraq- Keith Olbermann
by nicolemm on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:26:08 AM PDT
or feel they are always right, really bother me. I like to think that good leaders are open to input that good appointees and advisers give them. This is the aspect of Hillary's character that I am concerned about.
"This is not our America and we need to take it back." John Edwards.
by mcmom on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:11:21 AM PDT
when I was attempting to decide who I would support in this race. In my view we already have a President who cannot admit a mistake, I don't want another.
She seems to have a general difficulty in admitting to mistakes and faults, and that would disturb me in any candidate.
She started out with 120 million dollars, 200 Supers, 100% name recognition, a former President and Rupert Murdoch. Why can't Hillary close the deal?
by Blogvirgin on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:21:11 AM PDT
That's one of the primary reasons why Clinton II was eliminated early on for me. This happened fairly early when she was asked to describe a fault or mistake she made, and she either wouldn't or couldn't, and that just reminded me too much of the current administration and Congress. No one has the ability, or willingness, to articulate mistakes or a changed mind based upon new circumstances. I want an adult as president, not my 5 year old nephew.
by CeeusBeeus on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:42:29 AM PDT
This was a very refreshing read after Chris Matthews and Pat Buchanan's bizarre post-debate analysis.
Do we really want another YEAR of trying to explain to everyone why the Democratic nominee voted to authorize the Iraq war before they were against it?
by ShadowSD on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:35:30 AM PDT
Tweety gushed over Hillary like he was in love with her---disgusting. and Buchanon was, well, Buchanon.
by Phil S 33 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:01:13 AM PDT
who, at halftime, sees the tape and realizes he missed a major call. Then he goes out in the second half and calls an imaginary foul to "even things up."
"Stare at the monster: remark/ How difficult it is to define just what/ Amounts to monstrosity in that/ Very ordinary appearance." - Ted Hughes
by MarkC on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:35:13 AM PDT
or the interest, to keep up with the criticisms of him on this blog. But I bet NBC has staff that read political blogs. His ratings aren't great. They can't afford to lose more viewers over his disrespectful behavior towards women. Even my daughter's boyfriend, who just started watching Hardball on a regular basis this year, picked up on his attitudes right away.
As noted above, his sexism in general, and his peculiar interest in Hillary's marriage, have created a real backlash against him. Hardball used to be shorthand for real world politics, and DC insider views. The book was assigned to both of my kids' AP Govt classes as required reading. Now it just stands for a middle aged guy who seems to be out of touch, and can't keep himself from insulting women, not just Hillary.
"though we rush ahead to save our time- we are only what we feel" Neil Young- 1968
by blindyone on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:05:55 AM PDT
Striving to be Energy Smart to Energize America.
by A Siegel on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:36:10 AM PDT
I missed some pieces of the debate. Are you talking about the "closeted Muslim" question? If so, you're right; it was disgusting and you're double right that all three of them should have jumped in to deride it.
by VetGrl on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:38:12 AM PDT
I actually was SO grateful for the Obama religion question. There are hateful emails circulating around that say he is a Muslim, that he refuses to say the pledge of allegiance, that he was sworn in on the Koran, etc. If you haven't gotten one, you will, and I know many, many people who believe these emails enough to forward them to friends.
The mainstream media has not done enough to condemn these hateful attacks on Senator Obama and I was very glad that he got the chance, on national TV, to set the record straight.
Actually, I thought it didn't go far enough. The email's also tell lies about his family heritage and upbringing.
Cheers,
~Travis
Please join the Obama Viral Email Project!
by Travis Stark on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:07:22 AM PDT
Period. There can be NO religious test for office. NONE. Zero. It matters not a fart if Obama (or any other candidate) is a Mithraist, a Wiccan, a Jew, a Muslim, a Zeusian, etc. Immaterial, unless THEY make it a valid question the way Huckabee has by his claim that the Constitution should be amended for his god.
Religion is irrelevant UNLESS the candidate cannot separate their secular duties as a President from their personal religion. A Muslim can be just as good or valid a President as a rational, intelligent, thinking, totally self-consistent atheist or agnostic. All that matters is that they accept the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the secular nature of our government and the good reasons it was founded as such. Questions in this regard are the ONLY valid religion questions.
Reichstag fire is to Hitler as 9/11 is to Bush
by praedor on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:36:53 AM PDT
On two counts:
First, this was an opportunity, as I've explained, for Mr. Obama to set the record straight on lies being distributed by unknown sources about him.
Second, while I agree that there should be no religious test for President, knowing a person's religion is valid. Here's why.
Let's say that instead of being a Mormon, Mitt Romney was believed in some obscure Mayan religion that believed in human sacrifice. (He doesn't. Let me be clear. :-) ) I think that would be a pretty relevant thing to know about a presidential candidate.
Let's take a more down to earth example. Mike Huckabee, because of his religious beliefs, does not believe in evolution, and believe creationism should be taught in science classes. To me, this means he does not have a grasp on scientific method and disqualifies him for my vote for President.
A person's religious beliefs are part of what they believe, and, particularly if they are devout in their beliefs, this is an important source of understanding a candidate. All the constitution says is that there will be no religious test, and there isn't. It was never intended that we shouldn't understand a person's beliefs before electing them President. That would be silly.
by Travis Stark on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:58:26 AM PDT
The only reason religion becomes relevant is if the candidate 1) cannot separate his/her religion from his/her duties as a secular government official representing people of many different (or no) religious beliefs, and 2) cannot abide by the secular nature of our government and Constitution and would actively seek to change either or both.
Beyond that, there are no valid religion questions for candidates. The Mayan thing fits into this just as well as a Mithraist or Wiccan or Christian would: if you separate your personal religious beliefs from your duties as a secular leader, then it matters not at all what your personal beliefs are.
by praedor on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:03:36 AM PDT
human sacrifice in the basement of the white house is OK with you as long as it doesn't affect policy.
by Travis Stark on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:42:37 AM PDT
I have no idea what you believe in your head. As far as I'm concerned, whatever it is is irrelevant if you don't ACT on beliefs that are harmful to others.
Holding a religious belief that marrying underage girls is OK (Mormons), and MANY of them (Mormons) is OK so long as you don't DO it. Actions matter, not thoughts...or are you seeking to establish a thought police now?
Human sacrifice (your example) cannot happen because it would violate the laws of the land AND it would violate the CONSTITUIONAL RIGHTS OF THE VICTIM! THAT is what matters. So long as you accept a secular government ruled by secular laws based on a secular Constitution, your THOUGHTS or BELIEFS are irrelevant. If you cannot separate your beliefs and thoughts from your actions then you are not only unfit to serve in a leadership position, it may also mean you are unfit to run around free.
by praedor on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 08:12:05 AM PDT
Right. So it's OK to believe it's OK to abuse people or deny them their rights, as long as you don't act upon it personally. It was OK for the German people to support Nazism, as long as they weren't barbecuing Jews in their back yard.
See ya.
by Travis Stark on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 08:27:40 AM PDT
it was merely (and quite clearly, I think) offered in order for Obama to refute incorrect information that is being widely distributed for the clear purpose of turning voters away from Obama.
I was not a religious test, and I think that was more than clear to everyone. There is no law against the mere mention of a person's religion.
I think that bringing up religion in the context of an e mail that it seems just about everyone in the country has received was a good thing. It set the record straight.
The email that I have seen does more than claim Obama is a muslim. It claims he went to a Madrassa, also. The sender clearly was up to some big time mischief.
What better place than the debate to squash this kind of thing?
"It's the bottom of the ninth and the rookie is pointing at the bleachers in center field.' --Stroszek, Dkos
by kpardue on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:08:42 AM PDT
Clearly the implication is that if he were, heaven forfend, a muslim, that would disqualify him from running. Just so wrong on so many levels.
by mrblifil on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:59:34 AM PDT
That bringing up the crypto-muslim idea is obviously predicated upon the belief that a muslim cannot be a valid leader in the US government. It automatically presupposes that one must NOT be muslim AND implies that one must be Christian or, failing that, Jewish.
Offensive and totally contrary to the Founder's intent and design.
by praedor on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:05:44 AM PDT
I am more of a political junkie than most of my friends and acquaintances. I occasionally ask them about the dem candidates, and surprisingly many will refer to Obama as that muslim guy, or something to that effect. I immediately tell them they've been misinformed, and that it shouldn't matter anyways. But I know it does.
The fox/cnn soundbite meme machine is designed to influence the ill informed populace, and unfortunately still works to a certain degree.
The propaganda should be confronted by the candidates. The biased news sources should be called out specifically, and the correct information should be sounded by the candidates (probably in easily digestible soundbites).
"Fox news lied about my faith because they play to peoples stereotyped biases. Don't listen to the fearmongers and haters. I happen to belong to a Christian church, but I really want to be judged by my leadership ability, not my religion."
BTW, I am proud to live in the MN 5th district, which has the first and only Muslim Rep in congress, and believe me it was an issue, not as much locally, but after Keith was elected. The bias is out there, whether we like it or not.
by nowness on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 08:47:46 AM PDT
the only thing I would add about the religion question, it did enable Obama to address it directly, and with a certain amount of humor. And given that for many people it may even be the first time they have heard the accusation, the question may serve as a bit of an inoculation against the email attacks.
by teacherken on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:48:47 AM PDT
is about the phrasing of the question.
What if the question had been something like:
"All three of you are facing unsubstantiated rumors flying all over the internet, rumors that are at odds with the facts as shown by independent researchers and journalists. Perhaps one of the most prominent are the false accusations against you, Senator Obama, that X, Y, Z. What is the influence of such rumors on political campaigning? How should you, how should we journalists, how should voters handle these?"
by A Siegel on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:13:41 AM PDT
not the msm we might want...I am glad he at least gave him time to refute the "charges" - though I agree with praedor abve...but since we face an uninformed electorate where half the voters have below average intelligence, its good to get the correction out.
by dotcommodity on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:49:53 AM PDT
but "traditional media".
Are you suggesting that Daily Kos does not have voices here that represent 'mainstream' thinking?
by A Siegel on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 08:22:11 AM PDT
question about his vote the 2005 Energy Bill was a bit odd imo.
by inclusiveheart on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:03:42 AM PDT
He voted for the bill strictly on the basis of supporting the green technologies that were finally gaining political traction. Hillary said that she voted against it because of the huge subsidies for nuclear plants. It could be spun that she failed to support development of biodiesel and the other green technologies just like Obama's vote "for" more nuke plants is being spun.
That sort of omnibus legislation always bites politicians in the butt. There are always portions of a bill like that which really stink. A politician really can't win with this type of legislation.
I think Obama defended his vote very simply and clearly. However, I can see where a person who wasn't aware of the catch-all nature of the bill may have issues with Obama's yea vote.
The apocalypse will require substantial revision of all zoning ordinances. - Zashvill Political compass -7.88 -7.03.
by Heiuan on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:52:26 AM PDT
giveaway to the oil and coal folks who aren't going to actually follow through with the projects as I recall. The money was a drop in the bucket - more of a small payoff than anything. So I was pretty disappointed with that answer because I think it really misrepresented the really pernicious quality of that bill.
by inclusiveheart on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:11:59 AM PDT
I definitely see your point. I just can't help but feel bad when votes for this type of bill come back to haunt good candidates. Too much stuff is rolled into a bill. Something in it is going to hurt them at a later date. That, however, is a rant for another day. :D
I'm undecided, myself, on who to vote for on 2/5. LOL...I may wind up just tossing a six-sided die to see which of the three gets my vote. 1,2= Hillary, 3,4= Obama, 5,6= Edwards.
by Heiuan on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:23:50 AM PDT
nom and he wins the general - that he doesn't really think that what was in that bill was even remotely enough to solve the problems we face - and that he understands that giving the cash to the oil and coal lobbies rather than to other entreprenuers will not get us anywhere. I know who I'm voting for and so I really watched last night mostly to see if I could see what each would really be like in the role of President - that was why I appreciated the wonky aspect of the debate actually.
by inclusiveheart on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:35:42 AM PDT
and I liked that Hillary spoke out clearly to get back the good legislation that the Rs stripped from our 2007 HR6 in December, she would repeal the 2005 oil taxbreaks to fund renewables, as was in Pelosi's version.
by dotcommodity on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:56:00 AM PDT
I meant Pelosi and Clinton both wanted to defund oil companies.
The Senate R's stopped them.
by dotcommodity on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:42:46 AM PDT
Thanks.
by christine20 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:41:51 AM PDT
... to read a thoughtful diary that does not display rabid partisanship, but lays out the pros and cons of all sides. Would that we could see more of this on DailyKos! Thank you!
I beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies..
by lesliet on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 04:58:10 AM PDT
I love reading teacherken's diaries. Ken - I bet you are a fantastic teacher!
I am a mom of an 8th grade baltimore city kid who is about to enter high school and I truly hope she has a teacher like you!
by swen eiknuj on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:15:22 AM PDT
Stop the candidate wars or I'll do a bad thing...
by JVolvo on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:35:23 AM PDT
I missed the whole debate but it seems you did a great job summing it up.
Because I won't trade humanity for patriotism!
by Drewid on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:03:23 AM PDT
but commenting on certain aspects and a general sense. I think the front page stories from last night will provide some details about which I did not write.
by teacherken on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:07:06 AM PDT
I too am pretty much undecided. I wont make my final decision until I have to (5 Feb). Im still curious to see how things play out until then.
cheers!
by Puffin on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:24:13 AM PDT
what would you depict and why?
May George Bush rot in hell for what he has done to Abdul Hamid Al-Ghizzawi
by FilipinoMonkey on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:02:09 AM PDT
your screen name has a connection with recent events in the Gulf near the Straits of Hormuz ... hmmm
by teacherken on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:04:18 AM PDT
I am for Obama and YOU ARE WELCOME TO JOIN US!!
I missed the debate and will try to see it if it is re-aired.
Is there an web/online recording of the debate somewhere?
by wuod kwatch on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:02:26 AM PDT
assessment which is fair and balanced (unlike Faux News).
by blue jersey mom on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:23:46 AM PDT
good thoughtful diary. I would add that when the subject of campaign finance came up - Edwards and Obama very clearly stated their positions - Clinton was ominously silent. I think it was another point where Edwards and Obama let her off the hook.
by Moonwood on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:52:35 AM PDT
in Why Obama, And Democrats, Won The Debate, his posting on talkleft this morning, he observes:
Speaking for me only. Because he put the Democratic Party first. In really laying the race brouhaha to rest, Senator Obama went beyond what was politically expedient for his campaign - which was to of course appear to disclaim any desire for the dispute - to go above and beyond that. He expressly and emphatically cleared the Clinton campaign of engaging in racial politics AND he took some responsibility for the controversy. He was the biggest person in the room - for the benefit of the Democratic Party. No Obama for Obama, as I have often accused him of, this was Obama for the Democratic Party.
Speaking for me only.
Because he put the Democratic Party first. In really laying the race brouhaha to rest, Senator Obama went beyond what was politically expedient for his campaign - which was to of course appear to disclaim any desire for the dispute - to go above and beyond that. He expressly and emphatically cleared the Clinton campaign of engaging in racial politics AND he took some responsibility for the controversy. He was the biggest person in the room - for the benefit of the Democratic Party. No Obama for Obama, as I have often accused him of, this was Obama for the Democratic Party.
He goes on to offer a number of examples. Here I mention that Armando has been highly critical of Obama during the campaign. Thus it is interesting to see the positive response he has to last night. I provide this as an example of how the reaction of the talking heads last night might not be symptomatic of the wider reaction, even among some of the political cognoscenti.
Peace.
by teacherken on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:00:02 AM PDT
and I had pretty much the same impressions you did. I also felt that Obama did better in this setting that in the previous debates and that his humor helped. I'm no longer undecided -- have chosen Obama, but am still very happy with the other 2. I do think Clinton did some good for herself with the knowledgeable responses, but had trouble making her responses into a comprehensible message. In general, we have an incredibly good trio of candidates to choose from and the Republicans have nada, nada, nada, and more nada.
If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.
by Tamar on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:36:25 AM PDT
I didn't get to watch so I appreciate your thoughtful review.
by vbdietz on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:37:20 AM PDT
I really appreciate your honest tone and thoughtful analysis. Its nice to see what an undecided person is thinking right now. Even though I am excited about one candidate, I can see how you would be undecided right now. I could have been excited by about 6 candidates had the one I like not been in the running- and would still be excited about the other two if mine doesn't get the nomination.
"The World Is My Country, All Mankind Are My Brethren, And To Do Good Is My Religion." - Thomas Paine
by xph on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 08:58:29 AM PDT
by dgb on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:36:32 AM PDT
paying attention, teacherken.
by mcmom on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:04:19 AM PDT
I had been leaning heavily towards Obama prior to watching the debate. I had an oppotunity to travel to Las Vegas last weekend to canvas for him, and I was very impressed by the folks he had inspired to participate in the democratic process. I was also impressed by the folks working on his campaign, and the multicultural atmosphere.
The problem is, that I am solidly against building any new nuclear reactors in this country. I was reminded during last night's debate that I strongly disagree with Obama on this vital issue. If it were my only issue, I'd be campaigning for John Edwards. But the reminder that both Edawards and Clinton voted for the Bankruptcy Bill & AUMF leaves me ambivalent.
I'm least ambivalent about Hillary Clinton. What I like best about her is her wonkishness. I have been offended however by the continuing conceit that she is the only candidate prepared to lead. And when I say that I'm least ambivalent about Senator Clinton, I mean that it's highly unlikely that I'll cast my vote for her on Super Tuesday. ````` peace
Basketball Diary - Will Obama Be the First Hoopster in the WhiteHouse?
by peace voter on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:42:47 AM PDT
Here, TeacherKen, is a link to yankeeliberal's diary concerning the Solomon Amendment, entitled "Not The Solomon Amendment."
Hope you find this among all the responses.
Write Your Representative!
by Justus on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:10:11 AM PDT
by teacherken on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:17:05 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 321 comments